WASH-1224

COMPARATIVE

RISK-COST-BENEFIT STUDY

OF ALTERNATIVE SOURCES

OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY

A COMPILATION OF NORMALIZED COST AND

IMPACT DATA FOR CURRENT TYPES OF

POWER PLANTS AND THEIR SUPPORTING

FUEL CYCLES

DECEMBER 1974

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY

DIVISION OF REACTOR RESEARCH AND

COMMISSION

DEVELOPMENT

IxTY O~

me(APR 184

metadc784l 84
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the United

States Government. Neither the United States nor the United States Energy

Research and Development Administration, nor any of their employees, nor

any of their contractors, subcontractors, or their employees, makes any

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility

for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus,

product or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe

privately owned rights.
COMPARATIVE

RISK-COST-BENEFIT STUDY

WASH-1224

UC-11

WASH-1224

UC-41

WASH-1224

UC-1 3

WASH-1224

UC-81

OF

ALTERNATIVE SOURCES

OF

ELECTRICAL ENERGY

A Compilation of Normalized Cost and Impact Data

for Current Types of Power Plants and Their Supporting Fuel Cycles

December 1974

Office of Enerqy Systems Analysis

Division of Reactor Research and Development

United States Atomic Enermy Commission

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3.20

CONTENTS

Paae

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction 1-1

1.2 Summary and Conclusions 1-4

Chapter 2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

2.1 Definitions 2-1

2.2 Normalization of Fuel Cycle Imnacts and Costs 2-3

2.3 Assessment of Nonconventional Costs 2-7

2.4 Equilibrium Vs. Time Dependent Considerations 2-9

Chapter 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATE FUEL CYCLES

3.1 Introduction 3-1

3.2 The Coal Fuel Cycle 3-3

3.3 The Residual Fuel Oil Cycle 3-22

3.4 The Natural Gas Fuel Cycle 3-38

3.5 Nuclear Fuel Cycles 3-49

3.6 Hydroelectric Power 3-83

3.7 Ultimate Impacts and Costs 3-90

Chapter 4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND COSTS

4.1 Introduction 4-1

4.2 Difficulties of Determininn Damage Functions 4-2

4.3 Standards and Guidelines 4-5

4.4 Radiological Health Impact of Power Production 4-8

4.5 Health Impacts of Airborne Fossil Pollutants 4-19

4.6 Respiratory Diseases Among Coal Miners 4-25

4.7 Dollar Costs of Health and Accident Impacts 4-29

4.8 Fossil and Nuclear System Pollutants: Natural Background,

Standards, Actual Manmade Exposures, and Health Effects 4-35

4.9 Property and Material Damages from Airborne Fossil Pollutants 4-37

4.10 Impacts and Costs Associated with Waste Heat 4-39

4.11 Other Damages: Mining, Oil Spills, and Refinery Effluents 4-51

Chapter 5 COMPARISONS ACROSS AND WITHIN ALTERNATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY

PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

5.1 Introduction 5-1

5.2 Conventional Costs 5-1

5.3 Consumption of Exhaustible Fuel Resources: Fuel Resource

Bases and Utilization Characteristics of Alternative Energy

Systems 5-10

5.4 Fuel Cycle Energy Requirements and Overall System

Efficiencies 5-20

5.5 Human Health and Safety 5-24

5.6 Environmental Burden 5-37

5.7 Abatement Costs 5-53
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1.1 Schematic of a Fuel Cycle (Energy Production System).............1-6

1.2 Comparison of Pollutant Standards, Background Levels, Manmade

Exposures, and Health Effects .................................... 1-15

2.1 Illustration of Types of Energy Production Costs................2-4

2.2 Assessment of External Costs ..................................... 2-8

2.3 Relationship between External and Internal Costs................2-10

3.1 U.S. Production and Disposition of Bituminous Coal, 1970.......... 3-4

3.2 The Coal Fuel Cycle for Electric Power Production ................ 3-6

3.3 U.S. Consumption and Sources of Supply of Residual Fuel Oil

(RFO), 1970 ...................................................... 3-23

3.4 The RFO Cycle for Electric Power Production ...................... 3-28

3.5 Production and Disposition of Natural Gas in the U.S., 1970....... 3-39

3.6 The Natural Gas Fuel Cycle for Electric Power Production.......... 3-46

3.7 Flows of Fuel Materials in the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry........ 3-52

3.8 Pressurized Water Reactor Power Plant ............................ 3-54

3.9 Boiling Water Reactor Power Plant ................................ 3-55

3.10 The Light Water Reactor (LWR) Fuel Cycle.......................3-56

4.1 Comparison of Pollutant Standards, Background Levels,

Manmade Exposures, and Health Effects.........................4-36

5.1 Steam-Electric Fuel Costs, U.S. (1969-1971)....................5-6

5.2 Fuel Resource Bases and Utilization Characteristics of Alternate

Electrical Energy Production Systems..........................5-19

5.3 Schematic Energy Balance for a Typical Fuel Cycle ................ 5-21

5.4 Schematic Definition of Overall System Efficiency ................ 5-22

5.5 Allocation of Energy to Provide 1000 Units of Net Electrical

Energy at Point of Use ........................................... 5-23

5.6 Annual Occupational Injuries in the Alternate Energy Systems ..... 5-28
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.1 Comparison of Costs and Impacts of Alternate Electrical

Energy Production Systems ......................................... 1-7

1.2 Comparison of Conventional Costs and Some Evaluated NonConventional Costs of Alternate Energy Systems .................... 1-18

3.1 Annual Effects of a 1000 MWe Coal-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-14

3.2 Annual Effects of a 1000 MWe RFO-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-32

3.3 Annual Effects of a 1000 MWe Gas-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-48

3.4 Principal Fuel Species in Nuclear Reactors ........................ 3-51

3.5 U.S. Uranium Resources (January 1, 1974) .......................... 3-58

3.6 Annual Effects of a 1000 MWE PWR and Its Supporting Fuel Cycle .... 3-67

3.7 Annual Effects of a 1000 MWe BWR and Its Supporting Fuel Cycle .... 3-68

3.8 Evaluated Effects of a 1000 MWe Coal-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-91

3.9 Evaluated Effects of a 1000 MWe RFO-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-92

3.10 Evaluated Effects of a 1000 MWe Gas-Fired Power Plant and Its

Supporting Fuel Cycle ............................................. 3-93

3.11 Evaluated Effects of a 1000 MWe PWR and Its Supporting Fuel Cycle . 3-94

3.12 Evaluated Effects of a 1000 MWe BWR and Its Supporting Fuel Cycle . 3-95

4.1 State of Knowledqe of Damage Functions ............................ 4-1

4.2 Radiation Doses and Protection Standards .......................... 4-9

4.3 EPA Emission Standards Applicable to New Plants ................... 4-10

4.4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................ 4-11

4.5 Risk of Radiation Health Effect Following Total Body Exposure...... 4-14

4.6 Public Radiation Doses from Nuclear Energy Systems ................ 4-16

4.7 Occupational Radiation Dose in Light Water Reactor Energy Systems . 4-17

4.8 Expected Number of Malignancies Attributable to the Annual

Operation of Nuclear Energy Systems ............................... 4-18

4.9 Cases of Coal Workers Pneumoconiosis Attributable to the Annual

Requirements of One 1000 MWe Coal-Fired Power Plant................4-27

4.10 Human (Occupational and Public) Health and Safety in Electric

Power Production .................................................. 4-34

4.11 Summary Comparative Impacts of Alternate Cooling Methods .......... 4-47

4.12 Additional (Abatement) Costs for Alternate Energy Systems with

Natural Draft Wet Towers .......................................... 4-48

4.13 External Costs Associated with Reject Heat from Alternate Power

Plants using Natural Draft Wet Cooling Towers ..................... 4-50
Table Paae

5.1 Power Plant Capital Costs (1980 Startup)......................5-3

5.2 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs for 1980................5-5

5.3 Fuel Costs by Region (1969-71) .................................... 5-7

5.4 Power Plant Fuel Costs (1980 Dollars) ............................. 5-7

5.5 Summary: Conventional Energy Costs ............................... 5-8

5.6 Relative Resource Bases for Production of Electrical Energy ....... 5-20

5.7 Process Heat Required in the Individual Steps of the Fuel Cycles .. 5-25

5.8 Electrical Energy Required in the Individual Steps of the

Fuel Cycles ....................................................... 5-26

5.9 Annual Energy Flows for the Energy Systems .................... 5-27

5.10 Occupational Fatalities due to Accidents .......................... 5-29

5.11 Occupational Nonfatal Injuries due to Accidents ................... 5-30

5.12 Occupational Mandays Lost due to Accidents ........................ 5-31

5.13 Occupational Health in the LWR Energy System ...................... 5-33

5.14 Occupational Health in the Coal Energy System ..................... 5-34

5.15 Occupational Health and Safety in the LWR and Coal Fuel Cycles .... 5-35

5.16 Transportation Injuries in the Coal and LWR Fuel Cycles ........... 5-36

5.17 Inventory Land Use ................................................ 5-38

5.18 Annual Land Use ................................................... 5-39

5.19 SO2 Releases ........ ............................................ 5-41

5.20 NOx Releases ...................................................... 5-42

5.21 Particulate Releases .............................................. 5-43

5.22 Trace Metal Releases .............................................. 5-44

5.23 Radioactivity Releases to Air ..................................... 5-45

5.24 Cooling Water Use ................................................. 5-48

5.25 Process Water Use ................................................. 5-49

5.26 Other Water Impacts ............................................... 5-50

5.26A Radioactivity Releases to Water ................................... 5-52

5.27 Annualized Abatement Costs for 1000-MWe Plants .................... 5-54

5.28 Abatement Costs (Mills/kWhe) ...................................... 5-55
PREFACE

This study is an attempt to quantify societal costs associated with the production

of electrical energy by currently available alternative systems under routine

operating conditions. Motivating the study was an awareness that societal costs of

a given system cannot be judged in a vacuum. Costs of alternatives must be

compared. Particular emphasis was placed on examining each energy system in its

entirety -- both the power plant and its supporting fuel cycle. The study was

initiated in a climate which lacked objective, factual, and quantitative inquiry.

The charter of the study thus called for quantification of costs and impacts, supported by the most thorough documentation possible. At the outset, it was

recognized that these goals would be approached rather than achieved.

The words "risk" and "benefit" in the report title are somewhat misleading. The

word "risk" connotes rather severe unplanned events, such as large scale-low probability accidents, diversion of nuclear materials, and the like. In fact, the study

is restricted to routine impacts -- including routine accidents whose frequencies

can be established from historic data. "Risks" are translated into "costs" using

frequencies and consequences of events inferred from past experience. Also, the

title suggests that the reader may find a weighing of costs (including risks)

against benefits. However, "benefit" is defined here as a quantity of electrical

energy. Assigning an absolute societal value to electrical energy is left to the

reader. With these definitions, the study reduces to an assessment of societal

costs (external as well as internal).

Drafts of the study were issued for review in September 1972 and August 1973. As

the study progressed it became evident that conditions were changing more rapidly

than their effects could be factored into the analysis. For example, mine safety

legislation has resulted in a factor-of-two reduction in coal mining fatality

statistics used in this report. Similarly, the emergence of OPEC in late 1973,

occurring in an already inflationary energy economy, severely escalated prices of

energy in practically all forms.

While these rapid changes do not alter the central conclusions of the study, they

do underscore the desirability of keeping data bases current of delineating statistics (past) from forecasts (future), and of maintaining a coherent format in which

data elements can be periodically corrected with ease. For these reasons, the

conceptual structure of this study and the documented track from raw data to

derived quantities are as important as the quantitative results.
The study project leader and principal author of this report was Shelby T. Brewer,

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Others who participated in the preparation of

the report were Richard A. Livingston, formerly of the AEC, and William A. Buehring,

formerly of Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Some of the data used in this report

was assembled by an ANL staff working under AEC direction and funded by an AEC

contract. Principal contributors from the ANL staff were William A. Buehring,

Kenneth A. Hub, and the late Paul F. Gast. Leonard L. Bennett and Howard I. Bowers

of Oak Ridge National Laboratory provided plant capital, fuel cycle, and operating

and maintenance costs.
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The role of energy in sustaining and advancing civilization is fundamental and pervasive. It is difficult to identify a single artifact or activity of modern society

which does not involve, either directly or indirectly, an expenditure of energy

beyond that associated with man's muscular exertions.

In general, the production of a quantity of useful energy, such as a kilowatt-hour

of electricity, involves several dimensions of cost:

(a) the diversion of conventional labor, material, and capital resources,

all of which are normally reflected in the market price of energy;

(b) the consumption of a quantity of a nonrenewable fuel resource, thus

precluding its use in the future;

(c) degradation of natural and manmade environments, including

disruption of natural material, energy, and biological balances,

and damage to man-made structures and materials.

(d) impacts on human health and safety.

Recently, popular attention has been drawn to the last two of these cost groupings,

as evidenced by the staggering proliferation of energy and environmental studies

in the past few years.

Concern over environmental impacts of producing electrical energy has often focused

on very narrow aspects of individual electrical energy production systems,* such as

thermal effects of discharge heat from power plants, mining impacts, and air pollution.

For this reason, the quantitative environmental literature on electrical energy

production is, to a large extent, fragmentary and redundant.

A more balanced and coherent view requires that costs and impacts throughout entire

fuel cycles be identified, quantified, normalized and compared on a consistent basis.

As part of a continuing analysis of the role of nuclear power in providing the Nation's

energy requirements, the Division of Reactor Research and Development of the United

States Atomic Energy Commission has undertaken such an assessment -- the "Comparative

Risk-Cost-Benefit Study of Alternative Sources of Electrical Energy."

*The terms "electrical energy production system" and "fuel cycle" are used

synonomously in this report.

1-1
Purpose and Scope

The purpose of this study is to provide a quantitative basis for making comparisons

of societal costs across and within alternate electrical energy production systems.

The principal tasks in achieving this goal are to assign internal and external costs

of the alternate systems to a common unit of electrical energy produced (kilowatt-hours)

and to express such costs, where possible, in consistent units (dollars). Fuel cycle

material balances provide the central format for assembling and normalizing data,

and provide the quantitative link between an impact or cost anywhere in the system,

and a corresponding quantity of electrical energy (benefit) produced.

Such information could provide a preliminary basis for numerous ancillary comparisons

and cost-benefit tradeoffs, including: (a) comparisons of total costs (internal

plus external) of producing electrical energy from alternate fuels; (b) comparisons

of external and internal costs for each process step within each fuel cycle, in order

to determine which steps are the most environmentally offending, and in order to

measure the cost-effectiveness of abatement measures; (c) comparison of external

costs of alternative methods for the same functional step in a given fuel cycle;

and (d) comparison of the total costs associated with alternative energy strategies,

or mix of fuels, to meet a given energy demand projection over a period of time; and

(e) coherent judgements regarding abatement measures, which, while reducing an impact

at one stage in an energy system, may increase impacts at another.

The following restrictions and assumptions serve to further define the scope of

the Study.

The study is confined to electrical energy. A more comprehensive assessment would include all forms of end use energy ("total energy"). Benefits and costs

of substituting electrical energy for other forms are not addressed, although the

coefficients developed in the course of this study can be useful in such analyses.

The study is restricted to electrical energy production, and embraces

entire fuel cycles, and their residuals. Questions regarding electrical energy use

are not addressed, although alternative electrical energy use patterns may have

significant environmental and economic differences.

Attention is restricted to modern, commercial size, baseload poer plants

and their supporting fuel cycle facilities, and to those systems based on technologies

whose commercial application is proven. The analysis includes only those systems

expected to make major contributions to base load power production in the near term,

1-2
i.e. the next ten or fifteen years. Systems considered are those based on coal,

residual fuel oil, natural gas, nuclear fission (LWR) fuels, and hydroenergy. Although

two types of advanced nuclear fission reactors -- the HTeR and the LMFRR -- are

expected to make significant contributions to base load power by the end of this

century, these concepts are not addressed quantitatively in this report. Electricity

generation using gasified coal is similarly excluded.

The study is restricted largely to quantification of the environmental

and human impacts of the energy systems under normal operating conditions. Certain

classes of routine industrial accidents, for which reliable statistics are available,

are treated, however. Large, hypothetical accidents at a nuclear power plant are

excluded, since other concurrent USAEC studies are addressing this topic.

"Benefit" in this study is defined as a quantity of electrical energy,

e.g., one kilowatt hour. No attempt is made to determine the absolute societal value

of electricity. That is, the question addressed is not whether a unit of electrical

energy should be produced, but instead how it should be produced.

"Risks" are treated as "costs" in this study: the product of the probability

of an undesirable event (per unit of electrical energy) times the consequences of

the event.

"Costs" include both "internal" and "external" costs. Internal costs are

those costs already borne by electricity consumers. Internal costs are already

imbedded in the price of electricity (mills/kWhe) and include the conventional components -- labor, materials, and costs of capital. External costs are the environmental

and human impacts not accounted for in the price of electricity.

With the definitions of benefit, risk, and cost established above, the study

reduces to a comparison of total costs to produce electricity by alternative

fuels.

Much of the information assembled in this report is based on aggregate

national data. In this sense, the assessment assumes a national homogeneous model,

at the expense of displaying regional variations in unit costs, impacts, engineering

and economic constraints, local utility company practice, site-specific considerations,

and the like. For example, in order to properly burden a quantity of electrical

energy with coal mining impacts, it is necessary to assume production fractions from

surface and underground mining techniques. Although the unit impacts of production

1-3
methods are disaggregated and displayed separately in the body of the report and in

other supporting materials,* production fractions representative of the current

national pattern ('t50% underground, '50% surface) are assumed for the purpose of

constructing summary tables. The same general approach was taken in several other

elements of the assessment.

The bases for normalization of costs and impacts are 1000 MWe of electrical

generating capacity, or the annual operation of one 1000 MWe unit at 75% capacity

factor (6.57 billion kWhe).** All fuel cycle parameters are normalized to these

quantities through equilibrium fuel material balances. The resulting evaluation is

a static comparison of costs and impacts associated with alternate energy systems.

It is recognized, however, that the overall problem of ranking alternatives is a

time dependent one, and that alternatives must be regarded as changing mixes of

energy sources or energy strategies, rather than as individual, isolated sources. The

development of static impact coefficients, the central task of this study, is a

prerequisite of the broader assessment of comparing energy strategies.

1.2 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summary

For purposes of making gross comparisons, representative costs and impacts of alternative electrical energy production systemst were assembled and normalized to 6.57

billion kilowatt hours (kWhe), the annual energy produced by one 1000-MWe unit

operating at 75% capacity factor. Systems considered were those based on coal, oil,

natural gas and nuclear fission fuels.tt Attention is restricted to modern,

commercial size, baseload power plants and their supporting fuel cycle facilities,

and to those systems based on technologies whose commercial application are proven.

Although two advanced reactor types, the HTGR and the LMFBR, are expected to make

significant contributions to base load power production by the end of the century,

this study includes a quantitative appraisal only of the current generation of power

reactors -- the LWRs. Emphasis of the report is on quantifying effects throughout

the respective fuel cycles, from fuel extraction to power generation, as conceptualized

*and are available to the reader in substituting his own assumptions.

**Some impacts and costs are related to a unit of electrical energy produced (kWhe),

while others are related to power capacity (MWe).

tThe terms "electrical energy production system" and "fuel cycle" are used synonymously

in this report.

ttThe hydro-energy system is discussed qualitatively in Chapter 3. Little quantitative

information is developed, since relatively little additional hydro capacity is

expected to be installed.

1-4
in Fig. 1.1. Where possible, non-conventional costs were reduced to a common basis

(same unit of electrical energy produced) and to common units (dollars), thus

rendering them comparable and, perhaps, additive.

The information assembled and normalized in this report emerged from an extensive

literature survey aimed at quantifying numerous individual impacts and costs. In

most cases, the individual impacts and costs displayed in this report are derived

quantities. Individual items of data were rarely found in the desired format, that

is, restricted to the particular impact or cost under consideration and normalized

to a unit of electrical energy produced or to a unit of production capacity. For

each item addressed, considerable manipulation -- disaggregation, interpretation,

averaging, normalization -- was necessary to reduce the quantity to consistent and

meaningful information. In several cases, only source terms, e.g., pollutant

emission rates, are presented. Ideally, one would reduce all such quantities to

ultimate impacts in consistent damage units to permit their display as added costs.

Table 1.1 summarizes comparative data for the alternate fuel cycles normalized to

production of 6.57 billion kWhe or to a generating capacity of 1000 MWe.* The format

of Table 1.1 warrants some explanation. First, much of the data represents sums

over the individual fuel cycle process steps. Chapters 3 and 5 give similar data

for each process step, permitting the reader to make comparisons among process steps

of individual fuel cycles or among similar process steps (e.g., mining) across

competing fuel cycles. Further, it is recognized that the organization of a table

such as Table 1.1 can prejudice and distort a comparative assessment.** In this

regard, great care was taken to present an objective set of impacts and costs,

assembled in a coherent, but uncontrived, matrix. Entries in Table 1.1 are arranged

to conform roughly to the four conceptual groupings of costs and impacts established

in the Introduction: (a) conventional costs; (b) consumption of nonrenewable fuel

resources; (c) environmental degradation; and (d) impacts on human health and safety.

The major categories of Table 1.1 are discussed briefly below.

Power Plant and Energy System Efficiencies

Power plant net thermal efficiencies for the fossil plants are essentially the same

-- 38-39%. The LWRs, PWR and BWR, have somewhat lower net thermal efficiencies,

ti 32%, owing to their coolant temperature limitations.

*Some impacts and costs are related to a unit of production, while others are

related to system capacity.

**e.g., the grouping of data under descriptive headings, the selection of "typical"

or "representative" parameters, the omission of impacts not quantifiable, etc.

1-5
ELECTRICAL

ENERGY

(BENEFIT)

RECOVERY AND

UPGRADING PROCESSES WASTE DISPOSAL

INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION INCL. TRANSPORTATION

MNING OR PWER

I I I I 1 1 I I I

;' II I i I i1 1

FUEL PROCESS STEP

INTERNAL COST

EXTERNAL COST

FIG. 1.1 SCHEMATIC OF A FUEL CYCLE (ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEM)
TABLE 1.1 COMPARISON OF COSTS AND IMPACTS OF ALTERNATE

ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS*

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant, 75% CF

6.57 x 109 kWhe

POWER PLANT AND ENERGY SYSTEM EFFICIENCIES

Electrical Energy (billion kWhe/year)

Power Plant Heat Rate (BTU/kWhe)

Power Plant Thermal Efficiencies (kwe/kwt, %)

Energy System Efficiency (kwhe consumer/kwht

input, %)

CONSUMPTION OF NON-RENEWABLE FUEL RESOURCES

Coal

6.57

8,900

38

35

Oil

6.57

8,830

39

35

Gas

6.57

9,110

38

34

Power Plant Fuel Consumption (annual)

Fraction of Reserves Consumed (annual)

2.3M tons

0.000006

10M barrels

0.0001

64 B cubic

ft.

0.0004

"130 M tons U**

0.0002

CONVENTIONAL COSTS (mills/kWhe)***

Plant

O&M

Fuel

Total

SELECTED ABATEMENT COSTS (mills/kWhe)***

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Occupational Health (MDL/yr)

Occupational Safety

Fatalities

Non-Fatal Injuries

Total Man-Days Lost

(Deaths/year)

(#/year)

(MDL/year)

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Public Health

Routine Pollutant Release (MDL/year) U 180-210

LWR

6.57

10,850

32

28

7.8

0.8

9.8

18.4

4.7

7.2

0.6

27.4

32.2

2.0

6.4

0.6

36.0

0.6

11.7

0.8

6.0

0.6

600

1.1

46.8

9,250

U

0.17

13.1

1,725

U

0.08

5.3

780

480

0.1

6.0-7.0

900-1000

-a

1

V

U U
TABLE 1.1 CONTINUED

Rasis: 1000 MWe Power Plant, 75% CF

Coal

Public Safety

Transportation Injuries

Fatalities (Deaths/year) 0.55

Non-Fatal (Injuries/year) 1.2

Total Man-Days Lost (MDL/year) 3,500

Oil

U

U

U

ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION

Land Use, Inventory (acres)

Land Use, Consumption (acres/year)

22,400

740

SO2 release, w/o abatement

(tons/year) 120,000

, w abatement 24,000

NO releases,~w/o abatement

(tons/year) 27,000

Particulate releases, w/o abatement

(tons/year) 270,000

, w abatement 2,000

Trace Metals releases (tons/year) 0.5 Hg

Radioactivity releases (Ci/year) 0.02

Thermal Discharge, power olant stack

(billion kwht/year) 1.64

Cooling Water Use (billion gal./year)

Process Water Use (billion gal./year)

Radioactivity releases (Ci/year)

Other Impacts (billion gal./year)

Thermal Discharge, power plant

(billion kwht/year)

263

1.46

0

16.8

9

~1,600S

38,600

21,000

26,000

26,000

150

1,500 V

0.0005

1.71

263

1.75

0

7.9

9

U - Unevaluated; S - Small; M - Million; B = Billion; T = Thousand

*The number of digits shown is not generally indicative of precision. In many cases, several digits are retained

merely for calculational purposes.

**About 99% of this figure is not irretrievably consumed; rather, it is available in the form of enrichment plant

tails for use in breeder reactors.

***1980 dollars.

Land

Air 00

Gas

U

U

U

LWR

0.009

0.08

60

Water

3,600

S

20

0

13,400

518

4

U

S

2.2

263

1.42

0

0

9

1,000

12

3,600

720

810

8,000

60

S

250-500 T

0

424

0.095

500-1000

S

14
Overall energy system efficiencies include corrections for process heat and

electrical energy requirements of the supporting fuel cycle operations. For all

systems, process heat requirements for the supporting fuel cycle are negligible

compared to the heat input at the power plant. Fuel cycle electrical energy requirements are also negligible, except for the diffusion-enrichment plant requirements for

the LWR systems, which are of the order of 3 to 5% of the power plant output. Transmission losses are assumed the same for all systems.

The fossil fuel cycles have similar systems efficiencies -- ti 35%. The LWRs have

lower system efficiencies, ti 28%, due both to their lower power plant efficiencies

and their enrichment plant power requirements.

More detailed analyses of the overall fuel cycle energy balances are given in

Chapter 5 and in the Appendix.

Consumption of Nonrenewable Fuel Resources

The availability of fuel at acceptable cost is a major consideration in selecting a

power plant type. For example, fuel shortage offsets the environmental benefits of

the natural gas system. Annual fuel consumption of each 1000 MWe plant is expressed

in Table 1.1 as a fraction of reserves available for U.S. electric power production,

at current extraction costs and with current extraction technology. Current alteriative-use fractions were used to establish the reserve base available to the U.S.

Electricity production. Residual fuel oil (RFO) assumed to be available from Africa

knd Venezuela is included in the RFO reserve base.

oal is seen to be the most abundant fossil fuel resource, natural gas the least.

:oreign deposits place the RFO system on a par with the LWR systems.

Fuel resource data is given for each of the mineral fuels in Chapter 3, and

reduced to equivalent quantities of electrical energy in Chapter 5.

Conventional Costs

Conventional costs are those definable costs already imbedded in the price of

electricity to the consumer -- the costs for labor, materials, and use of money.

They include the capital cost of power plant amortized over the life of the plant,

plant operating and maintenance costs, and fuel costs. Fuel costs include costs

incurred throughout the fuel cycle, including capital costs of fuel cycle facilities.

These costs are ultimately transferred to the utility company and, together with

utility company working capital changes associated with fuel, borne by the consumer.

1-9
Representative conventional costs, corrected for escalation to the year 1980, are

shown in Table 1.1. The purposes of including conventional costs in this report

are to show roughly the market competiveness of the alternate energy systems and to

provide reference points for comparison of nonconventional costs. Where possible,

costs associated with abatement and restoration measures have been separated from

the conventional costs.

It should be recognized that conventional costs are quite sensitive to power plant

location. Further, a number of factors cause such costs to vary with time --

routine inflation, abundance of fuel resources, capacity/throughput effects, legal

and regulatory actions, technological maturity, etc.

Abatement Costs

Abatement costs in Table 1.1 include SO2 removal from stack gases (coal), desulfurization of residual fuel oil, natural-draft evaporative cooling towers (all plants),

near-zero radwaste systems (LWRs) and surface mined land reclamation. This is not,

of course, a complete list.

Abatement costs in the coal cycle are the greatest, due to the large cost projected

for SO2 removal. The desulfurization of residual fuel oil is the dominant abatement cost in the oil cycle. The near-zero radwaste treatment systems add little

to the LWR energy costs.

Environmental Degradation

Burden rates on the environmental receptors* -- land, air, and water -- are displayed

in Table 1.1, with the intent of presenting crude measures of relative environmental

impacts of the alternate energy systems. In most cases, these burden rates are

merely source terms, i.e., emission rates normalized to a quantity of electrical

energy produced. Ideally, these quantities would be reduced to incremental quantities

of damage to ultimate receptors, such as natural flora and fauna, structural materials,

crops, and the like. Dollar costs could then be assigned to units of damages. Owing

largely to the lack of damage-function information for each pollutant-receptor combination, this procedure could not be followed rigorously.

Two aspects of land use are included in Table 1.1: land tied up or committed by the

power plants and their supporting fuel cycle; and the land "consumed" annually, e.g.,

*Effects on human health and safety are frequently included in the term "environmental effects." In this study, human health and safety are considered separately.

The next two sections deal, respectively, with occupational and public health and

safety.

1-10
land disturbed by surface mining, land inundated by disposal of fuel cycle residuals.

The coal fuel cycle has the greatest land impact, owing mainly to its mining

operations and waste disposal. Inventory land requirements for the nuclear fuel

cycles are magnified by exclusion-area requirements, but are still an order of

magnitude less than that of the coal cycle.

Annual emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, radioactivity,

heat, mercury, and vanadium to the atmosphere are shown in Table 1.1. The coal

energy system releases greater quantities, per unit energy produced, of SO2, NOR,

and particulates than do the other fossil systems. For purposes of comparison,

electrical energy required for the gaseous diffusion enrichment of LWR fuel is

assumed to be provided by a coal-fired plant, and prorated quantities of coal cycle

pollutants are, accordingly, assigned to the LWR fuel cycle.* It is interesting

to note that on this basis, the LWR cycle "emissions"of SO2 and particulates are

greater than those of the natural gas fuel cycle. Thermal releases to the atmosphere are about 15% of the total heat rejected by fossil power plants. There are,

of course, no atmospheric thermal releases at nuclear power plants. Minute

quantities of radioactive materials are routinely released from nuclear facilities

to the atmosphere. These emissions are of primary concern to public health, and

are discussed below, together with fossil pollutants, under the heading "Public

Health and Safety."

Light water reactors, because of practical coolant temperature limitations, operate

at lower thermal efficiencies and, therefore, reject more heat than modern fossil

fuel plants of the same generating capacity. For this reason and because about 15%

of the heat from fossil fueled plants is discharged into the atmosphere through the

stack, LWRs discharge about 1/3 more waste heat to cooling water than do modern

fossil fueled plants.

Process water use in the LWR fuel cycle is essentially negligible compared to that

in fossil fuel cycles, due both to the nature of the processes themselves and to

the relatively small masses and volumes of fuel materials involved. Chemical contamination of waterways is similarly small. Chemical contamination in the fossil

system includes acid mine drainage in coal fields, black water from coal cleaning

*This is, of course, a purely arbitrary assumption, although the existing diffusion

capacity is powered by coal-fired power plants. Notwithstanding recent publicity

to the contrary, coal is not uniquely required for the production of enriched

nuclear fuel. Some electricity (a few percent of the equivalent electrical energy

yield of the nuclear fuel) is required, and any fuel which produces electricity

will do.

1-11
plants; oil spills, ballast discharge, and refinery effluents in the oil system.

As discussed in Chapter 4, damage functions for each pollutant-receptor combination

are not well established. Thus, any measure of damage costs, normalized to annual

emission rate must be regarded as a gross preliminary estimate. Section 4.9 gives

crude measures of the dollar costs imposed by damage from coal, oil, and natural gas

plant SO2 and particulate emissions. Section 4.10 presents estimates of dollar costs

associated with impacts (largely consumptive water use) of waste heat rejection by

natural draft wet cooling towers. Estimates of other damage costs -- associated with

mine land disruption, oil spills and ballast discharge, and biological oxygen demand

of refinery effluents -- are given in Section 4.11. All of these damage costs are

summarized in Table 1.2. More detailed discussions are provided in the Appendix.

Occupational Health and Safety

Table 1.1 displays occupational health effects for coal and nuclear energy systems

in units of man-days lost (MDL).

The dominant occupational health effect in the coal fuel cycle is coal workers'

pneumoconiosis (CWP), or "black lung," a respiratory disease resulting from the accumulation of coal dust in the lungs of underground miners. An advanced stage of this

disease is progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). Crude estimates of the frequency

(normalized to 6.57 billion kWhe) of CWP cases, are compared to estimated occupational

health effects in the light water reactor fuel cycles -- lung cancers among uranium

miners due to inhalation of radon gas, and cancers resulting from occupational exposures at the reactor and reprocessing plants.*

It is estimated that on the order of one case of black lung can be attributed to the

mining requirements associated with one 1000 MWe coal-fired plant per year.** By

comparison, on the order of one malignancy would be expected in the light water

reactor fuel cycles, per 1000 MWe plant, during the life of the plant (ti 30 years).

Occupational health is addressed in more detail in Sections 4.4, 4.6, 4.7 and in the

Appendix.

Occupational injuries due to routine industrial accidents occur throughout the alternate fuel cycles. Table 1.1 gives injury rates, normalized to the annual operation

*6000 MDL is assigned to each malignancy; 1000 MDL is assigned to each case of

simple CWP.

**Assumes 50% production in the power plant from underground mines. Also assumes

that future U.S. coal mining health impacts, after implementation of the 1969 Act,

will be similar to British experience.

1-12
of a 1000 MWe power plant. Injuries in the coal cycle exceed, by far, those in the

other fuel cycles. About one occupational fatality per year can be attributed to

each 1000 MWe coal fired plant. The dominant source of coal cycle injuries is

underground mining.* The injury rates in the oil, gas, and LWR fuel cycles are

roughly equivalent -- an order of magnitude below that of coal. Mining in the

nuclear fuel cycles accounts for most of the injuries in these cycles. Because of

the high energy content of nuclear fuels, nuclear fuel mining injury rates are much

lower than those in coal mining.

Public Health and Safety

Public health effects of electricity production are extremely difficult to assess.

Pollutant emission rates at the power plant or at a fuel process step in the

supporting fuel cycle are first estimated. A thorough understanding of the process

in question, and a careful description of the material flows involved in the process

are normally sufficient to yield a fairly accurate emission rate, normalized to a

given quantity of electrical energy produced. Transport of the pollutant through

various pathways to man, or to alternate fates, must next be analysed. Factors

involved in this step are local meteorology, hydrology, pollutant reconcentration

mechanisms, pollutant loss mechanisms, biological uptake mechanisms, population

distribution, and the life style, including diet, of the population. Human exposure

levels and rates must then be assessed to determine dose. Finally, the health

damage corresponding to this dose (using an appropriate dose-response function or

coefficient) must be evaluated; and if warranted, a dollar cost may be assigned to

the incremental health damage.

The establishment of dose-response relationships is at present the weakest link

in this procedure. The relationships between health effects and pollutant concentrations (or dose levels) are generally established by epidemiological studies on

statistical samples of the human population, or laboratory studies on animals.

Animal studies require that results be scaled in some manner in order to estimate

human effects.

Table 1.1 contains crude estimates of public health effects (in units of mandays

lost)** of the routine radioactivity emissions from the nuclear fuel cycles. These

figures are based on a very conservative dose-response coefficient of the order of

~0.0001 malignancy per rad, and the emission rates in curies per ton of fuel

*Occupational injury figures of Table 1.1 assumes 50% production from underground

mines, 50% from surface mines.

**6000 MDL is assigned to each malignancy.

1-13
processed or per MWHe estimated in the present study. Section 4.4, the Appendix,

and the footnotes of section 3.5 describe these calculations in more detail.

Unfortunately, human health hazards from fossil fuel pollutants are not as well

understood and quantified as the health hazards from radiation. There is no

dose-response data comparable in quality to therapeutic irradiation and atomic

bomb casualty data and no linear dose-response model, both of which are so useful

in estimating (however conservatively) radiation effects. Numerous measures of

health effect have been investigated but no preeminent measure has emerged which is

analogous to malignant neoplasm in the case of radiation. Toxicologic studies on

animals have demonstrated that massive doses of specific chemicals such as sulfur

dioxide may impair health. Likewise, chronic exposures of animals have demonstrated

health effect. Correlations between various measures of human respiratory impairment, including death, and levels of air pollution have been observed during and

following episodes of exceptionally high concentration of air pollutants. However,

there is no information on the effect of individual exposure to specific pollutants

during such episodes, and no dose-response relationship can be formulated. This

same lack of exposure information plagues the attempt to establish pollutant-response

correlations through study of chronic exposure. Several regression formulas have

been developed which relate measures of mortality and morbidity to measures of

general air pollution levels such as sulfur dioxide concentrations and concentrations

of particulate matter. These formulae are of no use for the prediction of health

effect as a function of pollution level because they have not been based on known

and controlled populations, the exposure measures relate to concentrations made at

several geographical locations but are not a measure of personal exposure, and the

full spectrum of air pollutants is not represented in the equations. Although a

quantitative comparison between radiation health effect and fossil air pollution

health effect is an essential part of the comparison of nuclear and fossil fuel

cycles, no quantitative estimate of fossil air pollution health effect, normalized

to a unit of electrical energy produced, can be made at this time.

While it is not feasible, at this time, to normalize public health effects to a

unit of energy produced, some perspective can be gained by comparisons of natural

background levels, man-made exposures, regulatory standards, and broad ranges of

pollutant concentrations known to result in some health effect. Figure 1.2 illustrates

the comparisons for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and whole body irradiation.

The areas labeled "medically perceivable effects" are adopted from a recent University

of California study.* Several tentative conclusions may be drawn from Figure 1.2.

*Hausknecht, D. Public Health Risks of Thermal Power Plants, University of

California UCLA-ENG-7242 (May 7.

1-14
WHOLE BODY RADIATION (RADS) SO2 (PPM) WITH PARTICULATES

MEDICALLY

PERCEIVABLE

EFFECTS

300

102

10

IL

10'1

NATURAL

BACKGROUND

LEVELS

DIAGNOSTIC 10-2

XRAYS

10'3

AEC STANDARD

10-4

1970 EXPOSURE FROM

REACTORS AND

REPROCESSING PLANTS 10-6

10-7

FED. AIR

QUALITY

STANDARD

0.5

101

10-2

10-3

10'4

"-:

-

500

100

0.17 (MEASURED)

CHICAGO 1964

0.015 (MEASURED)

URBAN SO2 1970

(21 CITIES, AVG.)

0.006 (MEASURED)

MILWAUKEE 1970

10

1

NATURAL BACKGROUND

LEVEL

FED. AIR

QUALITY

STANDARD

VERY SEVERE TO

ONSET OF LETHAL

RANGE

INCREASING

SEVERITY

}

I

MEDICALLY

PERCEIVABLE

EFFECTS BEGIN

TYPICAL URBAN

CONCENTRATIONS

1970

NOTE: NEITHER THE UNITS NOR FACTORS OF 10OON THE SCALES ARE THE SAME.

FIG. 1.2 COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT STANDARDS, BACKGROUND LEVELS, MANMADE EXPOSURES, AND HEALTH EFFECTS

U,

NO2 (PPM) WITH PARTICULATES

I

i::".r

-,t ;t .""

Ny .i

,. : !.

1o'l
(a) Environmental Protection Agency standards for SO2 and NO2, applicable to

fossil-fired power plants and other man-made sources of these pollutants, are above

natural background levels of these pollutants. Current USAEC reulations (10 CFR 20)

for radiation exposure are about equivalent to doses from natural background sources.

However, the new proposed "as low as practicable" guidelines (10 CFR 50, Appendix I),

applicable to light water reactors, would restrict individual doses to orders of

magnitude below that from natural sources.

When man-made and natural sources are added, the total levels permitted by regulations

or guidelines are:

. about a factor of 100 over natural background for SO2 ;

. about a factor of 4 over natural background for NO2; and

. about a factor of 2 over natural background (10 CFR 20) or about

a factor of 1.01 over natural background (10 CFR 50, Appendix I)*

for radiation.

(b) As expected, ranges of medically perceivable effects are well above

natural background levels for all three pollutants.

(c) With the exception of SO2, the standards are well below the ranges of

medically perceivable effects.

(d) Actual average annual radiation whole body exposures from nuclear power

facilities in 1970 were several orders of magnitude below the existing standards

(10 CFR 20) and natural background. Concentrations of fossil pollutants (together

with background) were substantially above background levels in 1970.

The discussion above was restricted to effects on public health of routine pollutant

releases from the energy system. Of concern also is public safety, more specifically,

the hazards to the public from conventional accidents in transporting fuels.** Of

the various process steps in the electricity production systems, fuel transportation

is the dominant source of accident-risk to the public since it is in the transportation

of fuel that the public comes in closest contact with the energy production system.

Routine industrial accidents at power plants and fuel processing facilities usually

affect only occupational personnel. Table 1.1 compares public injury rates associated with transporting fuel required for 1000 MWe coal-fired and LWR power plants.

*Proposed.

**Hypothetical, large scale-low probability accidents at power plants and supporting

facilities are not addressed in this study.

1-16
Radiological and chemical risks associated with transporting fuels, which are orders

of magnitude below risks of conventional impact-injury,* have been excluded.

Because of the large masses and volumes of fuel involved, coal transportation imposes

a much more severe public safety hazard than transportation of nuclear fuels. Public

injury rates in coal transportation are, in fact, comparable to occupational injury

rates in coal mining. The transportation of coal for a 1000 MWe plant results in a

statistical public death about every two years -- this almost entirely due to accidents

at railroad grade crossings. Thus, about one third of the total fatalities attributable to the coal fuel cycle are public fatalities, the other two-thirds being

occupational fatalities largely in underground mining.

A more detailed treatment of conventional injury rates in fuel transportation is

given in the Appendix.

Nonconventional Costs in Perspective

Although normalized to the same quantity of electrical energy produced or production

capacity, the quantities in Table 1.1 are in a variety of physical and nonphysical

units. Quantities along a single row are, however, in consistent units, so that

comparisons can be made across competing energy systems. Ideally, one wishes to

reduce all such quantities to the same dimension, e.g., dollars, in order to make

dissimilar categories of impact within each energy system comparable, and perhaps,

additive, making possible comparisons of total societal costs across competing

energy systems. For example, one might wish to compare the occupational radiological

health impact in the LWR system to the conventional costs of producing electrical

energy in this system.

Efforts to assign dollar values to non-conventional costs are highly preliminary,

subjective, and generally imperfect. However, in several specific cases, it is

possible to make gross assessments useful in making order-of-magnitude comparisons.

Table 1.2 compares conventional costs of producing electrical energy and several

categories of environmental and human impacts which were reduced to dollar costs.

This table represents the highest degree of summation and condensation considered

feasible, useful, and appropriate in this study. The table aggregates numerous

quantities derived and presented in a labyrinth of supportive materials in the main

report and the appendices. Further condensation could lead to misinterpretation

and gradual vitiation through succeeding generations of studies.

*USAEC, Nuclear Fuel Transportation Study (to be issued).

1-17
TABLE 1.2 COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL COSTS AND SOME EVALUATED NON-CONVENTIONAL COSTS OF ALTERNATE ENERGY SYSTEMS

Basis: Annual operation of one 1000 MWe Power Plant and Supporting Fuel Cycle (6.57 billion kWhe).

1980 dollars.

Coal Oil Gas LWR

Conventional Costs ($106/yr)

Capital Plant 51 47 42 77

Fuel Cycle 64 180 237 39

0&M 5.4 4.0 3.7 5.2

Rounded Totals 120 222

Abatement Costs ($106/yr)

Cooling Towers 3.6 5.9 7.1 2.4

Sulfur/SO2 Removal 25.9 4.9 NA NA

Strip-mined Land Reclamation 0.1 NA NA S

* Near-Zero Radwaste NA NA NA 1.2-1.8

co Rounded Totals 30 1l-7

Conventional & Abatement ($106/yr) 150 242 290 125

Abatement Component ( % ) 20 5 2 3

Safety ($106/yr)

Occupational 0.46 0.086 0.039 0.05

Publicb 0.18 U U 0.003

Subtotal 0.064>0.0865>0.'39~.

Health ($106/yr) d

Occupational 0.03c U U 0.02

Public U U U 0.01

Subtotal >~~U034

Total Human Health & Accident

Costs ($106/yr) >0.67 >0.086 >0.039 0.087
TABLE 1.2 -CONTINUED

Environmental Effects ($106/yr)

Water Base 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6

Air Base 0.8 0.6 0.1 S

Land Base 0.2 S S S

Subtotal 1.4 1.0 0.50.6

Total Human & Env. Effects ($106/yr) 2.1 1.1 0.5 0.7

Percent of Conv. ( % ) 3 1 0.5 0.9

Key: U = unevaluated; NA = not applicable; S = small

Footnotes: (a) Conventional injuries in routine industrial accidents, including fatal and non-fatal injuries; 1 death = 6,000 MDL = $300,000 b) Conventional injuries in accidents in transporation of fuels; 1 death = 6,000 MDL = $300,000 c) Coal workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP)

d)Radiological health effects, including lung cancers among uranium miners.

e)Radiological health effects from routine emissions.
The limitations and uncertainties of the information displayed in Table 1.2 warrant

further discussion. These qualifications do not, however, invalidate the major

conclusions and findings of the study.

. Additive Costs

One of the tasks of the study was to reduce numerous quantities to a consistent basis

(same unit of electrical energy produced) and to consistent units (dollars) in order

to render them comparable and additive. All costs, internal and external, should be

summed to obtain a total societal cost.

Adding any set of quantities to obtain a total requires that they not only be in

consistent units, but also that they be (a) exhaustive and (b) mutually exclusive.

Put another way, this means that one should include all of the costs, and that one

should avoid counting something twice.

The categories and quantities of Table 1.2 are not exhaustive. One notable omission

is the public health effect of airborne fossil pollutants, which, for reasons discussed in more detail in the text, could not be quantified. For this reason, the

health subtotal for the coal system may be low by an order of magnitude.

Neither are the quantities of Table 1.2 mutually exclusive. For example, the conventional costs displayed may indeed contain components such as workers' compensation

and insurance, tending to internalize occupational health and safety impacts. In

many such cases an exact separation of costs could not be achieved.

Uncertainties

There are several degrees of uncertainty among the quantities presented in Table 1.2.

Uncertainties increase, generally, as one moves from top to bottom and from left to

right in Table 1.2. In general, it was found that small quantities were attended by

the greatest uncertainty. This is understandable, since small quantities are frequently masked by large ones; the hazards of dealing with small differences between

large numbers are well known among scientists and engineers. Fortunately, in the

context of this report, small quantities are less important than large ones.

Conventional costs, the largest of the quantities presented, are the most accurately

known. A band of plus or minus 15% is assigned to cover regional and local variances

and uncertainties in escalating labor, materials, and money costs to 1980. Abatement costs, because they can be tied to specific equipment and procedures, are

roughly as accurate as the conventional costs displayed.

1-20
Rates of occupational injuries in the coal cycle are considered quite accurate

and representative. For example, statistical fluctuations in fatalities per

million miner-hours appear very slight; the gradual reduction in mining injuries

from 1955 to 1967 appears systematic, suggesting that such injuries may be regarded

for practical purposes as deterministic and accepted. By contrast, injuries in

uranium mining, because they are fewer, appear highly random. Accordingly, a broad

confidence band of + 50% is assigned to nuclear system injuries. Similar comments

apply to public injuries in transporting coal and nuclear fuels.

Accidental injuries can be counted as discrete events and assigned to specific

activities, e.g., mining, transportation, etc. By contrast, health effects are

amorphous, difficult to define, and often impossible to assess quantitatively with

current knowledge of dose-response characteristics. For this reason, health damage

costs displayed in Table 1.2 should be regarded only as order-of-magnitude estimates

based on the best available information. Radiological health impacts of nuclear

power production are considered to be conservative, i.e., over-estimated, in that

they are based on a linear dose-response extrapolation.

Life Values

Health and injury costs were assessed at $50 per man-day lost, leading to a life

value of $300,000 if one assumes 6000 man-days lost per death. These are arbitrary

figures, assigned to permit rough comparisons, and carry with them no implied comment

on the absolute value of human life. The $300,000 per death figure is, however, in

accord with several independent assessments. The reader may adopt his own values by

scaling the health and accident costs of Table 1.2.

Summary of Limitations

To summarize, several limitations and shortcomings of Table 1.2 were discussed above:

. the costs tabulated do not form a complete set, nor are they mutually exclusive; for this reason, the table does not yield total social costs of producing

electricity;

. in several categories, only very crude estimates of non-conventional costs

could be made; in general it was found that small quantities are attended by the

greatest uncertainty; and

. the unit costs of $50/MDL and $300,000/death, assigned more or less arbitrarily

to permit comparisons of health impairment and injury costs with conventional costs,

are highly subjective, and may be readily challenged on emotional and moral grounds.

1-21
None of these shortcomings, however, invalidate the major conclusions and findings

of the study, reviewed in the next section. The salient point is that even drastic

changes in the very small quantities in question will not propel these quantities

to dominant importance.

Choice of life value, if applied consistently, will not distort the relative impacts

of the competing energy systems. Further, whatever value is assumed, within reason,

the health and injury costs will remain small compared to the conventional costs of

producing electricity. Similarly, the large uncertainties in the environmental,

health, and injury figures do not alter the conclusion that these costs are small

compared to conventional costs. The same general argument could apply to overlaps

and omissions in the Table.

Conclusions

1. Costs associated with human health and injury effects, both occupational and

public, of new power stations and their respective prorated supporting fuel cycles,

are small compared to conventional energy costs (less than 1%). This conclusion

excludes public health effects of airborne fossil pollutants -- SO2, NOx, particulates,

trace metals -- which could not be quantified.

2. Total non-conventional costs -- including health, injury, and environmental

impacts -- are small compared to conventional energy costs (less than 3%).

3. In view of conclusions 1 and 2, ultimate fuel resource availability is apt to

have greater influence, in making national choices among energy systems, than

environmental considerations. Coal and nuclear fuels are the most abundant domestic

fuels for electricity generation. This assumes that greater nuclear fuel utilization

is achieved through the conversion of fertile nuclides to fissile nuclides, as in

the fast breeder reactor. A host of factors affecting supply of residual fuel oil

and natural gas make extensive, long-term base load use of these fuels doubtful.

4. Health and injury impacts are greater for occupational personnel than for the

public.

5. Specific judgments concerning the cost effectiveness of various abatement measures

cannot be supported by the data available. Although costs of abatement measures can

be estimated with some degree of accuracy, corresponding incremental costs of damage

avoided are difficult even to estimate by order of magnitude, owing to the lack of

damage function (dose-response function) information.

1-22
6. The overall problem of ranking alternatives is a time-dependent one, and

alternatives must be regarded as mixes of energy sources through time rather than

as individual isolated sources. It is probable that all sources will be welcome to

meet the rising demand for electrical energy. For this reason, a quantitative

ranking or scoring among individual energy systems, based on static parameters, is

unwarranted. However, some qualitative conclusions, based on the quantitative

assessment summarized in preceding tables are in order.

. The natural gas system enjoys low nlant capital costs, and incurs minimal

environmental and human impacts. However, remaining domestic reserves are small,

imports at acceptable costs are uncertain, and there is competition from alternate

uses of this fuel, such as commercial and residential heating. Supply problems

also face the residual fuel oil (RFO) system. Domestic yields of RFO are low (less

than 10%) because of the incentive to maximize production of more valuable refinery

ends; thus, a preponderant share of RFO consumed in the U.S. is imported, and

foreign sources cannot be considered secure and permanent. Environmental and human

impacts involved in the RFO system are large compared to those of the natural gas

system, but substantially less than those of the coal system. Because of fuel

supply related problems, and attending conventional costs, RFO and natural gas are

expected to have diminishing roles in fueling new generating capacity after 1980.

Coal, the most abundant of domestic fossil fuel resources, is the most

severe environmental offender. This results largely from the sheer quantities --

masses and volumes -- of materials handled in the fuel cycle. Impacts of the coal

energy system are more visible and, to some extent, more easily measured than those

of other systems. In almost every category addressed, non-conventional (or external)

costs are greatest in the coal system. Ouantified external costs of producing

electricity from coal are, however, less than 3% of conventional costs. Abatement

costs, particularly SO2 retention systems if proved feasible, may add as much as

20% to internal costs. However, the compelling fact is that coal is an abundant

domestic fuel, and its environmental disadvantages are not likely to preclude its

continued exploitation as a source of electrical energy.

Nuclear fuels, including both fissile and fertile nuclides, are abundant

domestic resources, and are expected to share, with coal, a major role in electrical

energy production from 1980 through the year 2000 and beyond, provided reactors

with substantially improved fuel utilization characteristics are introduced on a

commercial scale. Gross, direct environmental impacts of extracting, processing,

and transporting fuel -- so visible in the coal fuel cycle -- are essentially absent

1-23
in the nuclear fuel cycles, because of the high energy content (on a mass or volume

basis) of nuclear fuels. Similarly, nuclear power plants do not discharge large,

visible quantities of airborne pollutants. The current generation of nuclear power

plants -- the light water reactors -- discharge about one-third more heat to

the environment than do modern fossil plants. Though relatively small in mass and

volume, material flows and residuals in the nuclear fuel cycles are not without

very substantial potential hazard. For this reason, nuclear systems are designed,

fabricated, and operated with numerous safeguards, high performance radwaste systems

redundancies, and with increasingly vigilant quality assurance programs and

standards.

1-24
CHAPTER 2

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The central tasks of this study are to assemble all impacts and costs of each

electrical energy production system, and to reduce them to a consistent basis in

order to permit comparisons. The methodology adopted has purposely been kept as

straightforward as possible. Elaborate models and computational methods, which

can not be supported with quality input data, were avoided. The purpose of this

Chapter is to establish a brief conceptual framework useful for organizing and

simplifying a very complex subject.

2.1 DEFINITIONS

Benefi t

"Benefit" in this study is defined as a quantity of electrical energy, e.g., one

kilowatt hour (kWhe). Since a kWhe from system A is "as good as" a kWhe from

system B, the study reduces to a comparison of the risks and costs attending the

production of electricity in alternate energy systems (alternate fuel cycles).

No attempt is made in this study to determine the absolute societal benefit of

electricity. Other investigators have related electricity (or, more broadly,

energy) consumption to standard of living, gross national product, etc., and have

concluded that increased electrical energy consumption is desirable. Still others

have argued that increased energy consumption, from whatever means, is undesirable,

because of dwindling resources and environmental burden.

Such questions are beyond the purview of this study. The question addressed here

is not whether increased electrical energy consumption is desirable, but, rather,

which system (or mix of systems) can produce the energy with minimum total costs.

Risk

"Risks" are treated as costs in this study. A risk may be translated into equivalent

unit energy cost once (a) the probability, or frequency, and (b) the consequences of

the undesireable event are assessed:

Energy cost associated Probability of the event Consequences

with a risk = per unit of benefit x of the event

(energy produced)

Risks addressed in this study are those for which statistics are available, e.g.

routine industrial accidents, or for which frequencies can be extrapolated from

those of similar industrial operations. The study is confined to routine operation

2-1
of the energy systems. Large consequence-low probability accidents are not

considered.*

With these definitions of benefit and risk, the study reduces to a comparison of

costs of producing electricity by alternate systems.

Cost

Several classes of costs are addressed in this study. Although a rigorous classification scheme is not followed throughout this report, it is useful to establish and

examine the conceptual basis for the meanings of cost as exercised in this study.

Costs are classified as internal or external.

. Internal Costs. Internal costs of a product or service are those costs which

are borne by the beneficiaries of the product or service in the monetary price

of the product or service.

. External Costs. External costs are those additional costs which are not

borne in the monetary price of the product or service. External costs, or

"externalities," are generated when there are mismatches between those bearing

the costs and those receiving the associated benefits. Conceptually, these

mismatches may occur in both sectoral and temporal dimensions. As an example

of a "sectoral" mismatch, workers engaged in energy industries may bear more

than their share of the cost of electricity, if not fully compensated for their

unique health and safety hazards. As an example of a "temporal" mismatch,

future generations may pay for our current extravagant consumption patterns in

terms of future scarcity of fuel resources and accumulated environmental impacts.

. Total Societal Costs. The total societal cost of producing electricity is

the sum of internal and external costs.

Costs may be "internalized" by a number of mechanisms --- installation of abatement

equipment which eliminates or reduces external damages caused by energy system

residuals, workers' compensation for health impairment, insurance settlements, risk

pay in hazardous occupations, etc. Such internalized costs are frequently referred

to as "abatement costs," "avoidance costs," "restoration costs," depending on the

mechanism involved. For simplicity, the term abatement cost is used in this study

to denote all such costs.

*Another USAEC-sponsored study, recently published as WASH-1400, is concerned with

large consequence-low probability accidents at reactor power plants.

2-2
Because of the difficulties in rigorously measuring external costs and in establishing

the degrees of internalization, a more flexible classification scheme is adopted for

this study. The two types of costs in this scheme are conventional costs and nonconventional costs.

. Conventional Costs. Conventional costs are the usual costs for labor,

materials, and use of money. Conventional costs generated throughout a fuel

cycle are ultimately transferred to the electric utility company, and borne,

along with the utility company's costs of money associated with fuel, and

station (capital plant, operating and maintenance) costs, by the electricity

consumer. Thus conventional costs are entirely internal. Where possible,

abatement costs are identified and displayed separately.

. Non-conventional Costs. Non-conventional costs are those costs not normally

associated with, or not explicitly defined in, account structures, such as

public and occupational health hazards. Non-conventional costs include identifiable abatement costs and any remaining quantifiable external costs. There are

three broad categories of non-conventional costs: 1) environmental impacts; the

distortion of natural material and energy cycles; 2) consumption of non-renewable

resources; and 3) human health and safety effects.

Figure 2.1 illustrates the cost definitions established above.

2.2 NORMALIZATION OF FUEL CYCLE IMPACTS AND COSTS

General Approach

Electric power production involves a series of processes -- fuel extraction, upgrading,

transportation, energy conversion (release of the fuel's energy at the power plant),

and disposal of wastes. Such a series of processes is called a fuel cycle or an energy

production system. The net product (or "benefit") of the system is electrical energy.

Internal and external costs are generated at each process step of the fuel cycle.

For purposes of comparing alternate fuel cycles, all such costs, both internal and

external, must be assigned to a given quantity of electrical energy (net) produced,

that is, the costs must be "normalized." Internal costs throughout the fuel cycle

are ultimately transferred to the utility company and borne by electricity customers

in the price of electricity (mills/kWhe), along with amortized capital charges for

the generating plant, the utility company's cost of money associated with fuel,

operating and maintenance costs, and other utility costs.

2-3
NONCONVENTIONAL COST I I I I

CONVENTIONAL ABATEMENT, AVOIDANCE,

COST OR RESTORATION COSTS EXTERNAL COST

? 7

INTERNAL COST

TOTAL SOCIETAL COST 1

ILLUSTRATION OF TYPES OF ENERGY PRODUCTION COSTS

N~

I

FIG. 2.1
The approach in this Study is straightforward: impacts and costs, where quantifiable,

are tied to a unit of electrical energy via the equilibrium fuel cycle materials

balance. Fuel cycle material flow sheets form the quantitative link between an impact

or cost anywhere in the system, and a corresponding quantity of electrical energy

(benefit) produced.

Basis

The quantity of electrical energy selected as a basis for comparing costs on impacts

among systems, is largely arbitrary. Because much design literature uses 1000 MWe

power plants as a basis, this nominal rating was adopted for the present study. A

capacity factor (CF) of 75% is assumed. Thus the basis for comparisons in this

study is the annual electrical energy delivered by one 1000 MWe power plant operating at 75% CF, i.e., 6.57 billion kilowatt hours. All supporting fuel cycle

activities are normalized to this quantity.

It is recognized that because of variations, alronc the alternate systems, in economies of scale, the selection of a single unit rating may favor specific systems.

Also, assumption of a large capacity factor, say 85%, would favor capital intensive

plants, such as nuclear. Since comparison of conventional costs is not the main

thrust of this study, such distortions, if they exist, are not thought to be

important.

It is recognized that no single configuration for an individual energy system can

be truly representative. Much of the data assembled is based on national aggregate

quantities, statistics, and averages. For example, casualties in coal mining,

attributable to the annual requirements of one 1000 MJe coal-fired plant, are

calculated assuming 50% production from underground mines and 50% production from

surface mining. These figures are typical of actual U.S. production statistics

for bituminous coal in the late 1960s and early 1970s, although no single individual

power plant may be supplied by this production distribution.

Normalization of External Costs

Although accounting practices vary widely among utility companies, accounting methods

have been standardized(- for purposes of making design comparisons, tradeoff

studies, and the like. Highly structured methods do not exist, however, for allocating external costs, in either physical or monetary units, to electrical energy.

Several classes of external costs were identified in this study. These classes are

described below. While this classification scheme was not applied rigorously in

this study, the scheme is useful in organizing one's thinking.

2-5
Class I. Throughput related impacts

Impacts or external costs in this category are directly proportional to fuel cycle

throughout. These costs may be tied directly to a quantity of electricity energy

produced, via the fuel cycle mass balance:

S impact = S (impact) x F (Fuel throughut)

E net electrical F (fuel throughput) E (net electric

energy produced energy produced)

Most of the impacts identified in this report are of this type. Processing effluents

and waste streams are of this type. Thermal discharges, for example, are directly

proportional to fuel throughput, or electrical energy, as is the consumption of fuel

resources.

Class II. Capacity related impacts

Impacts in this category are related to the energy industry level, or capacity,

rather than fuel cycle throughput. The addition of generating or fuel processing

capacity involves the investment of steel, concrete, etc., whose production imposes

environmental and human impacts. The external costs associated with the production

of capital equipment, if known, would be amortized over the life of the facility

and, therefore, burdened to a very large quantity of electrical energy.

A second type of capital intensive impacts involves an inventory (or resources-tiedup) concept as opposed to irreversible consumption or irreversible damage. Land use

is an example of this type. Power generating and fuel processing facilities occupy

real estate acreage which is unavailable, during their useful lifetimes, for other

uses.

Class III. Cumulative anomalous impacts

This class of impact is related to throughput and energy production but not in a

directly-proportional manner, as in Class I. For example, an increment of damage

from acid mine drainage cannot be assigned to a corresponding quantity of coal

extracted. Rather, the current drainage impact from a given mine site is

related to the total amount of coal mined to date.

Class III impacts require that assessed cumulative impacts over a long period of

time be assigned to the corresponding total electrical energy produced. Class III

impacts quantified in this report were treated on a case-by-case basis.

2-6
2.3 ASSESSMENT OF NONCONVENTIONAL COSTS

The discussion in Section 2.2 emphasized the necessity of using the fuel cycle

materials balance as a central format for assembling, arranging and normalizing

data. A thorough quantitative description of each fuel cycle process yields fuel

cycle residual and effluent source terms, and other environmental and human impact

data, corresponding to the production of a unit of electrical energy.

Although normalized to the same quantity of electrical energy produced or electrical

power capacity, these quantities are in a variety of physical and nonphysical

units --- dollars, mandays lost, tons of individual effluents, curies, acres, etc.

Ideally, one wishes to reduce all such quantities to the same dimension, e.g.,

dollars, in order to render them comparable and additive.

Figure 2.2 illustrates the conceptual steps involved in evaluating the external cost

associated with the release of an arbitrary pollutant from a power plant or from a

supporting fuel cycle process facility. The pollutant generation rate is governed

by the nature and activity level of the process itself. A careful description of

the process materials and energy balances yields the pollutant generation rate on a

per unit throughput basis. (This source term can be related directly to electrical

energy production using an overall fuel cycle mass balance.) An abatement system,

if present, serves to reduce the emission rate of the pollutant to the uncontrolled

environment. Once released, some fraction of the pollutant may reach humans,

structures, or flora and fauna where they may cause harm. The mechanisms by which

pollutants move via air, water and food chain from the point of emission to affected

populations or structures are exceedingly complex. The computational model must

account for alternate pathways, alternate fates (loss or decay) of the pollutant,

and the population distribution around the point of emission. Using ambient concentrations of pollutants established by the transport (dispersion) calculations, dose

to man (or other subject) can be estimated. Resulting damage is assessed using a

damage function (or dose-response function) if available. Finally the cost of the

incremental damage may be converted to monetary units.

The last two steps -- application of a dose/response function to obtain damage and

the assignment of dollar costs -- are the most difficult. In general, dose/response

characteristics are poorly understood for low level exposures spread over a long

period of time (this is discussed in Chapter 4), and only order of magnitude estimates

of damage (e.g. health effects), based on conservative assumptions, can be made.

Similarly, the assignment of dollar costs to human health impairment, including death,

is highly subjective. A value of 50 dollars per manday lost (MDL), applicable to

2-7
FUEL CYCLE FUEL IN

MATERIALS

BALANCE

ABATEMENT COS

FUEL OUT

ABATE3T MENTPOLLUTANT STORAGE

DEVICE

EMISSION R ATE

POLLUTANT TRANSPORT,

DISPERSION, PATHWAY

MECHANISMS

DAMAGE COST

K ALTERNATIVE

FATES

*EXPOSURE, DOSE CALCULATIONS

*DAMAGE CALCULATION

*DAMAGE COST CALCULATION

FIG. 2.2 ASSESSMENT OF EXTERNAL COSTS

2-8

FUEL CYCLE

PROCESS

STEP

OBJECT

" MAN

" ANIMALS

" MATERIALS

" VEGETATION

i
occupational and public health and accident effects of all energy systems, was

assumed for this study (Section 4.7). A death is assumed to correspond to 6000 MDL.

Thus the assumed life value is $300,000. The reader is encouraged to substitute his

own values. Mandays lost as well as their dollar value in each energy system are

displayed in order that the effect of changing the dollars per manday lost figure

is obvious to the reader.

The generic analysis implied by Figure 2.2 may be characterized as a "brute force"

method of assessing external costs. Another gross measure of external cost is the

abatement, compensatory, or restoration costs associated with preventing, compensating

or repairing the damage. Ideally, the incremental cost of installing and operating

abatement equipment, e.g., flue gas cleanup systems, would exactly match the incremental damage or externality prevented. This is illustrated in Figure 2.3. In

practice, such cost/benefit tradeoffs have only recently been addressed by regulatory

bodies, industry, and environmental groups. The reason is obvious: a rigorous cost/

benefit analysis requires accurate damage function information which is simply not

available for most pollutants. Further, abatement measures may simply replace

one form of pollution with another, and may, indeed, be counterproductive. For

example, an abatement device installed at a power plant generally decreases the plant

efficiency. Thus environmental and human impacts throughout the fuel cycle are

increased.

2.4 EQUILIBRIUM VS. TIME DEPENDENT CONSIDERATIONS

The procedure of assessment and normalization described above implements static

comparisons across and within the alternate energy production systems. The larger

problem, of course, is an assessment of total societal costs associated with

alternate energy strategies, that is, alternate mixes of energy sources and production

systems to meet a given, time dependent electrical energy demand over some specified

period of time, say 1970-2020. The development of static impact coefficients, as

discussed above and as performed in the present study, is a prerequisite of the larger

assessment of comparing energy strategies.

The overall problem of comparing alternatives is time dependent for a number of

reasons.

(a) Fuel resources are not equally abundant, and the depletion characteristic

of a particular fuel resource locates its contribution in the time frame.

Thus, for example, one might favor the natural gas fuel cycle on environmental grounds, but U.S. reserve estimates indicate that it will

not be available in quantity beyond the end of this century.

2-9
0

OC

INTERNAL

COST

EXTERNAL

COST

I

0 100%

DEGREE OF ABATEMENT

FIG. 2.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL COSTS

2-10
(b) The several energy technologies are in various stages of development and

maturity. For example, nuclear fusion and natural gas energy cannot be

regarded as competing alternatives in the same time frame.

(c) There is inertia in committing fiscal and other resources to development

and installation of new energy technologies, resulting in significant

time lags between conception and maturity of a new technology.

(d) The economic environment of each energy system changes with time; routine

inflation of base labor and material prices may escalate energy costs

preferentially; reductions in capacity/throughput ratios with system

maturity, especially in the nuclear fuel cycle, tend to reduce costs, as

do learning, gradual recovery of first of a kind costs, etc.

(e) Regulatory and legislative actions at discrete points in time affect the

relative competitiveness and relative impacts of the energy systems.

(f) As control devices are introduced and improved, pollution rates per unit

of electrical energy delivered are reduced.

(g) Impacts and costs change, or shift, as patterns of production change. For

example, strip mining accounts for a much larger fraction of coal production now than it did ten or fifteen years ago, and thus the average

impacts of electricity production from coal have changed in quantity and

in character over this period.

(h) Environmental and human impacts may be proportional to quantity of

electrical energy produced (kWhe), to the capacity of the energy production system (kWe), or to the produced energy integrated over a long period

of time. There are time displacements between the production of a unit of

electrical energy, or the addition of production capacity, and the appearance of an environmental or human impact.

For these and numerous other reasons, the overall problem of ranking alternatives is

a time dependent one, and alternatives must be regarded as mixes of energy sources,

or strategies, rather than individual sources.

Others have addressed time dependent assessments in various degrees of scope and in

various degrees of detail.(2,3) A recent, highly publicized study performed at the

2-11
Massachusetts Institute of Technology(2) for the Club of Rome advertised a computer

model intended to relate world population, industrial production, consumption of

nonrenewable resources, and food production, and pollution. Although the modeling

and quantitative results were rejected by the scientific community, the study did

serve to popularize principles which have been recognized, at least qualitatively,

since Malthus: that the resources of the earth are finite, and that population

growth hastens their depletion, as well as multiplying environmental burden.

In a more narrow area, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission has performed a number of

studies directed at analysing the role of nuclear power in providing U.S. energy

requirements.( ,5) More specifically, these assessments have examined the conventional costs and fuel cycle requirements of various mixes of nuclear reactor power

plant types to meet a given electrical energy demand through the year 2020.

Incorporation of the impact coefficients (costs and impacts normalized to a given

unit of electrical energy) determined in the present study, into existing computer

programs (6,7,8,9) could extend these analyses to include annual and cumulative

environmental burdens and other nonconventional costs through the year 2000 or

beyond. Because of time and resource restrictions, this was not accomplished in

the present study.

As noted in the statement of scope, this study is confined to those systems expected

to make a nationally significant contribution to base load power production in the

near term, i.e. the next ten or fifteen years. Only modern power plants, those

added in this time span, are considered. The year 1980 is selected as a reference

year, for purposes of establishing a consistent set of economic and technical ground

rules in making comparisons of equilibrium fuel cycles. Plants scheduled to go in

service in the late 1970's and early 1980's are currently in design, construction,

and licensing phases, and there is abundant design literature* for these plants.

*Including Preliminary and Final Safety Analysis Reports and Environmental Impact

Statements.

2-12
Footnote and Reenence. Jo4 Chasten 2: Conceptual Fnamew&Ik

(1) Nuc eaL LUtiLLteA Se'vice, Guide 6o& Economic Evatuaton o NuceeaL Reacon

~ P&tnt De4Zgnb, NUS 531 (Jan. 1969

(2) Meadows, DoneLo H. et.aL., The Limit o Gnowth, A Reporot r the CLub o6

Rome'e Project on the Pnediceme oT in! dUniLve 6e Boks, N.Y. (1972)

(3) Auwtin, A. L. and J. W. S'Lewe , "Wo4Zd Poputation Growth and Re.Lated TechnicaL

P.owb emx" IEEE Spectrum (Dee. 1970)

(4) USAEC, Potential NucLeaL PoweA Gowth PatteAn4, WASH-1098 (Dec. 1970)

(5) USAEC, Coot-Benei t AnaLy4L4 o the U .S . S'LeedeA Reactor P'ogam - Updated

(1970), WASH-1184 (an. 1972).

(6) BZoom5teV, C. H. et.aL., PACTOLUS : A Code ox'r. Compu tng Nuceea Power Cost%,

BNWL-1169 PaciLic Noathwet Labo ato.Les (Jan. 1910)

(7) Engel, R. L. DAEDALUS 11: A Compute't Code to Gene,/ ate a L.neaA Pog~'tammmina

Model of a Nucea PoweA Economy, BNWL-1459, Pac c Nottihwe6t Abontoie S

(June 9)

(8) Jacobson, L. D., MERCURY: A Code jokt Repo tting Re wts o the Na#tLonae

Powet Economy - Linea/4 Pog tamming ModeZ So onn, BNWL-1467, Pacic

NoAthwe t Labo taonty (June 1970)

(9) We2ga'te, F. G. e..aL., The Oakz R~idge Sy tems Anaysis Code (ORSAC): Udse' b

~Manua, ORNL-TM-3223 (hW y 1971)

2-13

CHAPTER 3

DESCRIPTIONS OF ALTERNATE FUEL CYCLES

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Purpose

A prerequisite of an environmental impact assessment of any industrial activity is

a thorough, quantitative understanding of the fundamental technological processes

involved in that activity -- all inputs and outputs of the activity, its burden on

physical resources, the character and quantity of its effluents, and the efficiency

with which the activity blends materials, energy, capital, and manpower into a

product (benefit). For this reason, the first task of the Study was to lay out each

of the competing fuel cycles, describing the basic physical processes of each step,

and normalizing all quantities to a unit of electrical energy produced or to a unit

of capacity (Appendix).

This chanter consists of abbreviated, qualitative descriptions of the major features

of the alternate fuel cycles and tabular summaries of evaluated conventional and

nonconventional costs. It is intended to acquaint an intelligent lay reader with

processes and operations involved in producinn electrical enery, as well as to

report quantitative results of the assessment. Detailed information is provided in

the Appendix.

Energy Sys teams Considered

The assessment is restricted to modern, base-load power plants and their supporting

fuel cycles, and to those systems based on technologies whose commercial application

is proven. This includes coal, oil, natural c'as, nuclear (LWR), and hydro power

systems.*

A number of potential sources have been excluded. Two emerging nuclear systems,

the high temperature gas cooled reactor (HTCR) and the linuid metal cooled fast

breeder reactor (LMFBR), were not included because widespread commercial scale

deployment of these systems is projected to occur beyond the near term time frame

of the study. Coal gasification, in the form intended for nower plant use, also

falls outside the time frame of the study. Potential sources such as geothermal,

solar, and fusion power are similarly excluded.

*Hydroelectri p wer~s included because it currently sunnlies a significant

amount of electricity, although its role is expected to diminish over the next

thirty years. Little quantitative information on hydro systems is developed in this study.

3-1
About this Chapter and Its Pelationship to 'ther

Parts of the Study

The information assembled and normalized in this report emerged from a rather extensive literature survey aimed at quantifying numerous individual impacts and

costs. In most cases, the individual impacts and costs displayed in this report are

derived quantities. Individual items of data taken from the literature were rarely

found in the desired format, that is, restricted to the particular impact or cost

under consideration and normalized to a unit of electrical energy produced. For

each item addressed, considerable manipulation -- disaggregation, interpretation,

aggregation, averaging, normalization -- was necessary to reduce the quantity to

consistent and meaningful information. The Study, thus, has characteristics of both

analysis and synthesis: analysis of individual elements of data, normalization to

a consistent basis, then synthesis of the individual elements into a coherent

framework.

For simplicity, much of the supporting technical material (derivations and documentation) for this chapter is contained in the Anpendix and footnotes. In particular,

more detailed and thorough descriptions of the coal, nuclear, oil and gas fuel

cycles are to be found in the Appendix. Among other data, the Appendix presents

process effluent source terms, appropriately normalized to unit fuel cycle throughput and thence to a given quantity of electrical energy produced. Chapter 4 and

the Appendix address the problems of translating these source rates into ultimate

impacts and costs.

In the present Chapter, effort was made to make the fuel cycle descriptions as

parallel as possible, in fact, to squeeze the discussions into a standard format.

This was neither possible nor meaningful, because of the inherent dissimilarities

among the systems. Nevertheless, the mineral fuel sections have some rough similarities. Each of these sections contains two material flow diagrams. One of these

displays a macroscopic view of the flow of the fuel resource through its respective

national fuel and energy industry --- the sources of supply and ultimate dispositions,

including non-electrical and non-energy uses, of the mineral. The second diagram

shows the material flows through the fuel cycle process steps, normalized to 6.57

billion kilowatt hours, the electrical energy produced by one 1000 MWe power plant

operating for one year at 75% CF. The fuel cycle flow sheets form the quantitative

link between an impact or cost anywhere in the system, and a corresponding quantity

of electrical energy (benefit) produced.

3-2
A summary table is presented at the conclusion of each section. These tables contain

conventional dollar costs (materials, labor, capital), certain abatement costs, and

environmental and human impact "source terms" -- all normalized to the production

of 6.57 billion kilowatt hours. These quantities are arrayed by fuel process step,

and are in a variety of physical and nonphysical units -- dollars, curies, tons of

individual pollutants, acres, etc. To render these effects truly comparable and

additive, they must be reduced to common dimensions, e.g., dollars; that is, they

must be reduced to ultimate societal costs. Although efforts to accomplish this

are quite preliminary and imperfect, it is possible in several specific cases, to

make gross, order-of-magnitude assessments which are useful in naininr perspective

and in making comparisons of alternatives. Section 3.7, the concluding section of

this chapter, presents crude estimates of ultimate impacts and costs for the competing energy systems. These evaluated effects are quantified in one or both of

two dimensions: dollars; and mandays lost. Again, the basis is the annual operation of one 1000 MWe power plant and its supporting pro-rated fuel cycle activities.

Since quantification has not been possible for several impacts thought to be important, the tables presented in Section 3.7 do not comprise complete lists, and thus

do not yield "total societal costs" for the respective energy systems.

3.2 THE COAL FUEL CYCLE

Electricity from Coal and the U.S. Coal Industry

In 1970, about 55% of the tonnage of coal produced in the U.S. was used in the

generation of electricity.Qa) For the same year, coal-fired plants supplied about

46% of the electricity consumed (lb), including hydro electricity. Of the thermal

plants (non-hydro), coal-fired generators accounted for about 54% of the electricity

consumed. lb) Although the relative coal contribution to thermal power generation

is expected (2a to diminish in the future (about 41% in 1980, and 30% in 1990), the

demand for utility coal will continue to increase to meet increasing total electrical energy demand.(-

Figure 3.1 displays the production and disposition of bituminous coal in the U.S.

in 1970, as inferred from National Coal Association (NCA) data.( 5 . The NCA's

published production quantities, e.g., ~603 million tons in 1970, are the coal

industry's net yield after cleaning. In 1970, about 60% of the aross raw coal

production was cleaned, of which about 24% was lost in the cleaning process. Thus,

cleaning losses accounted for about 15% of gross production.

3-3
TRANSPORTATION TO

ELECTRIC UTILITIES

UNDER GROUND

MINING

395

(56%)

AUGER MINING

21

(3%)

STRIP MINING

290

(41%)

AP

CLEANING LOSS

103*

706 427 * CLEANING 324*

- -1- - -- &- A ND --

GROSS PROCESSING

PRODUCTION

279

NOT CLEANED

PARENT INVENTORY

OR OTHER LOSSES

603* 588* 32

NET PRODUCTION

339 UNDERGROUND*

20 AUGER*

244 STRIP*

LOSSES DURING

RAIL TRANSPORTATION

(1%)

RAI L

168**

1*

WATERWAYS

100**

OTHER

52**

ELECTRIC

UTILITIES

(719 BILLION KWHe)

OTHER ENERGY USES

196 NON-ENERGY USES

71 EXPORT

*NOTE: NUMBERS ARE IN UNITS OF MILLIONS OF TONS OF BITUMINOUS COAL.

NUMBERS WITH ONE ASTERISK (*) WERE OBTAINED FROM NATIONAL COAL ASS'N. (NCA),

BITUMINOUS COAL DATA, 1971 ED. TRANSPORTATION FIGURES (**) WERE ESTIMATED

FROM NCA, COAL TRAFFIC ANNUAL, 1970 ED. ALL OTHER FIGURES WERE INFERRED

FROM BITUMINOUS COAL DATA, 1971 ED. SEE FOOTNOTE (45)

FIG. 3.1 U. S. PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF BITUMINOUS COAL, 1970

w

e
Origins of Coal and U.S. Coal Resources

Coal consists primarily of the organic remains of swamp plants that lived over 200

million years ago. Under the influence of heat and pressure, the original peatlike material has been transformed into simple hydrocarbons. Not all coal has

reached the final stage of metamorphosis known as anthracite, which is almost pure

carbon. The next to last stage, bituminous coal, retains some hydrocarbon content

and is widely used by utilities. The lower states, lionite and subhituminous coals,

have undergone less transformation, have lower heating values and are used only in

areas where other fuels are not available.

In the United States, the major area of anthracite deposits is located in eastern

Pennsylvania. However, the bulk of the nation's coal resources is composed of

bituminous coals, found predominantly in Appalachia and the midwest, and lignite,

located in the western states. The total tonnage of all types of coal estimated to

underlie the U.S. down to a depth of 6000 ft. is 3.2 trillion tons , and the

resources known to exist amount to 1.6 trillion tons, of which roughly one quarter

is lignite. For various reasons involving economic and technological considerations,

it is expected that much of this known resource base will never be mined. Under

current conditions the actual amount that is actually available for production is

in the range of 200-400 billion tons. Environmental legislation may further limit

the supply through restrictions on sulfur content and strip mining practices. If

only coal having one percent or less sulfur can be mined, the current reserves fall

to the range of 50 to 115 billion tons. This can be compared against a current

annual demand of approximately 600 million tons.

The Coal Fuel Cycle for Electric Power Production

Principle steps in the coal fuel cycle for the production of electrical energy are

mining, cleaning, transportation, power generation (power nlant), and disposal of

residuals. Figure 3.2 shows a materials balance for a representative, modern coalfired power plant and its supporting fuel cycle. The power plant is assumed representative of coal-fired plants coming on line in the year 1980.

Mining

Coal mining employs two major techniques: surface mining which removes the overburden to expose the coal seam, and underground mining which extracts the coal from

under the overburden. Surface mining generally may be used when the seam is 100 ft.

or less below ground. Otherwise, underground methods are indicated. At present

about 55% of the coal industry output comes from underground mines, and the rest

from surface mines. (4 Both methods are now highly mechanized, especially surface

3-5
BASIS: ANNUAL OPERATION OF 1,000 MWe

POWER PLANT AT 75% C. F.

MINING 6.57 BILLION KILOWATT

HOURS ELECTRICITY

1.16 MILLION TONS 2.3 MLLION TONS COA L

ONSITE 1000 MWe COMBUSTION GASES

STRAE PLANT 0.12 MILLION TONS SO 2

0.027 MILLION TONS NO

0.001 MILLION TONS CO

6 MILLION TONS CO2

NRG50,000 TONS 250,000 TONS FLY ASH

MNNBOTTOM ASH

4m FLY ASH

BITUMINOUS COAL & SULFUR

25 MILLION BTU/TON REMOVAL

2.5% SULFUR

11% ASH STOCK EMISSIONS

248,000 TONS ASH 24,000 TONS SO 2 46,000 TONS SULFUR 2,000 TONS FLY ASH

0.027 MILLION TONS NO

0.001 MILLION TONS CO

6 MILLION TONS CO2

FIG. 3.2 THE COAL FUEL CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION
techniques which utilize enormous shovels and scrapers to load oversize trucks.

Thus the productivity of the surface miner is extremely high, on the order of 5 tons

per Manhour. Underground mining is more difficult to automate, but presently almost

all miners use machines for at least some cutting and loading. In the most advanced

mines, the cutting, loading and conveying of coal is entirely mechanized in a continuous process. The productivity of the underground mines averages roughly 1.5

tons per ranihour. (-)

The underground mine has a potential for serious accidents through explosions and

fires due to methane and coal dust. Routine mechanical accidents also present

serious hazards; annually 150-200 miners die in underground coal mines primarily

because of falling rock and haulageway accidents. (27- The accident rate is much

lower for surface miners, partly because less manpower is needed and partly because

fewer accident causing conditions exist in surface nines.

The occupational disease of black lung, or coal workers pneumoconiosis (CVP), that

afflicts many older miners develops from the accumulation of coal dust in the lungs.

In some cases, the buildup of dust produces little or no disability, but in others

it can trigger deterioration of the lungs that eventually renders the victim a bedridden invalid. Detailed British studies indicate that after at least 15 years

exposure to coal dust, annually, 2 men out of 1000 will have a positive diagnosis

for CWP, and 2 men in 10,000 will develop the acute form of the disease.( It is

believed to occur primarily in underground mines where the men must work in confined

areas with heavy concentrations of dust in the air.

Both methods of mining result in significant environmental impacts. Underground

mining, by removing the support for the overlying strata produces cave-ins and

subsidence at the surface. This can have little or no effect but at the other

extreme it can disrupt water courses, cause collapse of buildings and prevent use

of the land for agriculture, etc.()I Although most mining operations leave behind

pillars of unmined coal to support the roof, this is rarely a permanent solution

to the subsidence problem, because coal is a poor structural material and grows

weaker upon long exposure to air. Roughly 0.1 to 0.2 acre is subject to subsidence

for every thousand tons of coal mined. 

The land disruption produced by surface mining comes directly from ripping up the

overburden to get at the coal seam. A distinction should be made between area strip

mining which is done on flat land and contour strip mining which is done along hill

sides. The former tends to be ultimately less disruptive since the overburden which

3-7
is removed in one cut is usually dumped in the adjacent ditch left from the previous

cut. In this fashion a large amount of the area strip mine can be filled in and

reclaimed. In contrast, the contour string operation dumps the overhbrden down the

slope, destroying additional acreage and naming it difficult to restore the land.

'!)ile area stripping often takes place on farm land, which can he restored to its

original use with proper reclamation practices, contour strinpin r frequently is

done in wilderness areas which are very difficult to restore. It is estimated that

about ).15-0.3 acres are disrupted for every thousand tons of coal produced by surface mines.-

Coal mining causes significant amounts of water pollution. )ne major pollutant is

acid mine drainage, composed principally of sulfuric acid and iron salts. - This

is produced from the iron pyrites found in association with coal seams. iininq

operations expose the pyrites to air, which in combination with ground waters flowing through the mine, generate the acidic drainage. when this polluted water flows

into surface streams it can be toxic to most forms of aquatic life. Conditions for

drainage formation are usually found in underground nines and the problem is

especially severe in abandoned ones. Surface mines tend to be less significant as

sources of acid mine drainage; however, the runoff from strip mine waste piles can

contribute heavy silt loads to receiving bodies of water.

:ining operations create air pollution through dust releases, primarily from surface mines. *lso, where coal seams have caught fire, noxious lases such as carbon

monoxide, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide are released.

Cleaning and Processing

Following mining, about 60% of the total coal output of the U.S. is mechanically

cleaned and processed ' to reduce mineral content and to give a specified size

(10) distribution. -- From Figure 3.1, about one quarter of the coal processed is lost;

thus about 15% of the gross bituminous coal production is lost in cleaning. The

principal impact of coal preparation is water pollution caused by the fine coal

particles that remain suspended in the wash water. Unless the wash waters are

impounded and treated, the waste water ("black water") will escape into the environment. Approximately 1.5 tons of waste water is produced for every ton of coal

processed. (11)

In addition to water pollution, coal processing plants generate large amounts of

solid wastes, which consists mostly of rock with a certain amount of carbonaceous

material also present. Twenty percent of the weight of raw coal may be rejected

3-8
as waste during cleaning. The refuse heaps pose a land use problem, and a potential

air pollution problem should the heaps catch fire.

A few cleaning plants use pneumatic methods to process the coal, neneratin lare

amounts of coal dust that ust be controlled. Also, thermal drying methods may

also release coal dust at some installations.

It is possible to burn raw coal in power plants or to clean the coal at the plant

site rather than having it done at the mine. The choice depends upon the economics

of transporting the waste contained in the raw coal versus paying higher Wrices for

cleaned coal.

Transportation

Coal transportation plays an. important role in the cycle because of the bulk of

material that must be moved. A 1000 M'!e coal fired power plant may reuire as much

as 3 million tons of coal per year, which is roughly equivalent to 3 million cubic

yards. The cost of transportation can amount to 40% or more of the cost of fuel to

the utility.

Railroads carry 70% of the coal loaded at the mine mouth, although some is later

transferred to other types of transportation. In the electrical utility sector,

52% of the coal arrives by rail, 34% by water and remainder by truck, conveyer belt

and other means.(1--) The average distance the coal moves between mine and power

plant is 300 miles for both rail and waterway.

Because of the large volumes involved, some utilities have installed unit trains

solely for the purpose of moving coal from the coal mine to a power plant. In some

cases, the operation of the train is almost entirely automated.

Railroad fatality rates associated with coal movement are comparable to that of

mining. (13) Each year about 2300 people die in railroad accidents, and since 25% of

total tonnage carried by train is coal (half of which is intended for utility use),

approximately 200 deaths per year may be attributed to its transportation for electric utility use. It should be noted that only 10% of these fatalities are

employees. The majority occur when motor vehicles are struck at orade crossings.

In terms of energy consumption, the diesel fuel required to move coal by train or

water is less than one percent of the energy content of the coal. The associated

air pollution is also negligible compared to power plant emissions.

3-9
Electricity Generation

At the power plant, coal is burned in boilers to generate steam which then turns

turbine generators. Individual coal-fired units range up to 1000 MT e and beyond in

size. any power plants Nave multiple units, with the older, smaller and less

efficient boilers being phased out as larger, more modern units are installed.

Because of the inherent limitations of the heat cycle used to convert coal's stored

chemical energy into mechanical work, only about 40% of the energy is utilized, 10%

escapes with the exhaust eases, and the remaining 50% of the heat must be rejected

to the environment. The 1970 national average heat rate for coal-fired power plants

was about 10,250 Btu/kWhre (ii)and the average heating value of coal was about

11,300 Btu/lb. 1 9 Thus it requires about 0.91 lbs. of coal to generate a kilowatthour of electricity. The most efficient power plants have heat rates near 8900 Ctu/

Kfrhre. (16)

The largest power plants all use pulverized coal combustion systems which burn the

fuel as a suspension of fine particles in air. This promotes complete combustion

and allows flexibility in varying the power output of the plant. however, it also

greatly increases the amount of fly ash that must be collected to prevent its

release as air pollution. The ash content typically comprises ten percent of the

weight of the coal. It is made up largely of mineral matter, usually alumina,

silica and ferric oxide, although some unburned carbon may also be present. Large

particles of fly ash will settle out near the power plant, while the finer particulates will remain suspended in the air. Particulates on the order of one to ten

microns are opaque and cause the visual phenomenon of smoke. Much of the trace

metal content of coal is carried off in the fly ash.

Aside from creating smoke and haze, particulates cause soiling of materials and

increased cleaning costs. They are also suspected of accelerating the attacks of

corrosive gases such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides that are released by

power plants.

Roughly 170 lbs. of fly ash may be produced from burning one ton of coal. (--)

Control techniques such as scrubbing the exhaust gases with water sprays, collecting

the particles with electric fields and using cloth filters can reduce particulate

emissions by as much as 99%.

Sulfur dioxide gas is formed by the burning of the sulfur content of the coal,

which currently averages 2.5%.i20) Essentially, all the sulfur is oxidized; thus

on the average 80 lbs. of sulfur dioxide is generated per ton of coal burned.

3-10
Sulfur dioxide causes corrosion and damage to plant life at the concentrations

found in power plant exhaust gases. It is also suspected of causing or arnravatino

respiratory illnesses in humans, although it is unclear to what extent other factors

such as particulates, cigarette smoking, etc. are also involved. Sulfur dioxide can

be retained by various chemical processes, but, until the present, control methods

were not installed at power plants. The most promising systems may achieve 30 

efficiency in SO2 removal, but the long term reliability of these systems has not

been demonstrated.(20)

:Jitrogen oxides in exhaust gases come largely from atmospheric nitrogen. They are

corrosive and play a role in the formation of photochemical smog such as is prevalent in the Los Angeles area. :itrogen oxides can be controlled by careful control

of the combustion process and by keeping the maximum temperature of the furnace

below 2300*F, the threshold for formation of !f 

Small amounts of hydrocarbons that have cancer causing potential may also be emitted

from coal-fired power plants. flata from cigarette smoking research indicates that

benso-alpha-pyrene (RAP) in particular may reach significant levels of concentration

in the atmosphere of some urban areas. 2 However, coal-fired electricity veneration is only one of the several sources (e.n., automobile) of this emission.

A variety of elements present in trace quantities in coal may be emitted during

combustion. Trace elements that appear to be most important are mercury, lead,

zinc and beryllium. Health authorities are concerned that these elements may nroduce toxic effects in humans after long exposures, either through direct exposure

to air containing the elements or through reconcentration in the food chain.

Certain coals also contain measurable amounts of uranium and radium that yield

radioactive decay products. However, the net exposure due to radiation from these

decay products is negligible compared to that from natural background sources such

as cosmic rays and granite.(?Z)

The ash that results from coal burning, including that part of the fly ash collected

by pollution control devices, must be disposed of. Although this material may be

utilized for such purposes as making cement, in most cases it is disposed of by

dumping. The land used for this purpose at a 1000 ':!e power plant is typically

about 5 acres per year. - The wastes produced by some sulfur dioxide treatment

methods may double this requirement. (2324 The heat that must be rejected from

the steam cycle is dissipated either to local bodies of water or to the atmosphere

3-11
by cooling towers. The former method requires careful design to avoid harming aquatic

life. The cooling tower system may be objectionable from a visual standpoint because

of the large bulk of the towers and the plumes of water vapor that are released.

Several factors might act to change the current picture of the coal fuel cycle. One

of the most significant is the legislation concerning air pollution and minin health

and safety. Due to the problems of achieving adequate sulfur dioxide control,

especially for existing plants, utilities in urban areas have been converting coalfired power plants to burn residual fuel oil, which has a sulfur content that is

controllable. This trend reduces the overall demand for coal; however, the demand

for low-sulfur coal has risen sharply while the usual grades of steam coal are no

longer being utilized. The effect is an apparent shrinking of the reserves of coal

that are economically feasible to mine. To counteract this, efforts to develop

methods of coal gasification, which permit effective sulfur oxide control, are being

actively pursued.-5)

The coal mine health and safety legislation will increase mining costs by requiring

more safety equipment and more expensive operating procedures.(?-- At some point

in time, the mining companies will also become liable for compensation for miners

afflicted with black lung. Since these costs are somewhat proportional to manpower,

the mining companies may tend to increase productivity and reduce labor requirements

through increased automation of the mines.

The resulting increase in capital investment will accentuate the existing pattern

of change away from a large number of small, independent labor intensive mines,

toward a smaller number of lare, capital intensive operations financed by outside

corporations. Also a shift toward surface minin is favored; however, this may be

negated by pending legislation which will reuire more thorough reclamation of strip

mined areas. ,lthourih '.. coal resources are abunr'ant, it will be increasingly

difficult to nine because of the problems involved in finding deposits of suitable

quality, which are near enugh to the r"arket, en! that can he mined in an nvironmentally acceptable manner. Furthermore, increased capital costs and demands for

coal in large quantities by individual consumers make it uneconomical to open or to

continue operations at mines which are below a minimum annual capacity. Thus, there

are difficulties in acquiring enoug property to make it worthwhile to operate a

vine at a given location.

3-12
Unit Impacts and Costs

Table 3.1 summarizes conventional costs (l'3' dollars) , an' environmental and human

impact data associated with the annual operation of a 10 ''e coal-fired nowr

plant and its supporting fuel cycle. nower plant capacity factor of 75% is assumed;

thus, the quantities in Table 3.1 correspond to the production of G.57 trillion

kilowatt hours of electrical energy.

Footnote4 and Recgejtences ,or. Section 3.2 - The Coat FueL Cce.

(1a) Nati.onat Coat A&sociaron, ituminous Coat Data, 1971 EA tLon, p. 77.

(1b) Re.e& to FigWe. 1.2 o0 thLs report, based on:

Eane Cook, 'T he F iow o UEnvtgy in an l nduw ticZat Society,

Scienti6is Ameican (Septembe 1971) and

uNationa2 Pet'to eum Counc (1971), U.S. Enetg'y Otooh,

Washington, ). C.

(2a.) Fedettaw Powtwe Cornision, The. 1970 'Iationa2 Power Swtvey, Patt 1

(Vecembet 1971), page 1-1-19, Tab e 1.4.

(2b) IbLd, p. I-1-20, Table 1.5.

(3) Avetett, Pauw (1969), "Coaol weswe.e o -the. U.S. a oj Januwa/ 1, 1967,"

United States GeoLoqicaZ Suwtvey Bu Uetin Vo. 1275.

(4) GaZZagheVL, J. J., and Wes-te -<tt'om, L. W. (1970), "Coat-&ituminous and

~ Lignite," Buteau o n M-ineA nv zaf Yea.tboo a, U.S. Vepa~ttmen t o, , nvetviot.

(5) ACGTUH (Ame.tican Con 6etence oti Govevnmen-tat Indust'v a2 Iygienst) 1969,

tc eedings, Spindtetop "SynopP.s Intetnationa2 o6 Congetence -the Wod on P 

Coat Wo'tdevts Pneumo conois , " Atcehveas o UEnviJonmentaZ Health, VoL. 21,

p. 221.

Gough, J., Testi~mony be o~te Subcommittee on LabotL on CoaL 'iLne. Health and

Satgey, 9 14t Congte6.( 1-. Session ) , Pati 3.

(6) Petvy, fa/cvvy (1969), Env'itonmentaZ Aspe ctA os CoaL tf-ning, 136th AnnuaL

Meeting, AAAS, Boston, '(as achu.s ett6.

(7) This igu'e. .6 baoed on an average coaL seam -thickznes s o about Aive ee 

~ giving coat production o6 ~ 8000 ton6/ace.

Oefaon, J. K. and R. J. Fwiake2, PesZdua26 'anagement in M.ibn.inq CoaL and

Ptwducing PoweV., Reouw'ce bon. the uwte, asthng on, V. C. 

(8) "Suwit ace Mining and Our. nvitonmen-t," (1967), U.S. e patmernt o in terio~t,

U.S. Govetumenvt Ptunting Odiice.

(9) Appatackhan Regional CommnZ6on (1969), Acid ?ine. Vtainage in Appalachia,

Wa6h ngton, D. C.

(10) Key.-tone CoaL ?.anua, 1971, National CoaL Aaociation, WahTngton, V.C.

3-13

TABLE 3.1

ANNUAL EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT AND ITS

SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

BASIS: 6.57 Billion Kilowatt-hours

(one year operation @ 75% CF)

TransporMining tation Power Plant Total

Conventional Costs (106$) (28)

(1980 dollars)

Fuel 56 8 64

Plant Capital 51 51

0 & M 5.4 5.4

Rounded Total 120

Abatement Costs (106$) (43)

(1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers 3.6

SO2 Removal 25.9

Strip-land Reclam.

@ $300/acre 0.1

@ $3000/acre 1.0

Rounded Total 30

Occupational Accidents (27)

Deaths 0.98 0.055 0.03 1.1

Nonfatal injuries 40.5 5.1 1.2 46.8

Man-days lost 8330 570 350 9250

Mining Impacts

Land disturbance by (32)

stripping (acres) 470

Land subsidence, undergrd. (32)

mining (acres) 260

Mine drainage (tons) (35) 10,000

Sulfuric acid in drainage

(tons) (35) 80

Dissolved iron in drainage

(tons) (35) 20

Public Accidents, Rail Transportation (13)

Public Deaths 0.55

Public Injuries 1.17

Public Days Lost 3,500

Transportation and Handling (36) 10,000

Loss tons)

Occupational Health

Coal workers pneumoconiosis (44)

Simple CWP (cases) 0.6

Massive fibrosis (cases) 0.0006

Effects at the Power Plant (34)

Fuel Consumption (tons) 2,300,000

Bottom ash (tons) (40) 50,000

Fly ash retained (tons) (34) 248,000

Sulfur retained (tons) (3') 46,000

Waste storage area agese) (4T) 5

Thermal discharge (101 kWht) 0.89

Stack discharge (1010 kWht) 0.16

Air emissions

Fly ash (tons) (34,37) 2,000

Sulfur dioxide (tons) (37) 24,000

Carbon dioxide (tons) (37) 6,000,000

Carbon monoxide (tons) (37) 1,000

Nitrogen oxides (as N02)

(tons) 27,000

Mercury (tons) (39) 5

Beryllium (tons) (39) 0.4

Arsenic (tons) (3) 5

Cadmium (tons) (39) 0.001

Lead (tons) (39) 0.2

Nickel (7W) 5

Radium 226 (ci) (38) 0.02

Radium 228 (ci) (38) 0.006

Land Use (32)

Inventory (acres) 22,000 400

Annual (acres/yr.) 736 5

(11) De bon, J. K. and F.iank~e, [T. J. (11971), taLt:t: Pniduas 'anagement in 'i.ni~nq

Coat and PtoducLina Poter, Resources 'ok the Ftture, as i ngton, P.C. (1/2 ton

b.a z H c;ptod uce.t on o coah-se coat, 3 ton hackz H2' produced/ton ;Lne

coat).

(12) Coa2 Ta64Zc Annuat, 1970, ,ationa Coat Associaton, ashington, P. C.

(13) Ca suattyrates, both occupationa.C and pubtbic, associated ith t . ians'o tation o6 al -uel mater tLs considered in thB ,t eport, ae deveo ped i-n mom e

detail in Ctap-tet 5. Some sources of statis tica data on coal tanspotaton

ate:

FedetZ Ra oad Admini t'ikatio n, Accident 3CLUetin Jo. 139.

U.S. Bureau j the CenvSus, Sati tcar A b5taoC I 06 he U.S., annual pubLcation.

Ntationat Salety CowcwiL, Accdent Fa cts 1971, Chcago, Igfino 

.attona2 Twtanpottion Saet _otd, S pecxa Stud : FaQitt la teogt

Suxtace Fe.itgh-t Ttans ponttation, 1963 to 1968.

Ttanspotat on A aX nOc o , Amen cca, T>tan.povtation: Facts and Tr'ends,

Seventh Edition (Api2 1970), Q aeT up p emnt J antuai 1971).

Itestate Commevce. Commission, F eTiht Commodit, Statistics : yca Ended

Decembet 31, 1969.

As&soca on o6 Amevcican i1toads , Vea'tbooh o6 aiDLtoad Facts, 1972 ed.

atona. oaf. A.6sociati.on, CoaZ TT'a 64c AnnuaL, 1970 edition.

National Coat Association, Mtuminous Coa F sct 

(14) EFect ical WonLd (latch 15, 1972) , "22nd Annual Stas-tLca.L Suve y.

(15) National Coal As ociation, Steam-E e &ic PZant Factos, 1971 Edition,

Washington, 0.C.

(16) 0! mstead, Leonard M. (November 1, 1971) , "17th Steam Station Cost Swwet,

- Eec tJtcat Wo'td.

ACo, Federal Polent CommiZsion, Prtoblems in Di)o.psaX o6 Wate Heat >tfom

Steam Eezt ic Plant, 1969.

(17) Smith, W. S. and Gtube't, C. W. (1966), Atmospheic EmLss.on 6tom CoaL - CombuwtLon - An Inventor Guide, U.S. Depa Cme nt o611eaLth, Eu cation and

Weta.te, X'APCA No. AP-24, Wai ngton, D.C.

066ice o Science and Technologyi, Considetation Ad6ecting Plant Site

SeLectfion, Wa.hington, P.C. (1968).

(18) Reese, J. T. and Geco, Joseph (August 1968), "Expei.ence. with ELecttostatic

Fly-Ash Cottecti.on Equipment Se.v~ing Steam-Eect'ic Genertating Plants,

Joutna2 o; AWyt PoltutLon Cont'ioZ Association, VoL. 18, No. k.

(19) Smith, W. S. and G.tubeAt, C. W. (1966), Atmospheuic Emi 6-ion 6>{om CoaLCombustion - An Inventoy Guide, U.S. Veparne nt 06 He.aLth, Education

and Wel ja're, NAPCA No. AP'-24,, Wahing-ton, P.C 

(20) Stack, A. V. and Fatkenbegty, HI. L. (Decembet 1971), "SO : Mo/te. Queston

than An-wet," ELec-t.ic Wo'td.

(21) Watson, Donald E. (1970), The Risk o6 Cateinogene.sis >om Long-Tentm Low Dose

Expoute to Poltction Emitted by ,Fost-Fueed Po'e. PLants, (!CRL- 937,

Lawaence Radiation Labo taony, Lverotro.e, Caioutnia.

3-15
(22) '?antin, James E., Hwarvad, U'Est c . uand Oa:ecy, onad T. (1969), "Comparion

o6 adioactivtj 6Aom Foss i Fue2 and 'I ucea PoLen Pk ants, in Hea'rings on

Envionmental. E ects o PAoducin.nq Eec~tcric Po'et, Pant 1, Joynt Commottec. on

Atomic Envte gy, 1 U.S. Govexnmen v 'in~tng O c.ce, Wa hington, P.C.

(23) 06 "ice oS Science and Technotoqg (1968) Cowsidexatoons A tectinq Steam PoweA.

PLant Site SeectLion, U .S. Cove.nr"ent Phwntg0nq r , as ung on, P.C.

(24) TVA (1969) SuIjLu Oxide Removal 6,om Powe Pfant Stack Gis: Use o Limestone - in Wet-Scuabbng Pitocea., C 'ea nghows e ox Scienti ic and T echnicaX I nornmation, 5285 Po y ioqaZ Toad, Sp'rtng ie2d, V-&tgin~ia.

(25) Squires, A thwt !. (1971) "CaptWring SuLLuxJ Vuiinq Combustion," Technotoqy

Revew, 1IT, Vol. 74, No. 2.

Res ouces dot the Futuxe, Energ y Res eavch Needs Wash'inQton, V. C. (1971).

(26) StCaton, John W. (1971), "E66ect o6 Sage ty Legizlation on P'wductivity, 

preA esented at 1971 Coat Convention, Amevican 4:n innq Cong'e s4, Pit t6burgh,

Penn4 yjZvania.

(27) Occupationa2 Znjuy and ataity rates , thoughout each o the competing

~~~ je c.c2es, axe given on a consistent basis in ChapterV 5. CoacL wigues shown

asume 50' pPOductIon in s trp mining and 50' production in undevgxound mining.

The pjincpaZ sources o4 data on coaL cycLe injury and dataLty ates axe

!Dated beLow:

J. J. GalLaghex and L. W. Westexstom, "Coa2-B3tuminOws and Lignite" gu'eau

ol o'nes, 'inexaL Yeabook, 1970, Vepatment o Inteiox.

F. T. olayer, "CCoaZ -ne Fta.&tns in 1970," ZnexaL Indust'ry Suwveys,p. 12.

F. T. ':oye, "CoaL-' Line Inwjutes and Wo-'atime, ecembemx and AnnuaZ S nummar 

1970," ;LcneAaL Indus-t Sw'vef, p. 11.

!ati.onat Coa A socoat on, Pitunnous Coat Facts, 1970:

p. 82, "'anpowex and Satet("

p. 11, "Energy in the Seventies"

p. 18, "T anspportaton"

p. 91, "T xanv6portation'

"Injury Expe-'ience and WokZtime. in the .Mnevat Industres , 'inevALzs V&Yaxbook,

1968, p. 137.

Asociation o6 Amevican Ra~iPoads, Yeaxboolz o Raiuad Facts, 1972 ed., p. 24.

ationaZ Transpoatation Saiety oaxd , Fata yt en RaateA Suiace F'eigh-t

Txane po'tation, 1963 to 1968, 197, p. 10.

Tan potatLon Ar ocia on o Amexica, Txans po'utation Facts and T.endcs, 8th

Edition, Apit 1971, p. 14.

Injuy Rates by Industy, 1969, "UE-ect'u:c CompLies and Systerns," Bureau 5o6

LaboL Statistic, S0o. 389.

'Injury F enc ny Rates, Eectic, Gas, Santaxuj Sevw.ce _,_Statistica

Abstract o the U.S., 1970, p. 237.

See. ao ootnote. (13).

(28) Conventional cots exCLude costs of abateJCnt mea.sLUe5 e.g., suLLutLx emovaL,

cooking to wex, w6tcacc mne akid ecamatLon, etc. ConventionaZ costs

estimates o each o 6 the enexgy sy-sterms axe given in Chctapte 5. Th'ey axe

included in ths xepor't in order to shoL oughl y the doCtax compete tivenea

among the enexg 4yqstems and to provide xedueence points box the compaLson

o 6 conventionaL, abatement, and exteiutaL cos ts.

3-16
(29) See Section 4.10. Thee a e costs beyond the "abatement cost asociated

~ l th -instatation and ope'tation o a n'tua2 dnCaLt e'rt cooinq tovet, shown

elseiwhe e in the table. The man JO. component o, 4thi.s cost is consurmtive use.

o ! wate-t in the coot inq to' 'et, ,muted at 10 cents / 1000 galons.

(30) See section 4.9 and the Appendix.

(31)) Fo a 75 capaccit ac ton,

8 K~e it 9 K:.e 1000 'IKe x 10 x x8760 cn x 0.75 = 6.57 x Kt

Conventional Ene-gL Cost (GeneatLng), Coat--ited PoWePL Plant;

120 x 106x $/Vr x 103 mits/$ = 18.4 m~itZ/KW he

6.57 10' Khe/V-.

Hwnan nju j Cost, Coal-6ihted PowC) Plant

0.65 x 10$ 3 mit / = 0.099 mitts / Khe

6.57 x 10 Khe/VL.

Cthe Non-conventional Costs , Coal-(tted Power P an-t

1.5 x 10 6 x0 3 mi s $ = 0.23 nmits/KWhe

6.57 x 10 Khe/VI.

(32) See Appendix o6t quanti icat Oik on and use in the coal fue2 cjyce.

(33) A mo'te detaiLed diicuwss-on o4 coat cleaning and ptocsihn may be sound in

~OeLson, J. S. and R. J. FLanIzel ( Reoutes n 'ot the Futurte), Res Lduall anagement in '!innq Coat and P-toducinq PoeAt (1971 Pna1 t), page iT-16F.

There ae seveZ methods tot p oce ssinq coal. Tonnages p)oAesed bq vacvuious

t y pe s o equipment ate given by 1wteauL o; ,ines , 'i-ne'taP Veatboofz, 1969,

VoL. II, page 348:

Types o6 Equipment 1968 1969

(tmei-nts o Tons 

Wet 'ethods:

Jigs 159 155

Concentating Tables 47 45

C&.asz6i i-e'u 5 3

Launders 4 5

Ovens e. f'ediuwm Ptoce-s eae:

fagneite 71 72

Sand 27 24

Calcium Chlo-4ide 2 2

Feotation 9 10

Total, wet metitods 3T 3T

Pneumatic J.etho ds 17 19

Total bon at Hethods 341 335

(34) The 6ottowinq a.64umptions werLe made in obtaining the unit impact and

emssion data at the powret plant:

3-17
a. Heatinq value o4 coat -s 25 mi'fiJon i3tu peA ton.

b. Heat ute o the powex pLan-t s 8900 Btu/IWhe, yietd-ing about 2900 (zWhe

pet ton of coat.

C. Ash content 6 coat i 11%.*

d. SuQtu5 content o6 coa is 2.5 .**

e. Fo-' puwtpos es o j estimated t'ltace element concentCations in Lue qas, Che

xep-esentative pound o6 coaL is assumed to have 0.75 pounds o4 cabon

which, when buwned w-Lth 309 excess, atc, weuets in one cubic me-teA o

Lue gas at -standad tempexatuwe and ptessute and 100 glams o coaL burned.

* FLy ash emisLonCs to aZL assume q ash xetentiaon o4 ~99%:

Aslh Content: 0.11 tos sh x 2.3 x 1960ltns coaL = 250,000 "tans ash tons coat yeas YeaFZy Ash Retained: 0.99 x 250,000 .trsAh = 247,500 -nto sh

FLy Ash Emis ,on: 250,000 - 247,500 ~ 2,000otan h

yeas.

** SO2 emissions to a 'r. assume a sutuW retention o6 - 800:

tons S 6 tons coal 5 3 toons S

SuLdux content: 0.025 coaL tx2.3 xtons x 10 e = 58 x 10 ea

tons SO

SuX.u&' emissions : 24000 ye 2 0.5 =tonsS 12000 tons5S emitted

Cer ong SO2 Yeak'r

Su.Lux .e&ained: 0.8 x 58 x o10 3 tnsS = 46,000 o 'Sretained

YeaA YeaL

(Numb ei do not add exactly, due to rounding. 

(35) Data or no-tnmabized values elating to mine d-rainage weve obtained 4'rom the

- 6oLLtowng ounces :

Person and F'tanet, Reasidua2s Afanagement in 'tin ing Coat and P-toduci.ng

PoweA, RFF.

FedeIui Wa tex PoLution Cont'tL AdminiLt'tation, 'ine Vwt.naqe PoLLution

Con t'toL Reseatch and Devetopment P'tojee t, Pept. oj Ine-Lo't x(1968)

AppaLacJi.an Regional Comm-s s Lon, Acc-d .i ne VD-tainage in Appa achia (with

Appendices in 5 s epatate vo ume1 ) (1 9).

(36) CoaL ttanspontation and storage Lorsses >om DeLson and Fnke , p. 11-25.

(37) Some coaL powerA pLant 6P-ue gas ernssion data were obtained tom oLLowinq

s o uce-e,:

CO , SO and NO (as NO ) -- Deson and FtankeL, p. 11-27

C0~ lo.SnaLdehqdi, hydr'olavtbon4, and hqdr4ochtodtic ccd -

Smith, W. S. and C. W. Gr'uber, Atmosphe'tic Em4ssions tom CoaL

Combustion, An Invento-vj Guide, [HEW (Ap 1966)..iL 

Fy Ash -- "Midwest Res eatch Institute, "PatLcutaCe Poetutant System

Study, ('oL. I -- fais EmZssions,R" Pwtjeca 103326-C, page 50,

efson and F~tanzeX, page II-27.

Ano-thet sowuce -. o4 emrsns-ion data, on. aLL oas-L4. poLwutants i6 :

McGtaw, ' . J. and R. L. Dupr'ey, Compila Lon o Aitt Po-t~uant Emision

Facto~ts, EPA, TiangLe Paid:, N.C. (1971)

See aLso Footnote (34).

3-18
(38) EmZssioon4 of sRadioactivity t fom Coat-J 'ed Pove- Plants 

.s enbud, .'. aid 1!. 0C. Petrao', nadioactv Ltq rn the. Athmosph erc c iunts o6

Power PLLantS that Use FossiL FuedCs," Science, VoL. 144, page 288.

martinn, J. F. et.al., Compa is on oi ;adioacttivi ty rom FossiZ Fuel and

HJuclea Powet PLan ts," 6>om EnvQonmenta- EU eets o6 Producing E ectric

Po ee', Heaings Bedohe JCAE, 91t. Congress, Oct. Z8-Nov 7, 1969.

Aberneathy, R. F. and F. If. Gib-on, Wane FElements in Coal., Beau o6 Lines

In on'mation C'tcula 8163 (1963), pages 67, 62, 63; page 15; pages 13, 14;

page 11.

Jenson, H. '. Lf a nium in Coat in the Wes.te'n U.S., U.S. Geo. Suv. Butt.

1055, page 1.

(39) Emi Zions o4 T'a.ce etats {om Coal- 1Jtted PoLteJ TLants

a. .encunyJ

The average mecuryW content o 36 Amevican coals ana-lCized br a meVcWuIr

vapor detector -.s 3.3 ppm (Re 1 : Joenswi, 0.1., "Fos1 .U Fuehs a a

Souce. of IMecwuy Poftution," Science, June 4, 1971, p. 1027). The

e.s uLt may be on the Low bade. ecau6e o Losses in puni-ca-ti ton steps.

(From the results the author suggests that a conservative gfoobai value

o6 1 ppm 6 apptopn'iate sos the combustion o 3 biZlion tons o6 coaL.)

'o, t o the sample >autt4 ae in the hundreds o pants pe' bittion,

indicating perJap that Le than the average applies to coat ued in

the. U.S. A value o j 2 ppm is chosen or the. present study, giving

1.6 x 10~4 pounds pen mintion BTU in coal. See also Dehson and Fankel,

p. 11-34.

Amo-st al of the mercury is released in the. ue. gas. Ove. 90% was

releaA ed in iue gas according to a test on a coal- 4Zned powe plant

opecat ing at 660 MW on 21% ash coat containing 0.3 ppm mercury. Pei:

BiLing-, C. E. and W. R. Watson, "mercuryy Ermisions 6rom Coat

Combuwtion" Science. (June 16, 1972), p. .1232.

b. BeAyUium

An aveage ben.yeiaum content in coat o 2. 3 ppm .s >6eporOted by

Abernathy, R. F. and F. H. Gibson, Raue Elements in Coat, Bureau o

Uine- 1n o-'mation CZ'tcuia' 8163 (1963).

The Northern Gteat Plain s egionat vaue. 1.5 ppm, the eastern Znteoiton

and appatachian )'egions' value. s 2.5 ppm. Con.devation s given to ash

contents of about 13 ppm beytZLum o-t eastern and Znte.io't povince

coats (CAbertnathy, R. F., et.a., Spect'ochemicat Analyses o Coat As5h so

Thace. Flements, Report o Investigations 7 , Bueau o Wes,uy 99,

page. 4). Average a sh about 10% o6 dy coat so that benyqiZum content on

a coat bas LL s 1.3 ppm. The. average o6 the two souLce- Zs wounded o66 to

2 ppm.

Somewhat mote bevtyLum may be mobilized into the atmospherte tan covtte eponds

to the. >action o6 a6Sh which 6s emtted 6om the powe-r ptant stack.

Abevnathy and Gibson, (Bu Mines IC 8163), p. 15 express the. viewpoint the

"be ry twium now prtesent in the coat probably s a >resuLt o6 accumuation

by pLants and/or by ad6o-tptLon tom solution by the. o-ganic matteL in the

coat- owimng sewamps to So-tm metato-ortganic comptexesA." Thws, be.ytlium

s possibLy 'tefeas ed in coat combustion in a manner not d'teectPy ass ociated

wZith coat ash content. Assuming that bet,'LiLum is >released 6>tom the. vitu'i.n

3-19
as molecu tvL oxide, it wouid be captured by avaiabee 'utace, which might

we2t be. mostq the. vvj yine. ah pattices which, pe.taentia Cy escape

etectostat c ptecipitation.

In as singing the bevLicfLum stack he ease >ate in the. pes en t stud'f, 2 p

ben'tqtLum in coat concet'Lton and a 6 to 1>teduction (nc2udin ~ 90%

ash >tecvty) ate assumed, eadinq to a staciz eease. >ate. o about

3 x 10~pounds pent miCtLon TU in coat.

C. A~s enica

The. aesrec >eteease rates o coat-butning powe,t pants axe based on 5 ppm

in coa, a r<oJtZd-wtide aveage given by Betine, K. K. and E. V. Golidbe.g,

"Fossi FueZ Combustion and the. 'fajor. Sedimentaty Cycle," Science, 173,

July 16, 1971, page 233. .eagct data in Abemnathy and Gibson u ,d es IC

8163) pac es 13, 14 ate consistenteAt wth this average.

/l o, indo-tmation 6tom Abtenetthy ( u ines Repot o Investigation

7281) appears to be consistent t with the 5 ppm average.

Aus enic. is g-'ouped wZLth eeementA Sound in many but not aLt o 6 most

ash ampA2eAs. The samples with 100 to 200 ppm o at enc account

6o>n most o6 the samples witjt asen~i p'res ent. Thus, on a coaL basis,

10-to 20 ppm may be in, say, 50 o -othe coat ot 5 to 10 ppm as an

average. ok> aitse nic content. One haf o the. ats enic as asumed to

escape in the Llue gas. With these. assumptions, the stack emission

>tate is about 2.3 x 10~4 pounds pe.t mLion BTU in coaL.

d. O JzeA ttace. elements

Concent'uttons in coat o6 -ttace eeme.nut not dis cusse d above wvte

taken 6'om Abenathy, et.a., Spect'tochem-icaZ Anayses o Coa

Ash 6ont Ttace. Elements, BuLeau o -ines epott o Invesqtqat ons

#7281 (Juy 1969) and AbVne-th and Gibson, Raxte Elements in Coa,

Bureau o6 lines Into'tmation Circular8 163 (1963) page 11.

e. Summarty

The table be.oc wsumra zes the. tace. element emi.s-ion coel.Ziie.nts

o6 t uacemetae3 established bon.thbis study.

EZe.ment Conce nttaton Stack EmisAion

in Coat (ppm) (pound'/mltion BTU

in coaL)

Aktesntc 5 2.3 x 10

Ba~tvum 64 5 x 10

Bey tium 2 3 x 10-5-4

Borton 55 4.4 x 104

Ch'tomium 20 1.6 x 10_4

Cobalt 12 1.0 x 10_4

Coppet 12 1.0 x 1

GaLLum 5 4 x 10 -5

Germanium 8 6.4 x

Lanthanium 10 8 x 10-5

Lead 9 1 x 10_4

Lithium 40 3 x 10

'.fanganes e 30 2.4 x 10_4

Me1cwruy 2 1.6 x 1

Mo2 ybdenum 6 5 x 10-

Neodymium 4 3 x 10

3-20
JiCL-20 1.6 x 1 -4

Niobium 4 3 x 10~

ubidium 25 2 x 1045

Samaium 1.6 1.5 x 10-5

Scat dcium S 6.4 x x 

Seteeniwn 3 3 x 104

Stontium o5 7 x 10-5

T;in 2 1.6 x 1i Tttan4iw1n 400 3 x 10

CLeium 5 4 x 10-54

Vanadium 33 2.6 x 10_4

Yttcium 12 1.0 x

Zinc 40 3 x 10_4

Zinconium 76 6 x 10

(40) Bottom ash in coat- fitted pot!en pants :

Oeao;n, J. K. and . J. FanketC, cAlduaL; managementt in ."inti Coat

and Ptoducinq PotweA, oesounces 6on tie Fu ue (197 1), pa e T-27.

(41) Waste storage a rea at a coal-4ijted power ptant. - The ash ds&posa2 tequiAement eon Common'eaLth Edison's Kincaidptlant s

assumed to be typical. 2c .: Jone is, . E. and P. F. Scheibet, "Kincaid

StationP esenvoiL Vevetopment and PZant design Features, " Phoe. o Ame.

Po've. Con., Vo.e. 28 (1966), pane 370.

Fo Kincaid, 33 mi tZion tons o' ash equ%'te 560 aces on about 60,000 tons

pe acke. Fo& - 300,000 tons o ash pen year s e 1000 .'e ptan(t (50,000

tonas bottom as1 peuw ~ 250,000 tons oh eottected ;(y ah), about 5 acten pe

years arve equi'ed.

(42 ) ebon, J. K. and P. J. Fanze2, esiduaL Tanagement in .'Vinung Coal and

P'Loduci.ng Pother, resouces o the Ftute (1971), p. 11-25.

Land dstu'bance 4wigu'es assume 50* p roduction nom strip mining and 50%

production ,'om wde'g-ound moving.

(43) See ChapteA 5 o6 th&s epo-t.

(44) Cccupationa Hi health

The most p'omLnant oceupationat health hazard in the coat uezt eq e

is coat wodkev pniewlocoios-is ol "btacf tunq". &Leh s studies I have

estimated the -ncidenst >ate o6 the disease e in typ-cat coat dst concentlaation :

2 cases/1000 man ean. The. nvetse poductivtt in undeng'ound coat mining

is about 2.5 x 10~ man-yrs. /ton og coat. Assuming that hats o coat mined

bo the tepes en tative 1000 MW e power pant comes Aom undengound mines (~1.2

mrnL&on tonss ~0.5 x 2.3 mittion tons), the expected numbeA o cas es associated

wiL th annual ueC lequi%'ements o the tant is ~0.6.

The advanced stage o6 the disease (massive ibrosis) occu s with an incidence

rate about 100 times ess. Thus, -the cov enpondin aute ;on massive fibrosis

_ about 0.006.

See Section 4.6.

(45) The const'uction oj Figune 3.1 (U.S. P'oduccton and iVspos-ition o

Bituminous Coat, 1970) was not stnai'ghtoivatd. The .Nationat Coat

Assoc iation (NCA), Bituminous CoaL Vata, 1971 ed., repot s production

3-21
{igues a(te cleaning operation. They do not ist goss, mnninq production.

The. action o6 coal cleaned is given by NCA a 3the exaction: cleaned

coal/net production (4tet cleaning).

In Fiwgue 3. 1, numbeu indicated toZth one aztei s&z (*) wee taken diPectZy

6tom the NCA tabu&ations. Other s-6gutews eVe. n{e.i ed, as howln beeotw. ALL

6Ligures ate in units o mittions o6 tons o coat, and tLe6L to the yeah 1970.

a. Net Production: 603* (p. 8, NCA, Bituminous Coa Data, 1971 ed.)

b. Raw0 CoaC to Ceaning P-Pant: 427* (p. 63)

c. Coat Obtained in Ceaning : 324* (p. 63)

d. C eaninq Loss ens: 103

e. Percent o6 TPoduction Cleaned: 53.6* (= c/a) (p. 9)

6. Coat not cleaned: a - c = 279

g. Gro5s P'oduction: A + b = 1+c+d= a+d =706

h. Go s production igwr'es by method (widegyownd, angeL, t'uLp) oee

obtained by tatio gtom N!CA's net production iWutes ('p. 13). This assumes

that the same 6tactons o g o p-roduction b'f each method ape cleaned.

.i.. The dscepancy beteen NCA's net production Aiqute (603, p. 8) and their.

domestic consumption pusw expor-t fLqLue. (588, p. 8) is appaten.tl a net

to .inventory.

j. Consumption by e.e-citxiutiitie: 32.1* (p. 77)

!. Totat domestic consumption: 5V7* (p. 9) . Other than elecbc utiLt y usee: f - j = 196

m. Expo-t: 71* (p. 9)

3.3 THE RESIDUAL FUEL OIL CYCLE

The U.S. Petroleum Industry and Electricity from residual Fuel Oil

In 1970, power plants firing residual fuel oil (RFO) supplied about 12% of the

electricity consumed in the U.S., including hydro-electricity. flf the thermal

plants oil-fired generators accounted for about 14% of the electricity produced.(--

Although the relative contribution of RFO to electric power production is expected

to diminish - after 1900 (about 14% in 1930, and 9% in 1lWO), the gross demand

by utilities for RFO may continue to increase due to increasing total electrical

energy demand. (18)

Complexity of the Petroleum Industry

In several respects, the RFO fuel cycle for the production of electrical energy

is more difficult to analyze (for the purposes of this study) than those of coal

and nuclear fuels. RFO production and disposition must be regarded in the

context of the entire petroleum industry. Figure 3.3 displays the U.S. consumption of petroleum, including utility RFO, and sources of supply for the year

1970. The complexity of the industry is evident from this figure.

The petroleum industry is a multi-product industry. RFO is but one of a large

number of energy and nonenergy products of petroleum refineries; indeed, RFO

is generally considered a byproduct, if not a waste product, of U.S. refineries.

3-22
TOTAL RFO AVAILABLE ELEC. UTILITIES 0.309

FOR DOMESTIC ENEUTUCIITIMS0.3N

CRUDE OIL 4.006 DOMESTIC RFO HEOANNGMPLTI.18 HEATING OILS 0.187 PRODUCTION REFINING 0.258 0.796 3.518 RFOz

RFO EXPORTS IMPORTS INDUSTRIAL 0.138 O

E

O THE R R EFIN. 0.020 0.558 VESSELS 0.087 PRODUCTS V) 0

3.748 zuCRUDE CRUDE L -- - -+e-- -. - -- -- ----- , OILCO.FUEL 0.03908 EXPORTS IMPORTS OTHER REFIN. I UO

0.005 0.483 \ / PRODUCTS I E AVAILABLE FOR I MILITARY 0.028 EXPORTS% /DOMESTIC 1I

0.021 IMPORTS CONSUMPTION RAILROADS 0.002 0.133 3.860

MISC. 0.015

C DOM. CONSUMPTION OF OTHER

REFINERY PRODUCTS Z

0

IOTHER REFINERY w

PRODUCTS z

FOREIGN w

CRUDE OIL FOREIGNZa

PRODUCTION RF0IN

NOTE: ALL FIGURES ARE IN UNITS OF BILLIONS OF 42-GALLON BARRELS. FIGURES MAY NOT BE

ADDITIVE DUE TO ROUND-OFF, NET CHANGES IN STOCK AND LOSSES. LIQUIFIED NATURAL

GAS (LNG) IS EXCLUDED. THIS FLOW SHEET WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM DATA TABULATED IN

ANNUAL STATISTICAL REVIEW, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE (MAY 1972).

SEE FOOTNOTE (22).

FIG. 3.3 U. S. CONSUMPTION AND SOURCES OF SUPPLY OF

RESIDUAL FUEL OIL (RFO), 1970
Costs and impacts in the petroleum industry, up to and including the refinery

step, should be distributed appropriately among the multitude of petroleum

products. The correct procedure for so burdening RFO is not clear, since RFO

commonly has sales values lower than crude oil. Similarly, many wells produce

both crude oil and natural gas. The correct procedure for dividing costs and

impacts between the two is not established.

A further difficulty in analyzing the RFO fuel cycle is that significant fractions

of crude oil and refinery products are imported. Foreign production and refinery

technologies and practices may vary considerably from domestic technologies and

practices. It is not clear how, if at all, domestic consumption of RFO (and other

petroleum products) should be burdened with environmental impacts incurred abroad.

Other complicating features are: the complexity of corporate structure in the

petroleum industry, the varying degrees of corporate integration in the petroleum

fuel cycle(s); legal, regulatory and subsidy conditions affecting the industry,

such as prorationing, the oil import program, and depletion allowances; the hinh

degree of substitutability of petroleum products, and the ability of the industry

to respond to short-term changes in market conditions; and the inherent complexity

and sophistication of the industry's technology.

Characteristics of RFO and the General Pattern of RFO Supply for U.S. Consumption

The production, refining and transportation of the oil consumed in the generation

of electric power forms a pattern that has characteristics distinct from the

rest of the petroleum industry in the United States. The particular grade of oil

usually burned at power plants is known as residual fuel oil (RFO) since it cones

from the residue that is left behind after the lighter fractions have been distilled

during the first step of refining. (-1 Residual fuel oil 's low heating value and

thick consistency make it undesirable for use in transportation and home heating

markets, which constitute the major part of the !.S. consumption. Consequently,

its sales value is traditionally below that of the crude oil from which it came.

This low price ;makes residual attractive to utilities and other industrial users

who burn fuel in sufficient quantities to justify the additional capital expenditures for the added equipment needed to handle residual. The U.S. refiners, on

the other hand, regard it as a waste product and attempt to convert as much of it

as possible to more profitable forms such as gasoline and petroleum coke. Thus,

the yield of RFO per barrel of crude oil has dropped to below 10%, and will continue

to fall as U.S. refineries install more complex processing equipment.(-)

3-24
In the absence of an adequate supply of domestic RF0, the bulk of it comes from

foreign sources, predominantly refineries situated in the Caribbean which process

crude from Venezuela. In 1970, the Venezuela/netherlands Antilles area supplied

about 28% of imported crudes, about 65" of imported heavy fuel oils, about 39%

of imported other petroleum products, and about 46% of all imported petroleum.(23)

Caribbean refineries "ield 50 to 60% PFO per barrel of crude. (2) partly because

Venezuela petroleum tends to have a higher residuum content than that from U.S.

wells, and partly because the economic situation in the region permits the

construction of relatively simle refineries that can produce ^F0 profitably.

other characteristic that sets CFO apart from other petroleum fuels is its

viscosity, which is so great that it is not economical to transport ''F0 by

pipeline for areat distances. Economics also work aaainst other modes of

overland transportation such as trucks and tank cars. As a result, it is

used primarily at locations that are accessible by water transportation. The

consumption of "FO is concentrated in the Fastern seaboard and to a much lesser

extent the Pacific and Gulf Coasts.

fence the general pattern of the residual fuel oil industry consists of production

of crude oil in Venezuela, refining and desulfurization in Caribbean refineries,

transportation by tankers to east coast ports, where it is distributed to nearby

industrial consumers. Electric utilities consume about 39% of the total (See

Figure 3.3). '322

Prigins of Petroleum

The exact origin of petroleum has not been entirely resolved although the evidence

points to organic material such as plant and animal remains that have come into

contact with salt water. After being covered over in sediment, this material is

changed into oil by the action of heat and pressure. In some cases, the oil may

remain finely dispersed through the source rock. In nore favorable conditions the

rock is porous enough to permit the oil to migrate through the strata until it

collects in suitable geological formations to form pools. The oil bearing deposits

in Venezuela are primarily limestone dating from 50-100 million years, and the

most productive fields are located in the Lake Maracaibo basin and the coastal area

around the Orinoco River delta. 

3-25
Crude Petroleum and Inferred 'FO Resource Oases

U.S. Petroleum Resources

Estimated U.S. crude oil reserves available at current prices and technology are

about 460 billion barrels, including offshore fields. (24 Presently, the yield of

RF0 in domestic refineries is about 6% (see Fig. 3.3). Assuming that this yield

persists indefinitely, the domestic resource base of RFO is tentatively set near

27 billion barrels. Carrying this extrapolation further, the electric utility

portion of this (based on 1970 consumption patterns, Fig. 3.3) is about 10 billion

barrels. Similarly, ultimate U.S. crude oil resources are estimated to be about

2800 billion barrels, or potentially 165 billion barrels of RFO.(?.) With current

consumption patterns, this would correspond to about 65 billion barrels available

for electricity generation.

Foreign Petroleum Resources

A significant fraction of petroleum consumed in the U.S. is imported. Figure 3.3

shows(20) that about 24% of the petroleum used in the U.S. in 1970 came from foreign

sources. This figure includes imported refinery products (including RFO) and

imported crude. Similarly, about 72% of the U.S. RFO consumption was provided by

imported RFO together with RFO from imported crude refined domestically.

Furthermore, oil import rates are expected to rise significantly in the future.

The National Petroleum Council estimates that over 50% of the oil consumed in the

U.S. in 1985 will come from foreign sources.(21 Because of the importance of

foreign supply, it is important to consider foreign reserves in measuring petroleum

resources presumed available for U.S. consumption.

A major source of both crude oil and refinery products for U.S. use is Venezuela,

as noted above. Current known and probable crude reserves there are estimated at

69 billion barrels.(4 With an RFO yield in Caribbean refineries of 60%, this

amount of crude represents an RFO resource base of about 41 billion barrels. The

ultimate resource base in Venezuela has been estimated at 800 billion barrels, or

potentially 480 billion barrels of RF0.( 1

Other foreign sources directly contributing to the U.S. RFO supply are in Africa,

principally Nigeria and Libya. Crude oil from these nations is shipped to Caribbean

refineries where it is refined into low sulfur RFO, among other products. The

combined proven reserves of these two countries is 36 billion barrels or potentially

22 billion barrels of RFO.(14 The ultimate resource base may be 1100 billion barrels

of crude, or equivalently, 650 billion barrels of RFO.

3-26
The RFO Fuel Cycle for Electric Power Production

Steps in the RFO fuel cycle for the production of electrical energy are crude oil

production, oil storage and transportation, refining, and electrical energy

generation. Production includes exploration, drilling, and production (pumping)

activities. Figure 3.4 displays a materials balance for a representative modern

RFO-fired power plant and its supporting fuel cycle.

The crude oil refinery inputs shown in Figure 3.4 have been determined on a

BTU-equivalent basis and represent only that portion of refinery input attributable

to residual fuel oil production. The numbers of foreign and domestic producing

wells shown in the diagram are based upon present United States and Venezuelan

well outputs of 18.5 and 370 barrels per day. If crude supplies from Persian

Gulf countries were utilized, considerably fewer wells would be required. For

example, at current levels of output, only six Kuwait producing wells are necessary

to support the foreign crude oil stream.

Crude Oil Production

Oil is removed from the ground at wells. The rate of flow from a given well depends

upon numerous factors including the viscosity of oil, its distribution in the strata,

the porosity of the oil-bearing rock, and the pressure in the pool. Generally, not

all the oil contained in a reservoir can be extracted; between 20 to 80% may remain

after the natural driving pressure on the reservoir is exhausted. The fraction

left behind depends upon a number of variables including well spacing and the

amount drawn from each well. Additional secondary production from a depleted

reservoir can be achieved by pumping water or gas down into the reservoir to

restore the driving force.

As old wells are exhausted, new ones must be drilled, both to extend existing fields

and to develop new ones. The almost universal technique of drilling uses a special

bit rotating at the bottom of a line of steel pipe. The actual cutting is done by

an abrasive fluid that circulates down through the pipe. The fluid cools the drill

bit and then returns to the surface, carrying with it the rock cuttings.

There are a number of potential environmental hazards associated with oil production.

The drilling fluid, or "mud", contains chemical agents that may be a source of water

pollution. The brine that is often found in association with oil deposits may also

be a pollutant. When the well strikes oil, there is the hazard of explosions and

fire. After the well goes into production, oil leaks and spills can occur that

3-27
BASIS: ANNUAL OPERATION OF 1000 MWe POWER PLANT AT 75% C. F.

6.57 x 10 KWH

CRUDE RFO

DOMESTIC 106 BBL 9.1 x 106 BBLS1000 MWe

PRODUCTION T-REFINING 2 POWER PLANT

(140 WELLS)

O L SPILL

ACCIDENTS:

STORAGE 1500BBL

EVAPORATION BALLAST

LOSS: 410 TONS DISCHARGE

360 BBL

WASTEWATER

EFFLUENTS:

OIL: 35 BBLS

PIPELINE BOD: 140 TONS

00 SPILLS:

540 BBLS RESIDUALS IN TONS

EMISSIONS:

PARTICULATES 3 1.5 x 10 2

FOREIGN CO 2 4.5 x 106

PRODUCTION REFINING22 3

(70 WELLS) 9.0x 106 BBLS1SO 2 21 x 10

CRUDE NO 8.7 x 103

SOLID WASTE:

ASH 1.4 x 103

1PORTION OF REFINERY INPUT ATTRIBUTABLE TO RESIDUAL FUEL OIL PRODUCTION:

CALCULATED ON A Btu EQUIVALENT BASIS.

2 RESIDUAL FUEL OIL YIELD OF U. S. REFINERIES, 10%; FOREIGN REFINERIES, 40 TO 50%.

3ASSUMES A 90% COLLECTION EFFICIENCY FOR ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS.

FIG. 3.4 THE RFO CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION
may cause serious environmental impacts. Drilling and production is the most

dangerous part of the cycle, based on U.S. experience. The fatality rate in the

production steps is ten times higher than the other steps of the cycle. In some

areas, so much fluid has been removed from underground that the land has subsided.

Refining

Most refining to RFO for U.S. consumption takes place in several large refineries

sited in Venezuela and nearby Caribbean islands, namely Trinidad, Aruba and

Curacao. There the crude oil is heated and distilled into individual components.

The residual yield of the typical refinery averages about 50%.(6 The distillate

products undergo little or no further processing; in some installations, on the

order of ten percent of the throughput goes through cracking to increase the yield

of lighter products, but generally speaking, the major sources of RFO are much

simpler installations than those in the U.S., which produce primarily gasoline

and other light distillates.

Venezuelan crude tends to have a high sulfur content, and most of it ends up in

the residual fraction after distillation. The limits on sulfur content that have

been imposed by the U.S. as an air pollution control measure make it necessary to

reduce the sulfur level in the residual before it can be used. The simplest

method consists of blending Venezuelan RFO with low sulfur residual from other

regions, principally Libya and Nigeria. However, most of the refineries in the

Caribbean are installing desulfurization plants in order to avoid reliance on

Eastern Hemisphere producers.(-

Desulfurization of all of the residual oil is impractical because the trace quantities

of metals such as vanadium and nickel that are present will contaminate the

catalyst used in the process. Instead, the residuum is put through a vacuum

distillation unit, in which a fraction of it is distilled off, () leaving the

trace metals behind in the remaining fraction. This distillate is then treated

to yield a minimum sulfur content, and the two fractions are reconbined, producing

an overall sulfur level that meets the legal restrictions.

Refinery operations generate a multitude of pollutants. Air pollution comes

both from burning fuel in the boilers to provide heat for various processes and

from hydrocarbon vapors emitted from the petroleum being treated. Water

pollution results from process water as well as oil leaks. In addition, a

large amount of cooling water is needed. Some processes result in heavy sludge

formation which constitutes a solid waste disposal problem.()

3-29
Storage and Transportation

The tankers used to transport the RFO from the refinery to the consumer are usually

specially designed for the purpose, and have heatin coils to reduce the viscosity

of the oil. These residual tankers are small compared to the super tankers that

carry Middle East crude: 50,000 deadweight tons compared to 300,000 for the super

tanker.

The amount of RFO imported daily on the Eastern Seaboard is currently about

1,500,000 barrels per day and utilities are assumed to account for 39% of this or

590,000 barrels per day. This is equivalent to 93,000 tons/day or approximately

two tanker loads per day. There is a potential for oil skills due to this traffic,

both from ordinary operations such as transfers between ship and shore, and bilge

and tank cleaning, and from major accidents. Statistics suggest that at least one

major tanker accident per year may occur in this traffic and it will most probably

happen near shore. Aside from making beaches unusable for recreation purposes,

spilled oil kills marine life and water fowl.

Electricity Generation

RFO currently supplies about 15% of the energy used in steam electric power plants.

Following the enactment of strict air pollution regulations, utilities with coalfired power plants in urban areas have shown a trend to conversion to oil. On a

nationwide average, a gallon of residual fuel oil will generate 13 kwhrs.(10 )As

with other steam-electric plants, oil-fired systems must discard approximately

60% of the fuel's energy content as waste heat. Ten percent of the heat produced

by oil combustion is carried off by the exhaust gases, the remainin 50% is rejected

to the condenser cooling system which may use either a body of water or a cooling

tower as a heat sink.

Air pollutants emitted by oil includes sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulates. Compared to pollutants released from coal, oil emits roughly equal amounts

of nitrogen oxides per BTU, about one-quarter the amount of SO2, and one hundredth

the amount of particulates, all prior to control devices. These three pollutants

are judged to be the most hazardous to human health and to be the cause of

extensive property damage, although quantitative relationships between levels of

concentration in the air and the resulting impact have not yet been firmly

established. In addition, oil combustion releases small amounts of hydrocarbons

that may have cancer causing potential. Finally, residual fuel oil, especially

from Venezuela, has significant amounts of trace metals, notably vanadium and

3-30
nickel. These metals are known to be hazardous in sufficiently large concentrations,

but at the levels of exposures due to fossil fuel combustion, there appears to be

no danger. (11)

Because RFO is the result of chemical processing at a refinery, it is feasible to

reduce air pollution from RFO by chemical treatment of the fuel before combustion

to remove the sources of pollutants such as sulfur. As mentioned earlier, an extra

refining step can be added to reduce the sulfur content to suitable levels. However, this added treatment increases the fuel cost by approximately 504 per barrel.

Some utilities have found it preferable to convert coal-fired boilers to burn this

low sulfur oil, rather than install stack gas cleanup devices to control the

emissions from coal combustion. (13)

The ash disposal problem from oil-fired power plants is negligible in comparison

to that of coal.

Among possible technological developments that may affect the future of RFO as an

electric utility fuel are lower cost techniques for desulfurization. Also being

researched are methods of reducing its viscosity to permit piping(14 it over long

distances, thus allowing its use farther inland. Another possibility is the

production of synthetic liquid fuel from coal.

The major question concerns the adequacy and reliability of future RFO supplies.

Estimation of oil reserves tends to be inaccurate; however, it appears that in

contrast to the situation in the United States, overall world reserves will be

adequate to meet future needs. The fact that almost all RFO comes from foreign

sources introduces a great deal of uncertainty due to political and diplomatic

complications. Petroleum imports have a significant impact on U.S. balance of

payments. The U.S. Oil Import Quota system has been important in establishing the

current petroleum industry patterns. Also, in the past oil supplies have been

seriously disrupted by wars in the Middle East and Civil War in Nigeria. The

major oil producing countries, which have historically worked at cross purposes

and tried to undercut each other, have recently joined to form a solid front in

negotiating crude oil prices with the major international oil companies. The

result has been higher taxation and partial nationalization of company assets.(15

Unit Impacts and Costs

Table 3.2 displays representative conventional costs (1980 dollars), abatement

3-31
TABLE 3.2

ANNUAL EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe RFO-FIRED POWER PLANT AND ITS

SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Production

Conventional Costs (106$)

(1980 dollars)

Fuel

Plant Capital

0&M

Rounded Total

Abatement Costs (106$) (1980dol1ars)

Cooling Towers

Desulfurization

Rounded Total

Occupational Accidents

Non-Fatal Injuries

Man-days Lost

Air Pollutant Emissions (10' to

Particulates

S02

NOx

CO

CO2

Hydrocarbons

Aldehydes

Radioactive releases (10-6 Ci)

Ra-226

Ra-228

Waste later Effluents

Saltwater brine (109 bbls)

Oil (bbls)

Spills

Pipeline loss

Operational Discharge

BOD (tons)

Solid Waste, ash (103 tons)

Thermal Discharge (1010 kwht)

Stack Heat Discharge

Fuel Consumption

Crude Oil (106 bbls) 6

Residual Fuel Oil (10 bbls)

0.063

7.5

735

ns)

(26)

(27)

Refininn

Basis: 6.57

(one

Transportation

& Storage

Billion Kilowatt-hours

year operation @ 75% CF)

Power

Plant

180

47

4.0

237--

5.9

4.6

0.042

3.0

420

0.030

1.1

220

0.06

0.09

0.3

0.41

0.037

1.5

350

0.15

21

8.7

7.5

4500

0.93

0.19

150

380

20

Totals

180

47

4.0

5.9

4.6

0.172

13.1

1725

0.21

21

9.0

7.5

4500

1.3

0.19

150

380

20

35

140

1500

540

360

1500

540

400

140

1.4

0.87

0.17

9.2

92

0.87

0.17

9.2

Land Use

Land Inventory

Annual Incremental

(28)

(acres) 1424

(acres/yr) S

a Land use associated with storage of

power plant figures.

petroleum and RFO is included in the production, refining, and

75

S

80

S

1579
costs (1980 dollars), and environmental and human impact data associated with the

annual operation of one 1000-MWe RFO-fired power plant and its supporting fuel

cycle.

Footnotes and Resenence4 Son Section 3.3 - The Rea&iduao FueZ Oil Cycte

(1) Southwest Legal Foundation, E xpoa.tion and Economics o6 the Pet'oteum

Indust y, Matthew Bendert & Co., MY, NY (19691), TabLe 3, page 186.

(2) O Lcina de Economia PetLoe'a, Pexoteo V 'Otto DatoS Estandisticos

1969, Ca aca 

(3) NationaL Coat Association, 8ituminou. Coat Data, 1971 Edition,

Washington, D. C. (1972).

(4) See (2), (6), (22.1), (22.2).

(5) L.ieuwen, Edwin, Pet'toteum in Venezueea - A History, RubseLU & RunseUt,

NY (1954), page Z.

(6) Cweoee Pet otum Conp., Data on Pet.'oteum and Economy o 4 Venezuela, ~ Caiaca (1971), page 18.

See also (2).

(7) Hutchinson, K. E., "Big 1 the Word don C'reole's New Desullunize.t at

Amuay, " Won'rd Petnoteum, (Jan. 1971).

(8) Nationat PetAoteum Council, Env itonmentat Conse'vation, Vol. 1 (1971) 

page 95.

(9) Beychok, Milton, Aqueous Wastes (tom Pet'totewm and Pet'ochemical

Plants,, WZLLiam C owes Sons, Lnon BeccLea , G teat &'tita.n

TT967T, page 267.

(10) Edison ELect'ac Ivnstitute, Statistical Yea Boob, o6 the Elec t'i.c - UtiLity I ndustry don 1971, NY, NY {197?).

(11) McG'.aw, M. J. and R. L. Dupey, Compilation o6 AZ'L PoLtutant Emission

Factord, EPA, Thaiangte Pack, N.C. (1971).

(12) Fedeat Power Comm ssion, The 1970 Nationat Powe. Suvey, Pant II,

USGPO, Washington, D.C., page 11-4-18.

(13) Reountces ot the Futwte, EneJtgy Reeatch Needs -- A Report to the

National Science Foundation, (971), pages 1-18, 19.

(14) See (22.1), (22.2).

(15) Resouwce& So the Futue, EngResearch Needs -- A Repoat to the

NationaX Science Foundation,-(9711, pages X-84, 

(16) Resen to Fig. 1.2 o6 this >tepo't, based on:

Ea.tL Cook, "The FLow o6 EneAgy in an IndusttiaL Society," ScientiZic

American (Sept. 1911) and

NaViiTaI etoteum Council (1971), U.S. Energy Outlook.

3-33
(17) Federal Power Commission, The 1970 NationaL Power Survey, Pott 1 (Dec. 1971),

page 1-1-19, Tabte 1.4.

(18)) Ibid, p. 1-1-20, TabLe 1.5.

(19) Crude petoteum cons6its o6 a m xtuwte o seve' al thousand hydnocabon

compounds o6 various moLecuLav weights and hydrogen-carbon natios. The

compounds with the Lowest speciZic gnavity tend to have the highest heating

vatue due to a higher hydrogen content. The boiZing point o6 each compound

is related to its speci4ic gavicty, and this act is used to sepaate the

crude into p'Loducis o j a given spec4Lc gnavcty, such as gasoline ot dies e

uel, by ditiltation at selected boil ng tempeLatuwes4. Above 600F, most

hydocaxbons start to decompose; thus it i6 general pactice in 4elijne4Zes to

keep the maximum tempe'tatuxe o6 the crude below this tmit in the Zn t aL

disttation process, ete ied to as eactivation o topping. The 6taction

that does not evaporate at this tempe'atuwe is the souwcee o 6Lesidual dueL

oil. For some extremely heavy Venezuelan cnudes, the nation that Aema in6

as esZdual at 550 F is 90 pe'tcent in contrast to less than 30% 6o some

U.S. &zude.

(20) Pe%'oteum I mporuts

F actLon6 o6 U.S. pe%'oteum consumption j4om imports are computed below.

Refer, to Figue 3.3, which wa con6ttucted 6om 1970 data presented in

API, Annual Statistical Review: U.S. Petroleum Industiy Statistics

1956-1971, (May 1972).

AU numb e.s ae in units o6 biLlions o6 42-gallon bawheLs,

. U.S. Domestic Consumption

RFO 0.196 (A)

Other Re6neny Products (ORP) 3.860 (8)

Total 4.~5(C)

. Impont6 (Net)

RFO 0.558 - 0.02 = 0.538 (a)

ORP 0.133 - 0.021 0.112 (b)

Total 0.5- (c)

Crude 0.483 - 0.005 - 0.478 (d)

Apportion imported crude to U.S. 4ejineyq products :

0.065 x 0.478 - 0.03107 (e)

.538 (a)

0.569 (6) E66ective RFO Import.

(1-0.065)x 0.478 - 0.447 (g)

.112

03W5 (h) E6jective ORP Impot.

Total Import - (6)+(h) - 1.128 (Z)

. Import F'taction6

Total Petloteum, (Z)/(C) 24% (j)

RFO, ()1/(A) 72% (k)

Othe' Red. P'od. (h)/(8) 15% ()

3-34
(21) NationaX PetLoeum CouncZL, U.S. Enegy Outloo k: An InitiaL App'aL at

1971-1985, (July 1971), pageT-.

(22) Contw.uction o4 Fig . 3.3, U.S. Consumption and Sounce6 o g Supply o g

~~ esAdual ue A..

Fig. 3.3 wau contacted nom 1970 data given in or derived xom the

Amenican Petoteum Institute 4e6e ence (22.1). Numbe s may not add exactly,

due to wounding. Re etencec (22.2), (22.3), (22.4), (22.5) ae othext ounces

o6 stati4.Lc 4eLating to pet oteum production, LeAZning, and consumption.

(22.1) Amenican Pettoteum Intitute,

Annual Sta .ZticaL Review: U.S. PetwoLeum Indutty

Statitic1 1956-1977, (May 1972).

(2 2.2) American Petioteum Insti tte,

Pe t'oteum Facto and Figue6, 1971 Edition, (May 1971).

(22.3) Bueau o6 Minea, U.S. Dept. o the Inten'io , Intemnationat

Peboteum Annual, 1970, (Match 1972).

(22.4) Nationat Coat Asocca ti on, Bituminous Coat Data, 1971

- ~ Edition (May 1972).

(22.5) Ceote Pet'oteum Co'poxation, Data on PettoLeum and Economy o

Venezuela 1970, (July 1971).

(23) Regeence (22.5), page 26.

Re eence (22.5)) ,used hexe because the API (22.1, 22.2) di ptays only the

exude oitu mpo't6 by cowty o origin (22.1 p.9- ' 7 mpot o elinexy

pnwduct6 and RFO axe not pesented by cowuty o6A oign.

(24) U.S. Ctude Oil Resouce6

The Aiguwe of 460 bilLton baxueLd of U.S. cude, available at cu'ent p'uice6

and technology, was obtained 6xom 4edexence (24.1)., a 6tooW6:

U.S. CAude Oil Re6ouwces

(bi..lion bavtel6)

OnShoie O Shoe TotaLs

Proved Res exwes 34 5 39

Indicated 4es exve plus

undi&coveted e&ouAce6

pxoducible with cunxent

economics and technoLogy 246 171 411

~ 0~17 6~ 456

The uttimate U.S. &e.6ounce Ligwme o6 2800 biZlion ba vtet o6 exude was

obtained 'tom e6. (24.1), as otlowj6:

3-35
U.S. Caude Oil Reaouces

(billion bacveLZ 

OnShoxe O 6shoe Totals

Available with cumJent

economics and technology 280 176 456

UndZscovered e oucee not

di covexable and discovered

'esouwce not producibte

undev cuvent economics and

technology 1100 1180 2280

~T ~T333273~

Souxce:

(24.1) U.S. Dept. o InteoAior, U.S. Energy: A Surnmaq Review,

(Jan. 1972) p. 27.

(2_5) Oil and Ga Journal, (Decembex 27, 1971).

(26) See ChapteA 5 o6 this repot.

(21) Occupationa lInjuries in the RFO Cycle

Raw statistics eLating to injuries in the oil and natural gas indust'ties

were taken cxom elevence (27.1).

Seve'taZ diZ.icuies ate encountered in assigning injutie6 to a unit o

elects.cta energ y produced 6om 4e idua stueX oil:

(a) the statistics presented in (27.1) aggregate oil and natural

gas poductton activities;

(b) the inju ie attibutable to oil must be distributed

app'opiatey among the %e iney product;

(c) the btati6t c6 tabuwtted in (27.1) 'een only to domestic

production, ti'tns powtation and te6ining; o'eigngn injury

statistics axe not available; this ptobtem is relevant

because most RFO consumed in the U.S. is imposed.

Poblem (a) was teoLved by attbhuting injuries according to dovtax values

o6 p'oduwtion. Well-head values oxc &ude oil and natuwat gas production

in 1971 weae $11.9 bilon and $4.0 bil lion, 4es pectively. Thus., 75% og the

injuwnies xetating to production activities ae assigned to oil poduction.

Pobtem (b) wau 'tesotved by distvbting podu ction, tAans portation, and

re6.ining injuwie6 to rei~nexy poduct6 on a BTU - equivaLent basis. Assume

that the heating values o etude oil and te4iduaZ dueL oil axe 5.8 x 106

BTU/baAneZ eude and 6.3 x 106 BTU/banvet RFO 4espectivety ('ee. 27.2).

Assume 6uwthex that 4elinexy qyetd o RFO ae 10%, that is 10 ba..eiXa7 o

cAude oil yield 1 bavteL o6 RFO plus othex efLnexy poduct. (Domestic

yieLd6 ate cuvxently about 6%). Thus one BTU (etude oit) yied6 -0.11 BTU

(RFO), that is, RFO accounts ox about 11% o6 the 1uet enexg y output o6 the

xe finexy, and 11% o the impacts, such as occupationaot injurie6, at and

be6oxe the 4elinexy axe att'ibted to RFO.

3-36
Problem (c) was teoolved by assuming that o'eign occupational injury nates

aLye simZi t to those in the U.S.

The 6ottowing sample calculation Son. oil poduction dataLities itusttates

the method.

A. U.S. 1969 Production (explouatott, drilling and pumping) atatities in

oil and natural gas induwtvies = 2.8 ataLite6 (CO+G) (eg. 27.1).

B. Fatalities att'cibutable to oil production= 0.15 x 28 = 21 4ataLit es (CO)

C. U.S. 1969 etude oil production = 3.2 x 10 bbts CO

D. Fatality rate = 21/3.2 x 10 = 6.59 x 10- data2ities (CO)/bbL6 CO

E. Annual Suet equiL'ement6 o6 one 1000 We RFO-Z'ted power plant

Heat tate = 8830 BTU/KWHe

Cap. Factor = 75% (Elect.'tcal Enegqy =6.57 x 10 KJHeq/L)

Annual Heat - 8830 x 6 57 x 109 = 58 z 1012 STU/q'.

RFO Req't = 58 x 1012 (BTU/y)p)/6.3 x 106 (BTU/bbt RFO) =

9.21 x 106 bbl RFO/yq.

F. Crude oil te ney input to yqeld this amount o 6RFO: 6

9.21 x 10 (bbl RFO/yn)/0.10 (bbl RFO/bb CO) = 9.21 x 10 bbl CO/yq

G. Co tnteponding numb e, o etude oil production 6atalitie = 92.1 x 106 bbl Co/y' x 6.59 x 10-9 bat./bbl Co = 0.61 bat/yq

H. Thi s igure must be weighted by the Sactor 0.11, as explained above,

etude oil production 6atal ties attributable to annual RFO 'equwL'ements

o6 one 1000 MWe power, plant = 0.61 x 0.11 = 0.067 6ataitez/year.

Ths igue assumes 100% domestic s upply o RFO. From Fig. 3.3, only

about 32.4% o6 U.S. RFO consumption (1910) came irom domestic bounces.

This domestic fataLity rate Zi

0.067 x 0.324 = 0.022 ataLities6/qyt.

I. The 6oteign production 6atatLty rate, att'rbutable to the annual RFO

4equixement6 o6 one 1000 MWe powe't plant, is computed in a manne.

s&miZat to step6 A-H above. The 6ollowung assumptions ate made:

RFO import action is 1-0.324 = 0.676 (See Fig. 3.3)

Foreign 6atal ity rates on pe unit bantel produced basis

s same as6 ot U.S., as given in Step D.

RFO yield in foreign reginexies is ~ 50%

Heating value o etude oil and RFO a'te the same as assumed

Sox U.S. oies.

With these assumptions, the foreign production 6atalities att'itbutable

to a U.S. RFO-6Z'ed power plant ate = 0.0445 atatities /yr

J. From step H and I above, the total (domestic and foreign) sataLity ate

is = 0.061 ataLties /yr.

This procedute was repeated o't txaunspo'tation and reining steps in the 6uel

cycle. Ave'tage 1968-69 .injury rates, e.g., 6atalAtAe. pen batel, deAived

6'om ret. (27.1) wete used to obtain values bor. atat ies and non-6atal

injuries ptes ented in Table 3.3.1.

3-37
(27. 1) U.S. Dept. o Inte.io't, BuAeau o f 'lineA, 'ine a2 Indua tVJ Suwetj

(1970) "Vsa bfinq uroLhk - Inju q Experiene oteTICndus j (A2 Activities and ndJ) ktatwaas Indust' (Excudinq 7V tc button

A etivitLea) in the United Statcs, 1969.?"

(27.2) AmetLcan Petou em InastLtute, AnnuaL StatiLticat Review ('fa 1972),

page 60.

(28) See Appendix o-' quantication o ZLand u e in the RFO cace.

3.4 THE NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE

The U.S. Natural Gas Industry and Electricity from Natural 'as

Natural nas supplies energy for the veneration of about one-fourth of the central

station electricity produced in the U.S. (17) Approximately one-sixth of the

total natural gas is used in the electric power industry. The remainder is used

in the petrochemical industry, industrial process heat, residential and commercial

heat, refrigeration, and air conditioning. Figure 3.5 displays the production and

disposition of natural gas in the U.S. in 1970.(-8

In the early years of oil exploration, the discovery of natural gas was considered

a byproduct in the search for oil. Natural gas was disposed of in the field, either

by burning or by venting to the atmosphere. As late as the mid-1930s, a nas-only

well was considered little better than a dry hole.9)

It was not until the development of thin-walled, high tensile strength pipe that

the natural gas industry matured. Following World War II, lone distance pipelines

opened up the northern markets to nas supplies from nroducino wells in the Southwest.

As demand for gas increased, oas became a product in its own rioht and ceased being

a byproduct of oil production. The enhanced status of gas was reflected in the

reorganization which occured within many producing companies as nas production

departments were established separate from oil production departments. Over the

past two decades, companies have continually increased the portion of their

exploratory effort devoted to the search for gas.

Origin and Occurrence of Natural Gas

The most commonly accepted explanation for the origin of natural gas is that it was

formed from organic matter in the same manner and in the same time frame as oil.

A similar process can be observed in the formation of "swamp gas" where small

quantities of flammable gas bubble up through stagnant water. The natural gas

reserves in use today exist below ground or sea and are covered by impermeable

rock. iMost natural gas in tested reservoirs has been found at depths of 1000 to

3-38
PRODUCTION CONSUMPTION

4.0 LOSSES IN ELECTRIC UTILITIES

GAS WELLS EXPORTS TRANSMISSION

18.672REFINERIES 1860.7 021.0

0.1 CARBON-BLACK PLANTS

LOSSES UNDERGROUND

0.5 STORAGE 0.7

0.4 PIPELINE FUEL

6.6 OTHE R

GROSS MARKETED NET MARKETED

PROD. PRODUCTION PRODUCTION INDUSTRIAL

12.4 23.8 21.9 19.1

REPR ESSURIZING

1.4 COMME RCIA L

IMPORTS FIELD USE19

0.8 2.3

OIL WELLS

5.2

NOTE: FIGURES ARE IN UNITS OF TRILLIONS OF CUBIC FEET. THIS

FLOW SHEET WAS CONSTRUCTED FROM DATA IN AMERICAN

GAS ASSN., GAS FACTS, ISSUED 1972. NUMBERS MAY NOT BE

EXACTLY ADDITIVE DUE TO ROUND-OFF, LOSSES AND STORAGE.

RESIDENTIAL

4.8

FIG. 3.5 PRODUCTION AND DISPOSITION OF NATURAL GAS IN THE U. S., 1970

L4.)
18,000 feet below the surface of the earth; the deepest successful well drilled

was 24,453 feet. Gas deposits may be found with pressures as high as 10,000 psi.

The geography of the natural gas production industry is closely allied with that

of the crude oil industry. The bulk of domestic production is concentrated in

the Texas-Louisiana-Gulf Coast, Texas Panhandle, and West Texas-East New Mexico

regions.

Gas Supply and the Price of Natural Gas'

Natural gas is one of the least polluting forms of energy available. Unfortunately,

proved reserves of this fuel have been declining both in absolute and relative terms

for the past several years. At the end of 1971, proved reserves stood at 278

trillion cubic feet, only 12 1/2 times the present rate of consumption. The

availability of gas at acceptable prices is the overriding consideration in judging

the merits of natural gas as a viable alternate source of electrical energy. For

this reason, most of the discussion below centers on natural gas supply and demand,

i.e., conventional economics and costs, rather than environmental impacts.

Gas Supply

It is now generally recognized that past government policy has favored the pricing

of natural gas at too low a level.* The result has been an over-development of the

markets for this fuel and underdevelopment of new sources of supply. Overcoming

the present supply "crunch" is the overriding problem facing natural gas companies

and their state and federal regulators.

It is unlikely that gas energy will be available either in sufficient quantity

or at low enough prices to make it a competitive energy source for baseload power

plants coming on line in 1980. Although new sources of gas energy, such as imported

liquified natural gas (LNG) and substitute natural gas (SNG, produced from coal,

LP-gas, and petroleum naptha) will be available in significant quantities by the end

of this decade, it is likely that these new supplies will be reserved for the

residential and commercial markets. In any event, the high delivered cost ($1.10 

$1.50 per million Btu) of these fuels will preclude their use in baseload power

plants.

Given the present supply-demand imbalance for natural gas produced from wells and

the high cost of alternative sources of gas energy, simple economics dictates that

*The Federal Power Commission regulates the price of natural gas sold in interstate

commerce. The Commission's regulatory stance has been largely determined by court

interpretation of the Natural Gas Act. See References (1) and (2).
the price of gas will increase. The FPC, in fact, has recently proposed that the

field price of new-contract gas sold in interstate commerce be essentially decontrolled.

Whether significantly higher or even free-market prices can be justified under

provisions of the Natural Gas Act, however, remains to be seen. Also uncertain is

the shape of natural gas supply curve as a function of price. At what price would

the supply-demand balance be restored?

New Sources of Natural Gas Supply

New supply sources include: (1) additions to conventional sources, that is, pas

from the lower forty-eight states, southern Canada, southern Alaska, and the

continental shelves off the Gulf and West Coasts; (2) gas from Alaska's North Slope

and Canada's northern frontier territories; (3) imported liquified natural gas (LNG)

from Algeria and other overseas sources; (4) synthetic natural gas (SNG) processed

from coal and from petroleum products; and possibly (5) gas produced by nuclear

stimulation from tight reservoirs in the Rocky Mountain states.

Conventional Sources. Domestic reserves of natural gas have been declining

in recent years and now stand at about 280 trillion cubic feet, roughly 12-1/2 times

domestic production during 1971. The difference between domestic consumption of

23.7 trillion cubic feet during 1971 and domestic production of 22.8 trillion cubic

feet was made up by net imports of 0.9 trillion cubic feet. Most of the imported

gas originated in the Canadian Province of Alberta.

A recent staff study conducted by the Federal Power Commission forecasts a peak in

U.S. gas production of about 25 trillion cubic feet in the mid-1970's followed by

a decline to about 20 trillion in 1980 and to 18 trillion in 1990.12 Reserve

additions in the lower forty-eight states for the period 1971-1990 are estimated

at 325 trillion cubic feet, roughly 20 to 40% of current estimates of the ultimate

undiscovered potential of the region. Higher natural gas prices are expected to

lead to improved reserve additions in most of the major producing regions of the

country. South Louisiana additions should increase from 5.6 trillion cubic feet

in 1970 to 8.6 trillion cubic feet in 1975. Texas Gulf Coast additions will rise

from 1.1 trillion in 1971 to 1.4 trillion in 1975, while Permian Basin additions

will increase from 1.2 trillion cubic feet in 1971 to 1.6 trillion in 1975.

Hugoton-Anadarko additions are projected to be flat at about 1.5 trillion from

1971 through 1975. Texas Gulf Coast, Hugoton-Andarko, and Permian Basin reserve

additions are expected never to recover to their 1966-67 highs. Production in

South Louisiana, the Texas Gulf Coast, and the Rocky Mountains is expected to

3-41
increase through 1975, while the Hugoton-Andarko, Permian Basin, and other Southwest

regions are expected to peak out in 1973.

If FPC projections are correct, by 1980 domestic consumption of gas will exceed

the supply from conventional sources by some 9 trillion cubic feet. This short-fall

will have to be made up by some combination of arctic pas, imported LNG, SNG

manufactured from coal and petroleum products, and by gas released from tight

reservoirs by nuclear stimulation.

Arctic Sources. Recent exploratory drilling in the Alaskan and Canadian

arctic indicate the presence of vast reserves of natural gas. Exploration until

now has been mainly centered in three regions: (1) the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska's

North Slope, (2) the Mackenzie Delta of the Beaufort Sea Region, and (3) the Ellef

Ringness-Ellesmere Island area.

Proved reserves in the Prudhoe Bay fields are already sufficient to justify

construction of a natural gas pipeline. Most of these reserves, however, consist

of associated and dissolved gas so that production cannot begin until a market

outlet is established for the crude oil. Delays in commencement of construction of

the trans-Alaska crude oil pipeline have delayed construction of a natural gas

pipeline. The cost of transporting gas produced from the Prudhoe Bay fields east

to the Mackenzie Delta and then south down the Mackenzie River Valley to Midwestern

markets is estimated to be $0.81 to $1.00 per thousand cubic feet (Mcf).(5

Unlike reserves in the Prudhoe Bay area, natural gas reserves so far discovered in

the Mackenzie Delta consist mainly of nonassociated gas. Imperial nil has conducted

most of the search in this region and has reported a number of gas strikes along

the Beaufort Sea coastline.(,) The oil company has recently signed an agreement

with two Midwestern pipeline companies, committing up to 10 trillion cubic feet of

"potential natural gas reserves in the Mackenzie Delta area of the Northwest

Territories." (?)The two pipeline companies will make advance payments of $40 million

dollars to accelerate development and production of gas reserves. Imperial Oil

Company estimates that proved reserves of 15 trillion cubic feet are required to

justify a pipeline. The company is confident that this figure will soon be reached.

A recent Gulf-Mobil strike some 40 miles south of Beaufort Sea coastline has

greatly extended the potential gas-bearing area in the Mackenzie Delta. (6)

Panarctic Oils Ltd., has made major gas discoveries in the Arctic Islands (roughly

in the region 78 - 800 north latitude and 840 - 1120 west longitude). Gas

3-42
reserves of 25 - 30 trillion cubic feet will be needed to support a pipeline out

of the region. It appears likely that these reserves will be proved within one or

two years. Four United States gas companies have pledged $75 million advance payments

with an additional $75 million payable upon the laying of a pipeline.(8

The ultimate potential of the arctic fields is unknown; however, it is likely that

each of the three regions discussed above will be producing one trillion cubic

feet annually by 1980. U.S. "city-gate" costs of natural gas from these sources

will be approximately $1.10 per Mcf with transportation representing three-fourths

of total cost.

Liquified Natural Gas. The American Gas Association predicts that by

1980 the United States will be importing 2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas

annually. El Pase Natural Gas Company's proposal to import one billion cubic feet

daily from Algeria is the first officially approved by the Federal Power Commission. 

Other proposals include one by Indiana Standard and People's Gas to import gas from

Trinidad, another by Tenneco and Texas Eastern Transmission for imports from the

Soviet Union, and an assortment of others by gas utilities and pipeline companies

for imports from overseas sources in Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nigeria.

In approving the El Pase Natural Gas Company's import plan, the FPC set initial

rate ceilings of 85t per Mcf for deliveries to Columbia Gas' Chesapeake Bay

terminal and 944 per Mcf at Southern Energy's terminal near Savannah, Georqia. A

one cent per year escalation was allowed for deliveries after 1980.* The total

capital cost of the receiving, storage, and transportation facilities associated

with the receiving terminals is estimated at $270 million. These costs will add

approximately 15 to the delivered cost of the gas. The estimated $630 million

cost of liquification facilities in Algeria and tanker costs of approximately $750

million are covered by the import rates to be charged by El Paso Natural Gas

Company.

Synthetic Natural Gas. According to National Petroleum Council projections,

production of synthetic pipeline gas should reach one-half trillion cubic feet by

1980.(10) Most of the synthetic gas will be produced from naptha and LP-gas with

production ultimately limited by the availability of imported feedstock. Because

of its high cost, synthetic natural gas is usually considered as an emergency

*El Paso-has indicated that it considers the rate ceilings too low and has applied

for an increase.

3-43
energy source by pipeline and gas utility companies unable to arrange for new

supplies of well gas. Construction time for SNG plants is only about two years.

The Columbia Gas Systems project at Green Springs, Ohio will produce synthetic gas

from Canadian LP-gas at an estimated cost at the plant of $1.12 per Mcf. Algonquin

Gas Transmission Company estimates the cost to its customers of gas produced at

its naptha-based plant in Freetown, Massachusetts, will be $1.80 per Mcf.* The

Office of Emergency Preparedness lists twenty-two companies with proposals to

build SNG plants based on imported petroleum feedstock. (5)

Production of synthetic pipeline gas from coal is not likely to represent a

significant source of gas supply before 1985. Although feedstock costs for a

coal-based plant are considerably lower than for petroleum-based plants, capital

and environmental costs are considerably greater, yielding a gas product of

comparable overall cost. A recent staff study by the Federal Power Commission

forecasts 0.3 trillion cubic feet of synthetic gas from coal in 1980 and 1.4

trillion in 1985.

Nuclear Stimulation. It has been estimated that 300 trillion cubic feet

of natural gas could be freed by nuclear stimulation from tight reservoirs in

the Rocky Mountain area at a wellhead cost of less than 50t/Mcf. The

300 trillion cubic feet estimate is based upon extensive geological data for

the region in question and upon test results from Atomic Energy Commission

projects Gasbuggy, Rulison, and Miniata.

Given a 654/Mcf wellhead price in 1985, a Cities Service Company study indicates that

nuclear stimulation of low productivity reservoirs could yield 6.2 trillion cubic

feet per year by 1985 and 11 trillion cubic feet per year by 1990.

Major problems associated with nuclear stimulation are the local effects of seismic

shocks and the risk of radioactive contamination of underground water supplies.

Development of gas reserves on a scale comparable to that projected by the Cities

Service study will depend upon the timely resolution of problems associated with

these external effects.

*SNG costs in cost-of-service rate applications to the FPC for base-load plants

have ranged between $1.12 and $1.42/Mcf, cost-of-service rates for peak

shaving projects have ranged from $1.60 to $1.80.

3-44
Price of Natural Gas

Given the nigh transportation costs for natural oas originating in remote areas,

the high costs of SNG, and the likelihood that free market prices will prevail

for gas produced from conventional sources, it seems likely that the price of

natural gas in 1980 will be several times 1972 interstate price ceilings. In

1980 the average new-contract price for gas delivered to 'lidwest markets is

estimated to be at least 85 per million BTU (roughly 90 per Mcf).* At this

price, natural gas will continue to penetrate the electric utility market as a

fuel for gas turbine peaking operations. As a fuel for boilers designed for

base-load operations, however, it will be at a significant disadvantage.

The Natural Gas Fuel Cycle for Electric Power Production

Figure 3.6 is a flow diagram of the natural gas fuel cycle for electric power

production. The estimated quantities of gas produced from oil and gas wells

are based on present national-average production statistics.(-) Average U.S.

gas-well output in 1969 was roughly 3-1/2 times the pas output from all

oil wells.

Power plant emissions are based upon recently compiled EPA emission factors.(13)

The particulate matter and SO2 emissions correspond to rates from uncontrolled

sources and are within the EPA standards for large steam generators.** Under the

assumption that improved nitrogen oxide control techniques will be applied by

1980, the !1O0 emission rate has been set at a value corresnondinr to the federal

standard.

Residuals flows from gas plant operations have not been determined, because the

internal and external costs of natural gas processing are properly attributed to

the production of natural gas liquids. (The value of one year's production of

natural gas liquids, evaluated at the gas plant, is currently about 40 percent

of the total annual wellhead value of natural gas.) The nas plant sulfur output

is based on the current U.S.-average rate of 0.043 lbs per 1000 cubic feet of

gas processed.(L5)

*Covers a Gulf Coast wellhead price of 654 per mcf and a transportation cost

of 25t per mcf.

**Since there are no SO, standards for nas-fired boilers, the SO2 emission rate

can be compared with the standard for oil-fired boilers. See Reference (14)

for the federal standards proposed for stationary sources.

3-45
BASIS: ANNUAL OPERATION OF 1000 MWe POWER PLANT AT 75% C. F.

VENTED, FLARED

1.7 x 109 CF

GAS WELLS

54.9 x 109 CF

OIL WELLS

15.9 x 109 CF

OIL WELL

REPRESSURI NG

65.7 x 109 CF*

5.0 x 109 CF

NATURAL GAS LIQUIDS

D9 CF

SULFANT

SULFUR

1400 TONS

1000 MWe 6.57 x 109 KWH

1 POWER PLANT

EMISSIONS:

PARTICULATES 430 TONS

SO2 18 TONS

NOx 5.8 x 103 TONS

CO2 4.2 x 106 TONS

*DOES NOT INCLUDE FRACTION CONVERTED TO LIQUIDS AT GAS PLANT.

FIG. 3.6 THE NATURAL GAS FUEL CYCLE FOR ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTION

-0

I

W

1

C1
Unit Impacts and Costs

Table 3.3 lists the annual expenditures and effects associated with the

operation of a 1000 MWe natural gas energy system.

The occupational injury rates given in Table 3.3 are based on Bureau of Mines

data and were estimated in the same manner as those for the oil energy system

discussed in Section 3.3 above.-(1-) Injury rates associated with qas plant

operations have been computed, but are not entered in the summary totals; these

and other gas plant costs are properly charged against natural gas liquids

production.

Footnote6 and Rege/ence6 eo Section 3.4 - The Natuwat Gas FueL CycLe

(1) Reaoutce6 6o the FutuAe, U.S. Enegy PoL ies: An Agenda bon ReBeach,

Johns Hopkins Press , Battimore, Md., (1968).

(2) C. A. HawIiin&, The F.ieLd P'Lce Reguftationo NatuaL Ga, Fo'ida State

Unive6iZty P'e~s, Tatahas ee, fLo idg, (19 9).

(3) "FPC See U.S. Ga Veicit Soaoing," Oil 6 Gab J. (Max. 6, 1972).

(4) "Atctic Gac-Line Cost Rise6 to $5 &ittion, Oil 6 Gab J. (Max. 6, 1972).

(5) Oil 6 Gas J. (Feb. 14, 1972).

(6) Oil 6 Gas J. (Feb. 28, 1972).

(7) Ol 5 Gas J. (Apt. 3, 1972).

(8) 01 6 Gau J. (Jan. 10, 1912).

(9) WaLL St 'eet JouAnat (June 29, 1972).

(10) NationaL Pettoteum Council, U.S. Enexpy Outlook: An IntiaL AppaiLsat

1971-1985, Volume One, (Juy~~T71J.

(11) Oil Gas J. (July 12, 1972).

(12) Ame.i'can Pet'toteumInst., Pebtoteum Facts and F gxes , 1971 Edition.

(13) M. J. McGraw and R. L. Vuptey, Compi .a.tion o AiA PoUtant Emin.son

Facto46, EPA, Thiaangte Pak, N.C., (1971).

(14) U.S. EPA, "Standavds o6 Penonmance 6o New Stationawy Sou.ce6: Notice

o6 Popo ed Rute Making," Federal RegL te.t, VoL. 36, No. 2 (Augut 1971),

(15) "1971 Survey o6 Gab-P'wcesing PLant," Oil 6 Gau J. (JuLy 12, 1971).

(16) Buweau o6 M~ine6, VZoab ing Work-njuy ExpeZience o the Oil Industg

(ALL ActLvities) and the Natu aL Gau lndu~tky (Excluding- kis nibut.on

Activitie,6) in the United States, 1969, MinetaL Indust.y Suwvey6, U.S.

Pept. o the- ntencot, (1970).

3-47
TABLE 3.3

ANNUAL EFFECTS OF 1000 MWe GAS-FIRED POWER PLANT

AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 Billion Kilowatt-hours

(one year operation 75% CF)

Gas Trans-Power

Production-/ Plant- portation Plant Total

Conventional Costs (106$)

Fuel 237 237

Capital 42 42

O&M 3.7 3.7

Rounded Total 28- 2 

Abatement Costs (106$)

~ (980doll ars)

Cooling Towers 7.1 7.1

Rounded Total 7 7

Occupational Accidents

Deaths 0.021 0.006 0.024 0.037 0.082

Nonfatal Injuries 2.5 0.56 1.3 1.5 5.3

Mandays Lost 250 90 180 350 780

Effects at the Power Plant

Air Pollutant Emissions (103 tons)

Particulates 0.43 0.43

S02 0.018 0.018

CO 0.012 0.012

Hydrocarbons 1.1 1.1

NOx 5.8 5.8

Aldehydes 0.085 0.085

Ornanics 0.115 0.115

C02 10 4,200 4,200

Thermal Discharge (10 kWht) 0.88 0.88

Stack Discharoe (1010 kwht) 0.22 0.22

Land Use

Inventory (acres) 300 4 3,200 100- 3,600

Fuel Consumption (109 c.f.)

1.7d/ 64 66

a/ Includes explorat''ionrillinq, and production activities.

6/ Gas plant effects not included in "Total" column. See text.

c/ One-half the acreage required for a site with two 1000 MWe aeneratino units.

d/ Gas loss - flaring, venting.
(17) Re jen to Fiqune 1.2.

(18) Figure 3.5 was const i'acted ;nom data 6om Ameucan Gau Assn, Ga Fact, ~~is4ued 1972.

(19) Katz, Vavid L., et a-, Handbook o Na.uWLL GaA Enqineeinq, 'fcGnaw1 IL,

N (1959), p. 1.

3.5 '!UCLEAR FUEL CYCLES

Introduction

The first useful power obtained from nuclear fission energy was at the Experimental

Breeder Reactor I in 1951. Since that time, various nuclear systems "or producin

electricity have been developed. In 1970, about 1.5% of the electrical energy

produced in the U.S. was from nuclear sources.(- This percentage is expected to

rise to over 25% by 1980 and to continue to rise rapidly after that. ( Thus,

nuclear energy sources are expected to play an increasingly important role in

meeting the U.S. electrical energy demand.

Nuclear and fossil energy systems differ in several obvious, but important respects.

It is instructive to consider these, qualitatively, at the outset.

Aside from military applications, nuclear energy is consumed almost entirely

in the form of electricity, whereas coal, petroleum, and natural gas serve

other energy needs, such as process heat, transportation and nonenergy needs.

Alternative uses (other energy uses and nonenercy uses) of nuclear resources

are small and competitive pressures for these resources are practically nil.*

In this respect, the nuclear energy economy is less complex than that of

fossil energy.

Quantities (volumes and masses) involved in the nuclear fuel cycles are

characteristically small, due to the high energy content of nuclear fuels.

The potential energy contained in one pound of fissionable material, assuming

all of the material and its conversion products are fissioned, is about 0.36

billion British Thermal Units (BTU). The same quantity of energy is contained

in about 1400 short tons of bituminous coal, or 6000 barrels of residual fuel

oil, or 35 million standard cubic feet of natural gas.

Although the flow of fuel is relatively small, the sequential steps in the

nuclear fuel cycles are more numerous and more complex than in fossil fuel

*However, process heat applications of nuclear energy are currently under consideration.

3-49
cycles. Processes involved in extracting fission energy are inherently "more

technical" than their combustion energy counterparts. Industries associated

with nuclear energy are commonly characterized as "high-technology" industries.

Nuclear energy technology, the youngest of the viable energy technologies,

has enjoyed a large share of the world's scientific and engineering resources,

and potential hazards associated with nuclear fission energy have been given

more attention than comparable hazards in other energy industries.

The types of nuclear power reactors examined in this report are the pressurized

water reactor (PWR) and the boiling water reactor (BWR). Both reactors use light

water as coolant and moderator and are referred to generically as light water

reactors (LWRs). Light water reactors are expected to dominate the nuclear power

economy for much of the remainder of the century. Two advanced reactor types --

the liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) and the high temperature gas

cooled reactor (HTGR) -- are expected to reach commercial maturity by the end of

the century. Since this study is confined to current commercially-applied technology,

only the LWRs are treated in this report.

The source of energy in these plants is the fission process--the splitting of a

heavy nucleus. In nuclear power reactors, fission occurs principally as a result

of collisions of neutrons and heavy nuclei. Neutrons are emitted in the fission

process; thus, the process can be made self-sustaining. There are two classes of

fissionable material: "fissile" material, which can be fissioned by incident

neutrons of any energy; and "fertile" material, which can be fissioned only by

incident neutrons of very high energy. Very little of the energy released in power

reactors results from the fissioning of fertile species. However, fertile nuclides

may be transformed to fissile nuclides (the more readibly fissionable species)

through the non-fission capture of a neutron.

Two fissionable elements occur in nature - uranium and thorium - and thus comprise

the ultimate resource base for nuclear power generation. The dominant isotope in

natural uranium is the fertile nuclide uranium-238 (U-238). Less than one percent

of natural uranium is the fissile nuclide U-235, which is the only fissile nuclide

found in nature. Thorium occurs in nature only in the form of fertile material,

thorium-232 (Th-232). The two preponderant naturally occurring fertile species,

U-238 and Th-232, can be converted to fissile Pu-239 and U-233, respectively, by

neutron capture in a nuclear reactor.

3-50
Power reactors may use available fissionable materials in a variety of modes.

Light water reactors (PWR and BWR) use uranium enriched tto a few percent in fissile

U-235. The principle fissioning species in LWRs is U-235; some fertile U-238 is

also fissioned and some U-238 is converted to fissile plutonium during reactor

operation. The HTGR uses both uranium and thorium. Uranium input to HTGRs is

highly enriched in U-235 ( 93%). Some fertile Th-232 is converted to fissile U-233

during reactor operation. The principal fissile species in LMFBRs is Pu-239. As

in the LWR, the LMFBR converts fertile U-238 to fissile Pu-239. The LMFBR, however,

generates more fissile material than it consumes. Table 3.4 lists the principal

fuel- species used in LWRs, HTGRs and LMFBRs.

TABLE 3.4

PRINCIPAL FUEL SPECIES IN NUCLEAR REACTORS

Fissile Fertile

LWR (PWR & BWR) U-235*

Pu-239 U-238*

HTGR U-235*

U-233 - Th-232*

LMFBR Pu-239 -T- U-238*

*Occur naturally.

The fuel cycles associated with LWRs, HTGRs, and LMFBRs may be interrelated and

made complementary in a number of ways, as indicated in Figure 3.7. The enrichment plant tailings, a waste product in the LIIR and HTGR fuel cycles, may be used

as resource input to the LMFBR fuel cycle. The plutonium produced by LWRs, as

well as the excess plutonium produced by LMFBRs, can be used to start up new LMFBRs,

or it can be recycled in the LWRs to reduce LWR natural uranium makeup requirements.

U-233 produced in HTGRs can be recycled to reduce the natural uranium requirement

of that fuel cycle.

Light Water Reactors and Their Supporting Fuel Cycles*

More than 100,000 MWe of light water reactors (LWRs) have been ordered by utility

companies in the United States.(3 The heat generated in the reactor core is

removed by circulating ordinary water through it. The water serves not only as a

coolant but also as a moderator; that is, it slows the neutrons to the desired

low energy at which most fissions take place.

*A more detailed treatment of LWRs and their fuel cycles may be found in the Appendix.

3-51
NATURAL URANIUM

LWR

FUEL CYCLE

PLUTONIUM

(Pu) RECYCLE

NATURAL THORIUM

GASEOUS GASEOUS

DIFFUSION DIFFUSION

PLANT TAILINGS LMFBR PLANT TAILINGS

Pu

TO START

UP NEW

LMFBRS a

7

HTGR

FUEL CYCLE

U-233

RECYCLE

FLOWS OF FUEL MATERIALS IN THE U. S. NUCLEAR POWER INDUSTRY

U,

FUEL CYCLE

FIG. 3.7
The two types of LWR are the pressurized water reactor (PWR) and the boiling water

reactor (BWR). Water under pressure is circulated through the PWR core (Figure 3.8)

at a pressure high enough to prevent the water from boiling. The heated pressurized

water is then passed through a steam generator where the heat is transferred to

water in a secondary system. The pressure in the secondary system is somewhat

lower, thus allowing the water to boil. The steam which is formed is then routed

to the turbine. The BWR (Figure 3.9), as its name implies, allows boiling to take

place directly in the reactor core, thereby eliminating the need for a secondary

water system between the primary coolant and the turbine.

The uranium fuel for these reactors moves through several processes before and

after productive use in the reactor core. These processes are in general quite

similar for PWR and BWR fuel and will therefore be described for both reactor

fuel cycles simultaneously. Steps in the LWR fuel cycles are: mining, milling,

conversion, enrichment, preparation and fabrication, electricity generation

(reactor power plant), reprocessing of spent fuel, waste disposal, and transportation between fuel cycle steps. Figure 3.10 displays material balances

for the fuel cycles assumed representative of LWRs going on line in 1980.

For each step in the LWR fuel cycle, information on direct human impacts (such as

mining-related injuries), radionuclide releases to the air and water, radioactive

wastes which are sent to permanent storage, resource requirements, and other

cost factors (cost as defined in Chapter 2), have been assembled and normalized

to the production of 6.57 billion kilowatt hours of electrical energy, the

energy generated by one 1000 MWe power plant operating for one year at 75%

capacity. Some of this information, such as radionuclide release to the air,

does not represent a final impact. The methods for transforming the basic

information obtained by direct examination of the fuel cycles into final

impacts are discussed in Chapter 4 and in the Appendix and footnotes of this

report. The Appendix also contains more detailed and quantitative descriptions of

the LWR power plants and their fuel cycles and deals with the public and occupational

radiological health impacts associated with production of electrical energy by

LWR systems.

U.S. Uranium Resources

The U.S. reserves of uranium recoverable at $10 or less per pound of U308 were

estimated to be about 1,130,000 short tons of U308 as of January 1974. About

340,000 tons are reasonably assured in conventional deposits, and 90,000 tons are

thought to be available as a byproduct from phosphate and copper mining. Estimated

3-53
PRESSURIZER

CONTROL RODS

& DRIVES

REACTOR

PRESSURE

VESSEL """"

PRIMARY

COOLANT

PUMP

BABCOCK & WI LCOX

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING

WESTINGHOUSE

LOW

SEPARATORS PRESSURE GENERATOR

& DRYERS TURBINE

,HIGH " " " 

-"" PRESSURE

"".;. TURBINE

* 

* , WATER PUMP

CONDENSER STEAM 

GENERATOR COOLING

ON.DENSAT WATER

FEED

FEED WATER

WATER HEATER PUMP CONDENSATE PUMP

FUEL: SLIGHTLY ENRICHED URANIUM OXIDE CLAD WITH ZIRCONIUM ALLOY

MODERATOR: WATER

COOLANT: WATER

PRESSURE OF PRIMARY SYSTEM 2,250 POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH

REACTOR OUTLET TEMPERATURE 6050 F

FIG. 3.8 PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR POWER PLANT

3-54
CONTROL RODS

& DRIVES

COOLING

WATERPUMP

CON DE NSE R:: -.-- :: .....-. - -..-..-. COO L ING

WATE R" WTE

REACTORWAE

FEED HEATER

PUMP CONDENSATE PUMP

GENERAL ELECTRIC FUEL: SLIGHTLY ENRICHED URANIUM OXIDE CLAD WITH ZIRCONIUM ALLOY

MODERATOR: BOILING WATER

COLLANT: BOILING WATER

PRESSURE OF PRIMARY SYSTEM 1,000 psi

OUTLET TEMPERATURE 55 0 F

FIG. 3.9 BOILING WATER REACTOR POWER PLANT

3-55

SEPARATORS

& DRYERS

REACTOR

PRESSURE

VESSEL

LOW

PRESSURE

TURBINE GENERATOR 

P R R E SSU 

T0UR0 N0
BASIS: ANNUAL OPERATION OF 1000 MWe POWER PLANT AT 75% C. F.

6.6 BILLION KWHrs

0.25 BILLION KWHrs OF ELECTRICITY PWR: 66 U OF ELECTRICITY

(4,531 TONS U)* BWR: 60 U

FRESH FUEL

ASSEMBLIES

UF6 SPENT FUEL

PWR: 132 U MILLING CONVERSION ERCHMEPRPAT NR1EAMCTOERLESREPROCESSN

PWR: 124 U PWR: 124 U PWR: 26 U F ABRICATION PWR: 26 U PLANT) PWR: 25 U; 0.2 Pu

BWR: 112 U BWR: 112U BWR: 31 U BWR: 31 U BWR: 30 U; 0.2 Pu PWR: 0.2 Pu

BWR: 0.2 Pu

URANIUM RECYCLE

PWR: 25 U

BWR: 30 U

URAN.

UNDERGROUND MINING PWR: 66U TAILS PU

(5,345 TONS U)* BWR: 60 U STORAGE STORAGE

-1 TON

FISSION

PRODUCTS

RADWASTE

STORAGE

(FED. REPOS.)

*NOTE: FIGURES IN PARENTHESES REPRESENT U. S. NATIONAL PRODUCTION FOR THE YEAR 1970,

MEASURED IN EQUIVALENT TONS OF URANIUM METAL. ALL OTHER FIGURES INDICATE

FLOWS OF MATERIALS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS OF 1000 MWe

LWR (PWR OR BWR), IN UNITS OF METRIC TONS PER YEAR. URANIUM MINING IS ASSUMED

50% STRIP AND 50% UNDERGROUND. NUMBERS MAY NOT BE ADDITIVE DUE TO LOSSES

TO WASTE, ROUND-OFF, BURNUP AND PRODUCTION.

KEY: PWR - PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR BWR - BOILING WATER REACTOR

U - URANIUM Pu -PLUTONIUM

FIG. 3.10 THE LIGHT WATER REACTOR (LWR) FUEL CYCLE

U,

I
additional resources at or below $10 per pound are 700,000 tons. (5) Table 3.5

gives USAEC estimates of U.S. uranium resources as of January 1974, as a

function of extraction cost. (6) The resource base for LWRs and the LWR fuel

utilization characteristics are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

Mining

Uranium is mined by both underground and surface (pit) techniques. Over 60% of

the 1973 domestic uranium production was from open pit mines.- Technological

advances have tended to increase the depths at which open pit mining can be

economical, and over 40% of the domestic reserves are thought to be minable by

this method. Stripping the overburden may be a large part of the cost of mining,

and the depth that may be reached depends on the deposit's character and

accessibility.

Underground uranium mines use many mining methods and variants since the ore

bodies are erratic in shape, size, attitude, and grade. On the Colorado Plateau

85% of the production is from deep shaft mines and open pits. However, many mines

are still simple adits or inclined entries driven into a canyon wall or sloping

ground to recover small deposits of uranium ore.

Workers in the uranium mining industry for the past several years have experienced

roughly the same risk (on a per million manhour basis) of fatal and nonfatal

injury as workers in the coal mining industry.() The productivity of uranium

miners is not as high as coal miners, partly due to uranium deposits often being

small and hard to develop and partly due to the difference in mechanization and

development of the two industries.(-) For this reason, injury rates on a per

million ton output basis are higher in uranium mines.( 7) However, the ore

requirement to produce a given quantity of electrical energy is smaller by orders

of magnitude in the nuclear system, owing to the high energy content of nuclear

fuels. Thus, on an energy basis, injury rates in uranium mining are significantly

lower than in coal mining. Close to one coal mining fatality per year associated

with the fuel requirements of one 1000 MWe power plant can be expected. On the

same basis, the fatality rate in uranium mines is roughly one-tenth of this.(8

Radon gas is produced from the natural decay of radium, which is itself a member

of the uranium decay chain. Since uranium is present in low concentrations in

rocks, oceans, and building materials, the gaseous radon which escapes and is

dispersed in the atmosphere exposes us all to very low concentrations. The

difficulty arises in underground uranium mining where a relatively small quantity

3-57
TABLE 3.5

U.S. URANIUM RESOURCES 6)

January 1, 1974

Tons I3 8

Estimated

Additional

(Potential)

450,000

700,000

1,000,000

1,700,000

3,700,000

8,700,000

3-58

Cost

Cut Off

$/lb U 308

$ 8

10

15

30

50

100

Reasonably

Assured

(Reserves)

277,000

430,000

610,000

790,000

4,800,000

8,800,000

Totals

727,000

1,130,000

1,610,000

2,490,000

8,500,000

17,500,000
of air is available for dilution. Some of the radon-222 escapes directly to

the mine atmosphere from exposed rock surfaces, while some of the radon trapped

inside is released as rocks are broken during mining operations. The decay of radon

in the mine atmosphere results in deposition of daughter isotopes on dust particles.

Statistical studies have shown that exposure to high concentrations of radon gas

and its alpha-decay products leads to an increased probability of developing lung

cancer during some future time period. (9.1' 9.2) The etiological factor of

occupational origin is alpha radiation from the decay of Ra-222 daughter products

which lodge in the miners' lungs. The legal limit for annual exposure to radon

and its decay products has been reduced to a level which is much lower than that

which existed in some uranium mines in the past.

It has been estimated that several times as many underground uranium miners would

die from accidents in one year's time than would die from future lung cancers

resulting from exposure during that year to radon and its daughters at the annual

limit. Some procedures to reduce exposure to radon and its daughters include

increased ventilation, filtration, and the use of respirators.

Because of concern among some medical authorities, an epidemiological study of the

U.S. uranium miners was begun by Heuper in 1948 and later continued by the U.S.

Public Health Service. This study provides the most comprehensive single body of

knowledge on lung cancer incidence in miners exposed to airborne radon daughter

products. The PHS study, along with other supportive research) on U.S. uranium

miners, forms the basis of the dose-response characteristic assumed for the present

study.

Data recorded, analyzed, and interpreted by Lundin, et.al.-. suggest that the

excess risk of death, to age 80, resulting from radiogenic lung cancer, among

white male uranium miners, is of the order of 0.0001 per man per working-level-month

(WLM). 1 Assuming an annual exposure of 4 WLM peryear, ) and productivity of

3 metric tons of U308 per miner per year, the group occupational dose is about

1.3 miner-WLM per metric ton of U308. The annual fuel requirement of one 1000 MWe

LWR is about 160 metric tons of U308. About half of this, or 80 metric tons is

assumed produced by underground mines. Thus, the occupational group dose corresponding to the annual 1000 MWe LWR mining requirements is about 104 miner-WLM.

Using the risk coefficient cited above, the expected number of cases of radiogenic

lung cancer associated with the annual fuel requirements for a 1000-MWe LWR is

about 0.01. The reader is warned of the large uncertainties contained in this

computation, resulting from the uncertainity in the risk estimate of Lundin.(9 1

The result should be viewed only as an order-of-magnitude estimate.

3-59
Milling

Only about four pounds of U308 are present in one ton of ore from the mine. Thus,

there is an incentive to locate the mill, in which the U308 is separated from the

ore, near the mine in order to keep down the cost of transporting the ore containing

99.8% waste material.

The three main steps in uranium milling are ore preparation, concentration, and

product recovery. The ore preparation involves crushing and grinding with the

objective of getting the ore down to a particle size small enough that the uranium

is liberated or exposed. Concentration is achieved by a leaching process, generally

using sulfuric acid, which results in practically all of the uranium going into

solution. The insoluble materials are then separated and a solvent extraction

or an ion exchange process is used to upgrade and purify the clarified pregnant

solution. Uranium is then precipitated from the solution. The product is filtered

and dried; the result, called "yellowcake," contains about 80% U 308 . Overall

uranium recovery from ore to finished product is generally about 95%.

Radon gas is released from the ore during the crushing and grinding steps. It

enters the mill ventilation system and is discharged from the gaseous effluent

stack. Ventilation and filtration are used to reduce airborne wastes.

The insoluble materials left after the leaching process are sent to a tailings

impoundment area. These tailings contain most of the radioactive species other

than uranium and radon gas which were present in the ore. Since only about 0.2%

of the ore has been removed, these radionuclides are present in practically the

same concentration in the tailings as they were in the original ore. The tailings

piles are generally covered with earth to reduce radon release and to minimize

release of other radionuclides by erosive processes.

The liquid effluent flowing offsite may carry small quantities of uranium, thorium,

or radium. Current practice at most uranium mills is to recycle liquids so that

fresh water intake just offsets evaporative and seepage losses; other mills

precipitate any nuclides of concern from the liquid flowing offsite.

Conversion

The next stop for the U308 is the conversion plant where the uranium is converted

to gaseous uranium hexafluoride (UF 6) by reduction, hydrofluorination, and fluorination processes. A very small amount of uranium from offgas scrubber solutions

is discharged through limestone to waterways.

3-60
Enrichment

The UF6 is then shipped to the gaseous diffusion plants which receives natural

uranium having about 0.7 weight percent U-235 and produces a product stream of

uranium having from two to four weight percent U-235 for LWR fuel and a tails

stream which is stored. The tails stream is known as depleted uranium since it

has only 0.2 to 0.3 weight percent U-235. Very small amounts of gases containing

uranium are released from the waste gas treatment system to atmosphere. Even

smaller amounts of uranium are discharged from the uranium recovery plant into

waterways through a holding pond, which receives ashes of solid wastes, uranium

solutions, and recovered uranium materials.

Preparation and Fabrication

The enriched UF6 is then sent to the preparation and fabrication plant where the

UF6 is converted to uranium dioxide pellets, which are placed in the zirconium

alloy tubes that make up the finished fuel assembly. Small amounts of uranium

pass through the treatment systems and are released to the atmosphere or the

liquid effluent. Due to the high quality standards in the industry, a relatively

large amount of solid waste is generated. Since the uranium is of such high

value, there is an economic incentive to recover the uranium carried along with

the scrap materials. This low-hazard-potential solid waste, which generally

consists of paper trash, packing material, broken glassware, protective clothing,

and contaminated equipment, is sent to commercial burial grounds for surface

burial. Laboratory research and geologic and hydrologic studies have shown

that carefully packaged low level wastes such as these can be safely buried at

carefully selected and operated surface burial facilities.

Electricity Generation

The fabricated fuel is then delivered to the reactor power plant where the electrical

generation takes place. As the uranium fissions in the reactor core, some pinholes

or defects in the fuel cladding may develop which allow some of the fission products

to escape to the coolant water. The releases to the coolant are in proportion to

the number of rods which have leaks. The reactor Gaseous and liquid waste treatment

systems are designed to capture or hold up for natural decay most of the radionuclides before they are released to the environment. The PWR and BWR have

different types of radwaste systems so they will be described separately. The PWR

gaseous radioactive wastes result mainly from degassing the reactor coolant, displacement of cover gases as liquids accumulate and sampling operations and

automatic gas analysis for hydrogen and oxygen in cover gases. These gases are

3-61
collected, compressed, and dehumidified. The water is sent to the liquid radwaste

system while the gases typically are stored for 45 days or more in decay tanks

before release to the environment. Kryton-85 makes up about 90% of the radioactivity

remaining in the decay tanks after 45 days of storage. Since Kr-85 has a half-life

greater than 10 years, there would be no appreciable decrease in its activity if

the holdup time were doubled or tripled. Cryogenic or other systems can be used

to further reduce releases of krypton and other noble gases.

Release of the noble gases from a typical PWR after 45 day holdup produces site

boundary doses which are small with respect to the proposed AEC standards, which

are in turn small compared to the natural background radiation.

The PWR liquid radwaste system collects and processes radioactive liquid wastes

generated from various sources throughout the plant. The degree of treatment which

a batch of liquid wastes receives depends on its activity. Some very low level

wastes will need no processing at all and will be discharged from the plant. Some

high level wastes will be evaporated; the residues will be packaged for offsite

burial at commercial burial grounds of the type described earlier. Other liquid

wastes will be treated by demineralizers which use an ion exchange treatment.

Treated liquids may then be discharged from the plant, recycled through the plant,

or given further treatment.

The activity actually released in the liquid effluent from a PWR is expected to

total less than one curie per year, exclusive of tritium. Tritium (H-3) is formed

by ternary fission (a fission in which three elemental fission products result

instead of the usual two) and by neutron interaction with boron, lithium, and

deuterium in the water. The main source from the latter three is production

from boron, which is placed in the circulating water for control purposes. The

ternary fission production is actually much greater than any of these other

sources, but about 99% of the tritium formed from fission is expected to remain

inside the fuel tubes.

Since tritiated water, HTO, is chemically identical to ordinary water, separation

of the tritiated water from ordinary water is difficult. No practical method is

currently available for such a separation at power reactors. About 600 cures

of tritium are expected to be released from a 1000 MWe PWR plant per year.

However, most of the tritium inventory remains with the fuel; thus most tritium

releases in the LWR fuel cycle occur at the reprocessing plant, i.e., - 16,000

Ci/yr per 1000 MWe LWR, in the form of gaseous release to the atmosphere. It

3-62
should be noted in passing that the current world-wide environmental inventory of

tritium is estimated to be from 25 to 80 million cures produced by natural

processes and one to two billion curies from atmospheric nuclear detonations.

Gases accumulate in the typical BWR coolant system from radiolytic decomposition

of reactor water into hydrogen and oxygen, air leakage into the system, and

radioactive noble gases released through defects in the cladding of the fuel.

Relatively large volumes of noncondensable gases are drawn from the main condenser

through steam jet air ejectors. The gases are then heated Sand sent to a catalytic

recombiner, where the hydrogen and oxygen are combined to yield water vapor. Next,

the water vapor and steam are removed by condensation, and the gases left are sent

to a holdup pipe for delay of from 30 minutes to several hours. This allows many

of the short-lived xenon and krypton isotopes to decay. The oases are then put

through some additional moisture control procedures and passed through high

efficiency filters before entering a series of charcoal beds. Xenon and krypton

are adsorbed by the charcoal and are therefore subjected to an additional delay

time before filtering and discharge to the atmosphere.

The typical system described above is expected to reduce the design basis release

level (measured in curies per unit time) by a factor of 50. Variation of this

system is common. At least one U.S. utility plans to cool the gases entering the

charcoal beds to 0*F to increase the delay time the noble oases experience. The

practical application of systems such as cryogenic distillation is also being

investigated.

Another source of gaseous emissions in the BR is the offgas system for the gland

seal. The gland seal system for the turbine shaft bearings permits a small fraction

of primary steam to flow into a separate off-gas system. These gases are released

to the environment through the chimney after about a two minute holdup. The

radioactivity in this gas is mainly due to krypton and xenon isotopes with half-lives

on the order of minutes. At least one utility is planning to reduce these emissions

by providing clean steam as backflow into the turbine gland seal.

A BWR utilizing room temperature charcoal beds and two minute holdup for gland

seal exhaust would be expected to release the same amount of lonn-lived Kr-85

and greater amounts of short-lived krypton and xenon isotopes than a PWR with

45 day holdup.

3-63
The BWR liquid radwaste system has many of the same components as the PWR system.

The liquids are collected and treated as necessary by demineralizing, evaporating,

filtering, and further storage. Tritium release from a BWR plant is expected to

be less than for a PWR since there is no burnable poison (boron) source in the

BWR. However, the small fraction of ternary-fission-produced tritium which is

released from the fuel to the coolant must be assumed to be the same in the BWR as

in the PWR. This results in about 100 curies of tritium release per year for a

1000 MWe BWR.

Radiation doses to the general public due to normal releases of radionuclides

at LWRs and in the associated fuel cycle facilites are estimated in the Appendix.

An abbreviated discussion is provided in footnotes (17), (18), (19). The Appendix

also deals with occupational doses in the LWR fuel cycle.

Both types of reactors produce some solid wastes which are carefully packaged and

sent to commercial surface burial facilities as is the solid waste from fabrication.

Some typical sources of this waste are filter sludges and spent resins, concentrated

wastes, air filters from off gas and radioactive ventilation systems, contaminated

clothing, miscellaneous paper, rags, etc. from contaminated areas, and contaminated

equipment which cannot be economically decontaminated. The total production of

this solid waste from a 1000 MWe reactor is expected to be from 2000 to 5000 cubic

feet per year.

Reprocessing

Following exposure in the reactor, the fuel is removed from the core and allowed

to sit in storage pools for more than 100 days. During this time the radioactivity of the discharged fuel elements decreases rapidly as the short-lived

fission products decay away. The spent fuel is then shipped to the chemical

reprocessing plant to recover the materials of value. Recovered uranium and

plutonium can be recycled. The waste materials of the recovery process contain

the fission products which were separated from the uranium and plutonium.

Krypton-85 and tritium make up more than 99% of the activity released from the

reprocessing plant since, as discussed earlier, practical systems for capture

of these two radionuclides have yet to be demonstrated. The release at the

reprocessing plant annually amounts to almost 300,000 curies of Kr-85 and 16,000

curies of tritium from the fuel received from one 1000 MWe LWR.

3-64
Some of the low level wastes produced at the reprocessing plant are shipped to

the commercial burial grounds for surface burial. These wastes are of the low

level, nontransuranic type.

The high level wastes are primarily the fission product concentrates. Current

plans are to store these wastes for about five years as solutions at the reprocessing

plant to let the relatively short-lived radionuclides decay which in turn reduces

heat generation and radioactivity per unit volume of liquid. .The wastes are then

solidified and shipped to a federal repository no later than ten years after

reprocessing.

Other types of waste material produced at the reprocessing plant may also be shipped

to the federal repository. These include the zirconium alloy cladding hulls,

intermediate level waste, and waste contaminated with plutonium and other transuranic

isotopes.

The anticipated increasing use of nuclear power to meet the electrical generating

demands in the U.S. results in a need for a carefully considered waste disposal

policy. Some of the wastes described earlier need to be isolated for thousands

of years. Thus, the need for a facility such as a federal repository is evident.

Recognizing that a truly permanent solution to the problem is required, the AEC

in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences and Members of the Geologic

Community has sponsored work over the past 15 years to examine the suitability of

bedded salt formations as a final repository for these materials.

Salt has a number of characteristics which makes it particularly well suited for

this purpose, most important of which is that bedded salt deposits are completely

free of circulating ground waters and are isolated from underground aquifers by

essentially impermeable shale. This situation tends to be preserved because any

fractures that might develop are healed by plastic deformation and recrystallization

of the salt.

Disposal as solids in surface vaults is also being studied. The AEC has proposed

that surface vaults for the engineered storage concept be designed, built, and

tested at the same time as a pilot plant program for storage in underground salt

beds is tested. These facilities could be available for use by 1980 and would

allow for easy retrieval should this be required. Depending on the experience.

gained in operation of the engineered surface storage facilities and the pilot

operation in a geologic formation, decisions would be made by the mid-1980's on

3-65
which concept should be expanded. However, evaluation studies on the feasibility

of other concepts are also planned.

Transportation of Nuclear Materials

Transportation of materials is required between all of these steps in the nuclear

fuel cycle. In most cases the materials are transported by truck although rail

facilities are expected to handle some shipments of spent fuel between reactors

and reprocessing plant and all shipments of waste to the federal repository.

'ost concern about transportation of materials in the nuclear fuel cycle is

generally centered on shipments of spent fuel and high level waste materials.

However, one must not forget all the other shipments in the nuclear fuel cycle

because the total vehicle miles loaced in these other shipments is not a neligible

quantity in comparison with waste and spent fuel shipment miles.

Shipping containers are designed according to the value and notential hazard of

the cargo. U308 is shipped in 55 gallon drums while snent fuel shipped by rail

will travel in 200,000 pound casks which are designed to withstand fire, impacts,

and submergence in water without leaking.

Unit Impacts and Costs

Tables 3.6 and 3.7 display representative conventional costs (1980 dollars), abatement costs (1980 dollars), and environmental and human impact data associated with

the annual operation of 1000 Mi1Ne light water reactors and their supporting fuel

cycles. Fuel cycle effects are, of course, prorated to the annual fuel requirements

of a 1000 MWe power plant. Since a plant capacity factor of 75% is assumed, the

quantities in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 correspond to the production of 6.57 billion

kilowatt hours of electrical energy.

Footnotes and Re.e.ence4s eon Section 3.5: NucleaA Fuel Cyce

(1) Re.eV to FiguAe. 1.2 o6 thtit 'tepout.

(2) Fede at Powet Commi ssLon, The 1970 NationaZ PoteeA Suvey, Paxt 1 (DecembeA

- 1971), page 1-1-19, Table .4.

(3) U.S. Atomic Energy Conmiision, ucLea Reactor &uiLt, Being BuLt, on Planned

- in the U.S.

(4) A though wuan.ium occuwb in 4eve.a chemical o/nm in na tune, uanium

~~ eouce estimate axe commonLy given in equivalent units o ma's's og U308

One ton o6 U308 contains about 0.85 tons o4 uwnanum.

3-66
TABLE 3.6

ANNUAL EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe PWR AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 Billion kilowatt hours

(one year operation @ 75% CF)

Reactor

Millina- Power Reprocessing &b

Mining Fabrications Plant Transportation Totals

Conventional Costs (106$)

(T1T dollars)

Fuel 6.2 17.2 10.3a 5.5 39

Plant Capital 77 77

O&M 5.2 5.2

Rounded Total TT

Abatement Costs (106$) (16)

(1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers 2.4 2.4

Near-Zero Radwaste 1.2 1.2

Rounded Total

Occupational Accidents (11)

Deaths 0.09 0.005 0.01 0.002 0.1

Non-fatal Injuries 3.6 1.5 1.3 0.12 6.5

Man-days Lost 762 88 110 15 975

Mining & Milling Impacts

U(natural) for GOP

feed (MTU) 132

Strip Mining of uranium 

Mill tailings (acres) 9 2.2 - - 11

Tailings produced @

Mill (103MT) (14) - 79 - - 79

Public Accidents in Transportation

of Nuclear Fuels (Excl. exposures

to radioactivity)

Deaths - - - 0.009 0.009

Non-fatal Injuries - - - 0.08 0.08

Man-days Lost - - - 60 60

Occupational Health

Miners radiation Exposure

(miner-WLM) (13) 104 - - - 104

Other Occupational Exposure

(man-rad) (12) - 15 300 30 345

Solid Radioactive Waste

Disposal (15)

Volume (102ft3) 77 22 13 110

Burial Area (acres) 0.15 0.04 0.31 0.5

Land Use (20)

Inventory (acres) %500 "100 100 100 "1000

Consumption (acres/yr) 9 2 - 1 12

Effects at the Power Plant

Thermal discharge (1010 kWht) 1.4 1.4

Net destruction of Uranium (MTU) 1.1 1.1

Net production of Plutonium (MTPu) '.0.2 ..0.2

Routine Radioactive Releases to

Atmphre (Ci) 1/)

H-3 - - - 16000 16000

Kr-85 - - 5500 280,000 290,000

1-129 - - 0.0003 0.0003

1-131 - - 0.004 0.004

Xe-131m - 180 50 230

Xe-133 - 580 - 580

Cs-134 - - 0.007 0.007

Rn-222 - 44 - - 44

U-234 - 0.006 - '0 0.006

U-238 - 0.002 - 0 0.002

Total U - 0.009 .0 0.009

Pu-241 - - - 0.003 0.003

Total Pu - - - 0.003 0.003

Others - 0.2 0.2

Routine Radioactive Releases

to Waterways (Ci)

H-3 - - 580 350 930

1-129 - - - 0.0002 0.0002

1-131 - - 0.03 0.00002 0.3

Cs-134 - - 0.01 0.01 0.02

U-234 - 0.1 - 0.002 0.1

U-238 - 0.04 - 0.0007 0.04

Total U - 0.2 - 0.003 0.2

Others - 0.0008 0.1 3. 3.

Population Exposure from Routine

Release of Radionuclides (18)

.Global Model: All-time commitment, long-lived nuclides

World (whole body man-rad)

Kr-85 - - 03 127 130

H-3 - - - 22 22

Total World T2

U.S. Only (whole body man-rad)

Kr-85 - - '.0.1 6 6.1

H-3 - - - 2.4 2.4

Total U.S. T.T

.Local Model: Airborne short-lived noble gases and tritium

Total Man-rem within 50 miles

High Population Assumption 42

Medium Population Assumption 4.2

Low Population Assumption 0.6

a. Working capital charges (fuel)

b. Includes all transportation steps c. Milling, Conversion, Enrichment, and Preparation and Fabrication

TABLE 3.7

ANNUAL EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe BWR AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 Billion kilowatt hours

(one year operation @ 75% C.F.)

Reactor

Milling - Power Reprocessing b

Minng Fa _itn Plant Transportation Total

Conventional Costs (106$)

(1980 dollars)

Fuel 5.6 16.1 10.3a 6.7 39

Plant Capital 77 77

O&M 5.2 5.2

Rounded Total T2V

AbatementCosts (106$) (6)

(1980 dollarsT

Cooling Towers 2.4 2.4

near-Zero Radwaste 1.8 1.8

Rounded Total

Occupational Accidents (11)

Deaths 0.09 0.005 0.01 0.002 0.1

Non-fatal Injuries 3.3 1.4 1.3 0.14 6.1

Man-days Lost 696 81 110 16 903

Mining & Milling Impacts

U (natural) for GDP

feed (MTU) 144

Strip Mining of Uranium & Mill Tailings (Acres) 9.0 2.0 - - 11

Tailings produced @ Mill (103 MT) - 72 - - 72

Public Accidents in Transportation

of Nuclear Fuels (Excl. exposures

to radioactivity)

Deaths - - - 0.009 0.009 Non-fatal Injuries - - - 0.08 0.08

Man-days Lost - - - 60 60

Occupational Health

Miners' radiation exposure

(Miner-WLM) (13) -100 - - - -100

Other Occupational

exposure (Man-rad) (12) - 15 300 30 345

Solid Radioactive Waste

Disposal (15)

Volume (102 ft3) - 93 44 14 150

Burial Area (acres) 0.19 0.09 0.31 0.6

Land Use (20)

Inventory (acres) .500 %100 100 100 -. 1000

Consumption (acres/yr) 9 2 - 1 12

Effects at the Power Plant

Thermal Discharge

(1010 kWht) - - 1.4 - 1.4

Net destruction of

Uranium (MTU) - - 1.1 - 1.1

Net production of

Plutonium (MTPu) - - -.0.2 -- n0.2

Routine Radioactive Releases to

the Atmosphere(C) 7(T7)

H-3 - - - 16000 16000 Kr-85 - - 5500 280,000 290,000

1-129 - - - 0.0003 0.0003

1-131 - - 0.002 0.004 0.006

Xe-131m - - 580 50 630

Xe-133 - - 130,000 - 130,000 Cs-134 - - - 0.007 0.007 Rn-222 - 40 - - 40

U-234 - 0.006 - "100.006

U-238 - 0.002 - "10 0.002

Total U - 0.009 - I.0 0.009 Pu-241 - - - 0.003 0.003 Total Pu - - - 0.003 0.003

Others 120,000 0.2 120,000

Routine Radioactive Releases

to Waterways (Ci)

H-3 - - 85 350 440

1-129 - - - 0.0002 0.0002

1-131 - - 0.1 0.00002 0.1 Cs-134 - - 0.001 0.01 0.01 U-234 - 0.1 - 0.002 0.1 U-238 - 0.05 - 0.0007 0.05 Total U - 0.2 - 0.003 0.2

Others - 0.0008 0.2 3.0 3.0

Population Exposure from Routine

Release of Radionuclides (18)

.Global Model: All-time comitment,

long-lived nuclides

World (whole body man-rad) Kr-85 - - .3 127 130 H-3 - - - 21 21

Total World

U.S. Only (whole body man-rad) Kr-85 - - -.0.1 6 6.1

H-3 - - - 2.3 2.3

Total U.S.

.Local Model: Airborne short-lived noble gases & tritium

Total man-rem within 50 miles

High Population Assumption 310

Medium Population Assumption 25

Low Population Assumption 4.4

a. Working capital charges (fuel)

b. Includes all transportation steps

c. Milling, Conversion, Enrichment, and Preparation and Fabrication

(5) USAEC, StatiZtical Data o6 the Uranium Indust'c , January 1, 1974, GJO-100.

Pennonal Communtca tn, John PatteAson, Viv . o P.oduction and MatexiaZA

Management, USAEC.

(6) The estimates o j ea onabqy a~suced 'e6 enve4 ate made by the USAEC 4'om

~ basic data povided by private uranium companies. In o'de' to quaoiy in

the %e evve category, the matecZaL must have been demonstrated to exist by

sample data and shown to be proptably ecove.able based on actual production

expe'rence. Fo'zwand opematinq and captal costa have been used to estimate

4eae've. at a given price. One cutodd gAadeA ae based on operating costa

only, but the average grade od one produced must be adequate to atow

'cecovexy o4 all operating and 6on'wa'td capital costs. The avecaqe gtade o 

the 'easonably aasused >teounce in conventionaL deposits ecovevable at

up to $10 pen pound is about 0.17% U 3 08

(7) lnjurcy Rates in U'tanium and Coal .ines

The table below compares njury s taittic4 in coal and uanium mining eon

the period 1964-1969. Figutes agg'tegate Znjut.ie6s >tom both stikp and

undevg'tound mining method.

Note that coat and unanium injury >.ate4 on a pen miLion manhowt basis aLe

simZ&Vt, but that >tatea on a pe mateion ton output basis ate higher gont

uwtanium, due to lowe p'toductivity >rates in utanium mining.

COMPARISON OF COAL AND URANIUM MINING ACCIDENT RATES*

Injury Rates Injurty Rates

Pen 1tlZion Man-Hour Pe. Mijtion Tons o6 Output

Uanwium Coat WUcanium O'>e Coat

Yeat Fatal Non ataL Fatat onn Fonatal Fatal

1964 0.51 44.6 0.96 43.9 0.75 65.9 0.48 22.0

196541.62 45.4 1.04 44.7 2.28 59.4 0.49 21.1

1966 1.18 35.3 0.96 42.9 1.61 48.6 0.43 19.1

1967 0.74 46.2 0.92 41.8 0.95 59.1 0.29 18.0

1968 0.71 37.0 1.22 40.4 0.92 48.4 0.56 17.0

1969 1.54 31.4 0.85 41.8 2.03 41.5 0.36 17.4

Ave. 1.02 39.2 1.01 42.6 1.39 53.4 0.45 19.0

*Soutces: (7.1), (7.2), (7.3), (7.4), 7.5).

Data wee also obta ned showing the injury >Lates eo. unde'g'cound ve4us open

pct utanum mining. i.5) Undergrtound mining had a higheAr atality and nonSatal injur >tate by a considenable maitgin as shown in the table below. These

>ates have been showing a downward trend as the uranium industry becomes

morte sophisticated. Foan example, the nclusion o atalties {>om 1960

th'cough 1963 rtaies the average undercgound SataLity tate to 2.30 deaths

pet miZnion tons. However, 1960 Aks a patiecuJa~tLy bad yeaht as 29 underground

miner died white the undeng tound mining prcoduction c tz leas than 5.6

rniLLon tons o onte.

3-69
URANT(af '{ITkNG ACCIDFVT DATA

Undevg'owd niinin Open Pit 'fincn

P'oduction Nonataet Poduction Vontatat

Year 103 -tons o'e FataL ties Inj wies 10 3 ton one FataL-tc InjVuies

1964 3760 4 326 1537 0 23

1965 3133 10 250 1243 0 10

1966 2966 7 187 1332 0 23

1967 3678 3 291 1593 2 21

1968 4082 5 303 2366 1 9

1969p 3731 12 220 2173 0 25

1964-69 Ave Accident

'ate Pe. 106 tons

of one 1.92 73.9 0.29 10.8

Pate pe 106 fzg

U3 08* 1.06 40.6 0.16 5.9

*A/s5umin 0.2'0 U308 content in one.

means p)eZi'7ina)yL

Sou'ce: (7.5)

Atsuminq 0.29 6L3Og content in ote and that 50 o4 the minn.ino production is (vi

the open pit method, The 4ataityi 'r'ate o' aUt uranium minina is 0.61 deaths

peA motion kgq o 01308 mined, whie the non(ata.t in ju'i 'tate is 23.22 injunie6

pe mit ion fai o/ U308. Using 6000 man-dae, tot pe death and 55 Tian-dai

o t pe' nonLat a. injut (ave. o4 1964 th.touah 1968 data om 1e4. 7.1)

gives 4940 man-dayp Zost pe nmition fg o4 U 308 mined.

Souces :

(7.1) wBu'eau o4f AZLnes5, iineaoL Yeavboofk - 1968

(7 T) National CoaX A6ocia on, Bitwminows Coat Facts -- 1970

(73) Bueau o4 the Cen. us, Status tic Abt' taet o4 ,The U.S., Annuat

Pubticaton.

(7.4) Bureau o 7 (.ine, , CoaX Mine In jun ies and o'haknime -- Vecembe' and

Annual Summahr, 197, Is sued . ark4 177.

(7.5) R.. FaukineA, Di.USAEC, Div. o Raw atv iaLs, PewsonaX

communication, Oct. 29, 1971.

(8) The. oUowing cude calculation suppot6 this statement. A mo'te ke1 ined

treatment o occupationat casuaet 'ates in the attenate ueX cqcte is

given in Chapter 5 and the Appendix.

Coat

AnnuaZ equiement oc 1000 MWe poe' &ant: 2.3 x 106 shot ton.

Fata&it y 'ate in Mine (1) : 0.45 ataitiee pe' 106 sho't tons.

Thu , 0.45 ( ata1%ties/T0 6ST) x 2.3 (10 6ST/V ) ~ 1.0 ( aatLity/V') pe 1000

MWe plant.

Upannium

Ann -aL equiAement o4 1000 MWe powve plant: 130 met'tic tons U/Yea

Assume: U308 concentXaton ~-0.2%.

Fataitq 'ate in mine (7) : 1.39 data itieA pe' 106 &ho'tt tons (ST)

3-70
Thus, 1.39 (1 ata tte4/106 ST one) x 10 - 6 (10 ST oe/ST one.)

x 1/0.002 (S one/ST U O ) x 1/0.85 (ST U308/ST U)

x 1.1 (ST U/M.T. U) x 13 (MT U/WL)

= 0-.1 (jatahtiies fY4)

(9) Major se erence& on Lung cancer& "k among wuanium miners, due to radon

daughter inhalation, and on elated matters, aete tLsZed below. The p'ewent

study made heavy use of reference (9.1), the most recent 'epot og the

Public HeaLth Service study.

(9.1) Fanf E. Lundin, J4., Joseph K. Wagonev, and VAiCtoL E. Archer, "Radon

Daughter Exposure and Re pZuwtory Cancer, Quantitative and Tempoal

A6 pect6 ," U.S. Depa tment o j Health, Education and WeL ae, PubUiC

HeaLth Serwice, National 1nt. bor OccupaoXonaL Saety and Health,

Natt. Int. of Envijonmentat HeaLth Sciences Joint Monogtaph No. 1,

June 1971.

(9.2) W. C. HuepeL, "Occupational and Envu~ionmentat Cance.'r o the

Re6pi ttony System," Section C.11, Sp'uinger-Ve'Lag, New Yo'zk, 1966.

(9.3) F'tanfz E. Lundin, J't., J. WJJ.Liam Lloyd, and Et zabeth M. Smith,

"Montagitq od U'canium M ne46 in Relation to Radiation Exposure,

Hand-Rock Mining and CigaAette Smoking--1950 Th'tough SeptembeA 1967,"

HeaLth PhysZic 16 pp. 571-578 (1969).

(9.4) Joseph K. Wagonert, et at, "Radiation as the Cau6e o Lung Cancert Among

Unanium Mineut, " New Eng. J. Med. 273 pp. 181-188 (1965).

(9.5) Joseph K. Wagoner, et at, "Canee MontaLty Patterns Among U.S. Uanium

~-~ Miners and M!Wens, 1950 Through 1962, " J. Nat. CanceA Inst. 32

pp. 787-801 (1964).

(9.6) Fedeuta Radiation Council, Radiation P'otection Guidance jo't Fedeat

Agencies, Memoandum lon the President, Decembe 27, 1968. Reprinted

in neg. 11, appendix 1.

(9.7) "Undetgtound Mining of U/ani.um One, Radiation Potection Guidance bon ~~~ Federtal Agenci.es," Env'tonmentat Ptotection Agency, -.Fede'utt RegAtet,

36 pp. 9480-9482 (May 25, 1971).

(9.8) "Fede/at Metal and Nonmetallic kfine Saety Act o 1966," Public Law

89-577, 89th Congtes.

(9.9) Code o4 Fede'ral ReguLati~o n, T tte 30 (mineral >eoutees) , paut 57, ~~~~ Federat Regtet O ice, Nat onat kAchive6 and Recotd6 Sezv., Gene'ta2

Services AdminZsttation, Washington, V.C.

(9.10) Auwtet Goodwin, ChieA, Health Divsion, U.S. Bureau o6 M ne,

AMtington, Vvtgin a, pensonat communication, Apri.t 5, 1972.

(9.11) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Radiation Standavtd6 4o4t Uanium

Mining, Hearvings bejone the Subcommittee on ReeaAch, Development,

and Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Enegy, Congess o

the United States, Ninety-F tst Congess, -ir.6t season, Ma'tch 17

and 18, 1969. U.S. Govt. Painting 06ice, Washington, 1969.

(9.11) Joint Comn ttee on Atomic Energy, Radiation Exposure o Uanium Minets 

Hearings be6onte the Subcommittee on Reas health, Development, and

Radiation o6 the Joint Comiwttee on Atomic Energy, Congess o the

3-71
United States, Ninetieth Conges, .st session, May 9,10,23,

June 6,7,8,9, Ju4y 26,27 and August 8 and 10, 1967. Pait6 1 and

2. U.S. Govt. Printing O64Zce, Washington, 1967.

(9.13) "Radiation Exposue o Uanium Hfners," a 'epott o an AdvZuso'y

Committee A om the Division o edicat Sciences: Nationao Acad.

o6 Sciences4--Nate. Re ecvch Council--Natt. Acad. o6 Engineeing 

Fedet Radiation Council, Washington, D.C., Auguwt 1968. Repinted

as 'e 6. 11, appendix 3.

(9. 14) " Ep demioLo gic Studies o 6 Uoanium Mines , " National Acad. o Science4--

NationaL Re.eanch Council, Lepott o6 the Ad Hoc Committee,

Advtisor.y Committee to the Fed. Radiation Council, Jan. 27, 1971.

This report may be seen at the Headquateu and at the 10 R1egonaf

O6ices o4 the EnvL'tonmentat P'otection Agency. Addbe.6eA ae

given in e . 7.

(9.15) Robley D. Evans, "Radiation Protection o Uanium ne s," U.S. Dept.

o6 Labon., Bu. o Labor. Standands . Hearings on 6sa ety and health

4tandavds, Nov. 20, 1968. Reprinted as ne4. 11, appendix 6.

(9. 16) Geno Saccomanno, et at, "Histoo gic Types o f Lunq Cance. Among

UAtanium Miines," Cancev 27 pp. 515-523 (1971).

(9.17) Geno Saccomanno, et at, "Lung Cancrt o Unanium Mines on the

CoLo'ado Plateau.," Health Physics 10 pp. 1195-1201 (1964).

(9.18) H. A. Bla x, "Dose-Time ReLations Fo. Induction o Lung Cancev in

U/an um Mine.s in Radiation-Induced Cances," P'oc. 06 a s ymposium

on 'adition-induced cancer, organized by the Intl. Atomic Enegy

Agency in co abo'ation with the Wo.d Health O/ganization and

heLd in Athens, 28 April-2 May 1969, p. 203, IAEA, Vienna, 1969.

(9.19) "Vitae Statstic6 o6 the United States t967," U.S. Dept. o HeaLth,

Education and WeZjae, PubtLc HeaLth Sexvice, Wash. V. C., 1969.

(9.20) Geno Saccomano, " Radiation E xpos une o Unanium Mine/L4, " U.S. Dept.

o6 Labon But. o6 Labon Standand6, Hea.ing6 on a ety and health

6standa/d6, Nov. 20, 1968. Reprinted as rte. 11, appendix 5.

(9.21) "P'tobablee Numbe/u6 and Costs Th/ough 1985 o Lung Cance Cases Among

Uranium Minen, " Feb. 2, 1967. Reprinted as nee. 12, pant 2,

appendix 7.

(9.22) Chaates F. Eason, A.t. VZt. bo. Wotkmen' Compensation and

Radiation Records, U.S. Atomic Energy CommiZs on, personal

communication, April 13, 1972.

(9.23) Opinion o6 the Supreme Cout o Utah in Ganne. vs. HecLa ining Co.

(1967). Reprinted as. e. 12, part 2, appendix 16.

(9.24) OawaLd C. Abe.tnethy, Supenv4iang Redente, State o Colonado, Dept. o

Labox and Employment, Div. o Labo4, Wo'zmen' Compensation Section,

Denver, CoLorAdo, pexonal communication, May 4, 1972.

(9.25) Occupational Saety and Health Act o 1970, Public Law 91-596, 91st

Cong'e66, S.2193, Dec. 29, 1970, Section 27 (d) (1).

3-72
(9.26) O64ce o6 Wonkmen',s Compena t2on and Radaton Recorda, OZice o4 the

GeneraL Managen, USAEC, Wabhington, V. C., perono2 communication,

May 1, 1912.

(10) B&iUZ o4 Zung cancersL )tA6z eatcmate among uranium mineu & given in the

tabte beLow.

Lung Cancer Deaths Expected to Age 80, Among 10,000 White Men

Who kne Uwanium between Ages 0 and 50

Expected with no

nadiat.on expo4wu'e

Total deaothea 353

Exce 4 death 0

Excee4 dea h /vnne&/W LM

Expected with

expo&uue at

4 WLM/yeah.

512

259 _4 1.3 x 10

Expected with

expo5uAe at

12 WLM/yea

684

331 _ 0.92 x 10

LZ 6etime p.obabiZLty/W LM o death 6'om ad.logenic Lung cancer ddopted on

use in this epout: Orden o 6 10-6 

(a) Fnom Lundcn, et aL (9.1 , Tabte 44.

(11) Occupationat Accidents in the LWR Fuel CycLee6

a. Sounce6 o Znju'y tte s in u'antum mni.tng ae given in footnote (7).

b. EUsewhee in the LWR sue! cycLe, base data wete taken 6tom:

Bueau o6 Labon Statictics, Wo'k Inju& e6 in Atomic Fnen g, 1968 --

A Suvey o6 Ptivateqy-wned and Ope a ted EstabL-Wment , 81. Repo t

#378, and 64 om

Bureau o6 Labon Statst ics, Wo urkz Injwu'ies in Atomic Energy, 1969,

BLS Report #385.

The 6oLowing injury ates are ave stage o6 1967 though 1969 data:

FataLities

pe)l Million

ManhouWs

Production o 6eed mateiave.3&

FueL eLement dab'rication 6 Etecove'y 0.01

Poweh. eactoh operation 6 maintenance 0.04

Non atat Seve4Ztq Rate

Tn jw'i e6 Mandays Lost

Pet MI. PeA MiUion

Manhou . Manhow

3.5 -- 66-

6.4 199

5.1 400

Category A 4epre6ent6 both the conveusi.on and enrizchmen-t 6tep&, white

Category B epneeent6 both the 6abiZcation and 'ep'ocesbing steps. In the

tack o6 more detaiLed data, these composite tate ate assumed to be the

Same 6o each activity in the categoau.

Since the deAiZed 'tate are in injwue s pe unit thtoughpwt, the inve'be

pnoductivitq y igw'e in manhowus p tmunit output a.'te 4equ.iZed. The table

below umarizea the calcuLations o invee p'oductivi ty Sigwe 

Employment

Convex-Zon

En ichment

FabZica tion

Reactors 0 6 M

Rep/oce&&ing

5,468

3,600

17,000

825

U.S. 1980

Throughput

25.6 x 106 SWU

4500 MTU

8.5 x 1011 KWH

3,400

Manhowut

PeA Unict Output

60 mh/ton U

0.429 mh SWU

1.6 x 105mh/MTU

4.0 x 10~ mh/WH

4.85 x 102 rmh/MTU

3-73

A.

B.

C.
The 19 80 empLoyment and throughput wigute6 were taken (tom Data on Pxet iminary

Demonsation Phase o the "Envionmentat Quat Injonmationand annTng

System BNWL-EQUIPS)," -141, 1971. The conve t.ston p'oceez was estimated to

'equtwe 60 manhou pe ton o unanium.

Combining the derived Znve' e poducti vty data with the inju Py ates, the

jotowing rates, 'tetated to 6ueL cycle throughput, we te obtained:

Fatatit y Non ataZ Sevex ty Rate

Rate In juty Rate (mandays tost)

Conveuion 1.8 x 10 6/ton U 2.1 x 10_6/ton U 1.6 x 10 4 /ton U

Entichment 1.3 x 10~5 /SWU 1.5 x 10~ /SWU 1.1 x 10O 1fSWU

Fabn'ication 1.6 x 10~ 6MTU 1.0 x 10~1 MTU 3.2 x 10~8/MTU

Reactor 0 8 M 1.6 x 10~ 'KWH 2.0 x 10_3 |KWH 1.6 x 10-2/KWH

RepLoces6ing 4.8 x 10 6/MTU 3.1 x 10 /MTU 9.7 x 10~ pTU

The mates catcutated above were then no'matLzed to a unit o eect'icaX

energ y using the app op itate (PR ox BWR) f6uet cycle mate'iats balance.

C. Injuy 'ate6 on uanwium miJng ope ataon4 wee calculated using

data fom:

. Bureau o6 Mines, Mi neatLs Yeaboolz -- 1968, and 6om

. Buaeau o6 the Census, StatisticaZ Abttact o4 the U.S., annu.aZ

pub icat ion.

The average o6 1964 through 1968 data was :

2 10-8 atatities pel kg U 3OhmiLted,

6.3 x 10_4 fnonata inju e ptkgo6U3 08, and

4.1 x 10 man-days. toast pe kg og U30.

There Uwa only one death in the 6ive yea period, white there wee 290 non4ataL

injuries and 18,821 mandayz Zost. The seve i ty ate teadiZy improved nom

2,142 manday Lost pe nZiZon manhoux' in 1964 to only 85 mandays- lost pe.

milUion manhoua in 196 8. Att one mined in those yeau6 was assumed to be

miUed du ing that Give year peti.od.

(12) Occupationat Expos uxe to Radiation in the LWR FueL C yctes Unde Nonmnat

Ope attng Cond tons (Exct. U'an.um Mne

a. Intevnat Doses

In contrast to data on external exposuwe, compiLations o i.nte'nat expouwe

data axe are in the ava iabLe tLte'atute. Three compi aton6 (12.9, 12.10,

12.17) were sound which gave Zntetnat exposure data, but not in u icicedta Zt to pe'mi t a quantitative assensment. Kie e~x (12.17), et at, did comment,

however, that cont'ibut on to the total occupationaZ doT 6tom inteAnat

em.nte't was maZL compared to extennat expouwe.

b. ExteAnat Doe

Compilation o6 occupational extenat expos uwe data ae abundant. Un o'tunateLy,

the occupational groups axe z6etdom expticitty deZined in teams o wonk

yespo nibiLit4ieA. ALto, visto/t a e monitoed at some nuclear instalatoon6

and thew exposure data axe included with that jot pex'onneL. Finatty, there

appears Little teationship between occupationat group doe and production

level o j a nucteax acidity, e.g., man-Wads pe yea and power produced by a

3-74
x eactor, making noxmalization to elect'rical energy deiveved dil icutt. The

broad ranges od occupationat doses reported o'r simiAalacALiALtieA indicates

didderences in manning level, opevatLng procedure, and daciUity design.

ReactorL

From red. (9.13), aveage annual occupational doses son. our LW1ZaVe:

Reactors Period Aveage 'an-xad Pery ear

Indian Point 1 1962-69 173

&cq Rock Point 1962-70 135

Shippingpoit 1965-69 180

Dresden 1960-70 185

Aithmetic Aveage ~T7

Power ratings o these plants range Aom 70 to 200 I{ e.

The number o people required to operate, maintain, and 'e uel a nuctea'

power plant is not a ,ineaLV unction od reactor powe, but depends on the

operating practice od the utiity. TThe man-ad at a 1000 MWe fac itty would

be approximntely the same as at a 200 N(Qe aciZtty, w tich oughly LepLes ents

the size don the 170 man-ad pen year given prevousty, i isimiLax health

phyzcs, p6'actice vaxe employed and i the manhouxs requited or opeation,

refue2i.ng, and maintenance at the large reactor axe equal to that o the

smaLle reactor. It Ls expected, however, that the exposure houw due to

redueZing and maintenance might be a Lacto' o to hiLgheu. In ths manner,

a value od 300 man-ad has been selected as representative o annual stad

dose at a 1000 ".We reactor operating at 75% capacity duwinq the 1980 to 1990

period. Thee is a large uncertainty ass ociated with thi numbe. In the

4i yearA et o4 operation, a new reactor at a new site might be expected to

show lower total expos ue . In tatex yeas the expos ue might invtea.1 e as

radiation level buid up. The 1970 exposures ot more than 1000 man-utad at

Indian Point 1 (12.13) and Vougla Point (12.7) puobabLy approximate uppe

bounds ou occupation nal exposure at the e~cto 

Repkoces6ingq Plant

The AEC has gathered data on the extenat exposure o monitored individuaL4

at the one U.S. duel repocessinq platt in opeation (12.15). The throughout

o6 this plant has been about 100 metic tons wuanium ((MTUTieachi ea in the

recent past (12.23). Occupational doses ox the mon~itoed populiuton at thus

dactitq axe pies ented below and axe noumaZized to duel throughput. The

average i6 calculated by summinc the stafd dose don the vav-ous yea' and

dividing by the total throughput.

yeat U an-Rad (12.23) )Man-Rad/MTU

1968 600 6.0

1969 857 8.6

1970 1100 11

Average 8.5

As the cab e o powe %eactors, a uelat on hip between occupational dose and

product output has not been demonstrated gou nuclear uel epuocesing

6ac ALities.

T he data given above apply to a reprocessing plant operated at less than hall

o4 Zts nominal capacity od one MTU/day, Ui&ch is cwutently beinq railed to

3-75
3 MTU/day. By 1980, at teat two othet xepoceszing plants axe expected to

be in operation, with one og them having a nominal capacity o six MTU/day.

Impxovement6 in technique, the use o the large capacity ptant, and the

availabitit y of &vage quantities o uet to be reprocess ed axe all actoa

which wiLt tend to impove the ptoductivity in teams o MTU pe man eqA

employment at the 'eptocessing plant. In tact the EQUIPS study(1 2 . 6 shows

a 6acto r o six improvement in indust ry ptoductivtty between 1967 (120 MTU

and 170 emptoyee6) and 1980 (3400 MTU and 825 empto yees). The occupational

dose at the p .qessng plant has been estimated in thus study by using the

1980 EQUIPS (L " . productivity and cone'vatively assuming each worker

receives the maximum allowable annual average dose o 5 %ad. ThZ6 gives a

value o6 1.2 man-tad pen MTU which is in easonabLe agreement with the

observed data given above when one accounts sox the proojected improvement

in p'oductivity. HoweveL, .i the 1980 productivity estimate tuAns out to

be correct, then the estimated 1.2 man-tad pet MTU should be high since not

all worfzer would be expected to receive the maximum annual average dos e

as has been assumed.

Other Fuel Cycle Steps

The occupational dose deXivexed in the remaininq steps in the duel cycle

except mining, has been grossly estimated to be about 15 man-rem. From data

in regeence (12.6), the mean annual expose sox 62,090 employees o Atomic

Energy CommisZ n Licen4sees is 212 mtem, in the Zndusta t al category (13,331

employees) it is 160 m'em, in duel pocessing (6,637 employees) it is 328

m'em, and in packing and trans port (335 employees) it is 65 mtem. Based on

productXvit states given in footnote (11), it Z s estimated that mUttinq,

conversion, enniZchment, and 6abicationtotal about 80 man-yeas o employment

,or the 1000 MWe PWR o. BWR. 16 the average exposue were 200 m'em, the BWR

on PWIR total would be 16 man-tem. Trans potation exposure at 65 mem pen

manyear would not add 6sgniZicantly to the total.

c. Relexences

(12.1) Khatid Faroog 'i'za and Walayat Khan MaLik, "Aveage Exposure to

Radiation Worzens in PakiJstan," Health Physics 18 p. 569 (1970).

(12.2) P. S. Weng, et at, "The Investigation o6 Occupational Exposwu'e in

Taiwan," (1961-1966), HeaLth Physics 15 pp. 357-359 (1968).

(12.3) A. J. Duggan, E. Greenslade, and B. E. Jones, "External Radiation

Doses Fom Occupational Exposure," Nature 221, pp. 831-833 (1969).

(12.4) K. P. Duncan and R. W. Howell, "Health o6 Wo'daes in the United

Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority," Health Physics 19 pp. 285-291 (1970).

(12.5) J. Rodiex, et al, "Expebience en Matiene de Radiopotection Ttee de

8 Ans De Functionnement d'un Centre De Production Du Putonium,"

in W. S. Snydev, et at, eds., Radiation Potection: Poceedings

o6 the FZnst International Congress o Radiation P'otection at

Rome, Italy, Septembe'i 5-10, 1966, Pe'gamon Press, Oxlod, 1968,

Pat U1, pp. 975-983.

(12.6) "Estimates o Ionizing Radiation Dos es in the United States , 1960-2000,"

DVat report o6 the Special Studies Group, Divi sion o Citevria and

Standand6, O Zice o4 Radiation Programs, EnviZonmental Potection

Agency, RockvZtte, Maryland, June 1971.

3-76
(12.7) R. Witson, "Man-Rem, Economics and Risk in the NucLeaA Power

Industry," Nuctean Newes 15 (2), pp/ 28-30 (1972).

(12.8) T. F. Mancuso, B. S. Sandens, and A. Bod6fzy, "FeasibiLfty Study o

the Co'eation of LiZetime Health and Mo'ttatity ExpeAience o

AEC and AEC Contactor Employees With Occupational Radiation

Exposure." Pog'es reportt No. 4, USAEC Report *NYO-3394-9,

May 196 8.

(12.9) Donald M. Rone, "A Stat iAtial Summay o United States Atomic Energy

Comision Cont actov ' Intenat Exposure Experience, 1957-1966 in

H. A. KoanbeAg and W. D. Norwood, eds., Diagnosis and Treatment o6

Deposited Radio nucides , P'oceeding o A a symposium heLd at RihLand,

Wash., 15-17 May 1967. ExeeApta Medica Foundation Am6tedam, 1968,

pp. 427-434; Update o this report 1967-1970 unpubtiLhed--avaiZabte

4aom Donal Roae, USAEC.

(12.10) J. R. RoedeA, "A Statistica Surmany o Unted States Atomic Enegy

Commission Li enseeQ' InteAnal Exposure Expeience," 1957-1966 in

H. A. KonnbeAg and W. D. Nowood, eds., ViagnosZ6 and T'teatment o6

De poa6ted RadionucLde& Proceedings o a s ym po 6um held at Rchland,

Wash., 15-17 May 1967. Exceepta Medica Foundation, Am6te'dam,

1968, pp. 435-450.

(12.11) "Opevationat Accidents and Radiation Exposure Experience Wthin

the United States Atomic EneAgy Cormis4on, USAEC Report WASH-1192,

FaLl 1971.

(12.12) Report of the United Nations Scientijic Conmittee on the E6ect6 o

Atomic Radiation, Gene'at Asembly, oZiciar 4eco0d6, seventeenth

s es&ion, Supplement No. 16, Document A/5216, United Nat.on , New

York, 1962.

(12.13) Report o the United Nations Scien-t Lc Committee on the Ejects oA

Atomic Radiation, to be pubtiZhed.

(12.14) "The Cent'aL zation o6g Occupati.onat Radiation Exposure In'onmation,"

a report by the AsSLtant gon Wokmen's Compen aton and Radiation

Records o6 the U.S. Atomic Energy ComZsion's experience 1970.

OlZice o6 Workmen's Compensation and Radiation Records, Og Zce o the

General Manager, United States Atomic Enengy Commis6ion, Washington,

D.C.

(12.15) L. KonnbtLth, J%., AsiZ6tant ViAecto4 don. Technica. Pograms, Div. o

Comptlance, United States Atomic Enengy Commiieion, Wa6hington, D.C.,

personal communication, April 21, 1972.

(12.16) M. Cometto, et at, "Radiation P'otecti.on Expev.ienee in Italian NuceaA

Powe Pant6, " pe6 ented at the Fouth United Nations ITnte'national

Conjetence on the Peaeelut U6e6 od Atomic Enegy, Geneva, SwitzeAland,

6-16 September 1911, Report No. A/CONF. 49/P/191.

(12.17) H. Kie eA, et at, "Peaonat Dose Burden Caused by Nuceav Resea.eh

Centers," pes ented at the Fourth United Nations Inte'nationaX

ConjeAence on the Peaceu Uses o Atomic Enegy, Geneva,

Switzextand, 6-16 September 1971. Report No. A/CONF. 49/P/395.

3-77
(12.18) R. B. Peppers and P. A. Cante, "RadiotogicaL Conditions and Etuent

ReLeaue4 at Cental Etect icity Genenatinq BoaVd Nucwean StationsA:

A Comparison Between De&Zgn Fo'ecauts and Openationat ExpeAience,"

presented at the Fourth United Nations Inte'nationat Conte ence on

the PeaceluZ Ute og Atomic. Enegy, Geneva, Switzetand, 6-16

September 1971. Report No. A/CONF. 49/P/505.

(12.19) 3. A. Autx i~e, "Special Method6 in Radiation Dosimety, " in K. Z.

Morgan and J. E. Tuwne', edt., Pinc ple o Radiation Potection,

A Textbook o Health Phyoic6, Chap. 7, John Whtey and Sons, Inc.,

New Yo'it, 1967.

(12.20) Code o6 FedenaL Reguaton&, T tte 10 (Atomic Enegy), Pat 20,

Fede'at RegZatet OLce, National A'ch~ive and Records Seiv.,

Gene'at Services AdminiZt'ation, Wachhngton, D.C.

(12.21) "Nuclear Elect'icity Gene'tation Chart," NucL. Eng. Int. 16 p. 158

(Mach 1971).

(12.22) J. P. BlazeLy, "Action on Reactors and Others Projects Undegoinq

Regulatory Review on Contde'ation," Nuct. Saety 12 pp. 367-382 (1971).

(12.23) "The Nuclear Induotry - 1969, - 1970, - 1971," United Staten

Atomic EneLgy CommisAion, Waohington, D.C. 1969, 1970, 1971.

(12.24) DiZectoty o 6 Nuclea Reactont , "Re each Test and ExpeAimentaZ

Reaction, VoL, VIII, " IAEA, Vienna, 1970; "Powe Reacto'v, VoL. IX,"

IAEA, Vienna, 1971.

(12.25) H. K. Hoyt, Superintendent, Production--Nuclea, Commonwealth

Edison Company, Chicago, Iti.nota, pensonaL communication, April

11, 1972.

(12.26) Data 4o'r PeLiminay Demont'ation Phaue o the "Envt'onmentaf Quality

IngonmatLon and PLanning Syttem (EQUIPS)," BNWL--141, 1971.

(13) Exposure Levels in Uranium Minea

One " wo'ding LeveL" (WL) s any combination o 4 hot lived radon daughters

products in one Litent o ai, which upon complete decay wiL ,yield 1.3 x 10

Mev. A mine s expoed to one uknintng level month (WLM) is he woks h o'

170 houx6 in an atmosmoophere in which the air concentration o adon

daughter a is 1 WL.

The cuwvent limit on the average concent ation o radon daughter p'oduct6

i 1 WL (9.9) and the. Lmt on minen expouwe i S 4 WLM per yeah.. The 1 WL

mine a't 1iiT.it n scuhvently unde review (9.10). The U.S. Department o

Inte ion hau the authority under the Fede'r metal and NonmetaLic 5(Zne

Safety Act oj 1966, to estabLiZ6h and eno'ce mine a i& concenba tion and

miner expoosune Limits (9.8).

As uming mness ae expo ed to the Limit, that the p'oductivity is 3 met ic

tons oj U 0 pe minen pe yeah., and that haLe o the annual 1000 MWe LWR

makeup 6u ai unde'round-mined, the annual mine group expouwe Level 6:

4 (WLM/Wt) x 160 (MT-U3 08 /V') x 0.5 (MT- U 308 Undevtcld.-mined/ MTU 3O8

3 (r'-U3 8 /mineA-y)

- 104 (miner-WLM/YV)

3-78
(14) Ta ing P produced at uranium MZt

The mas o oLe taiLings ptodaced at uanZum miW asociated ~ith the

annual ope ation o4 one 1000 MWe PWR is app'oxmhated as sotow :

124 (MTU/Vz) 1 MT-one ~ 73,000

0.85 (MTU/MTU3 8 0.002 MT-M3 ' ica.

(15) Disposal of Sodi d Radioactive Wazte s in LWR Fuel Cycles

So Ud aoactctve was tes gen e oughout the LW Ruel cycle will be

stored at Federa lRepo Zto'uies and Commevc i&al buwiatl qg'o nd6. Volumes

geneated, normalized to annual operation o6 one 1000 MWe LWR (BWIR on PWR 

and its aupponting uel cycle, axe given below:

Baas : 1000 MWe LWR Annual Opetation ( 75% C.F.

(6.6 bi tLion kiLowatt houts o eeect'cit y)

T ype PWR BWR

High LeveL Was ea 85 6t 3 85 At3

CLadding Hula 60 65

Int. LeveL Wastec d 788 788

Txanaaanium W aate 36 1 433

Nontacansa3anium Wa6te19855 3 13,197 3

TTTT t42~t~T At

5wi al Axea6 0.52 ac'et 0.59 acne4

a. 10,000 MW(D{(t) yietd6 one cubic soot, 'e. (15.1)

b. 2.1 cubicb eet pent met'ic ton cue2, ne (15~TT~

c. 10,000 cubic beet pen met'ic ton Pu p'oceeed. Compacted by a Aacton

of three be one shipment .e. (15.1)

d. 14 cubic eet pent metric ton o(~~Wiel p'oceased. Thie number only

accounts ox u te produced at the >epoce4ing plant. xe4. (15.1)

e. PWR: 2500 cubic beet pet yea at Leactto plus abnication wa ~~at

300 cubic deet pelt MTU, xee. (15.2, 15.3) 3

BWR: Quad Cities Unit 1 wil pxoduce 4oughly 500A0 #t pert year,

4e6. (15.4), plus abicat.Zon waute at 300 ct 3/MTU, xe6. (15.2, 15.3)

,. 50,000~iiu ic jeet solid mate pet ac&e o bwri.a l gound exce b {on

aotidiied high level uate which >tequiteh. appoximately one achte

pen 300 cubic beet o4 wate, >e. (15.1).

(15.1) Oak Ridge NationaL Labotato'ty, Siting o Fuel Rep toces&in Pants

and Waste Management Facitties, ORN L-4451 (1970).

(15.2) USAEC, The NucLea't Indwstty - 1970, and The Nuclea Indutny - 1971.

(15.3) Battelle, Data goxt PLteimna Demont.tation Phase o the

"EnvijtonmentaL QuaLity ln ohmation and P ann nq Sastem (EQUIPS) ",

B'W L-B-141 ( 197 1 ).

(15.4) Envitonmental Report (oAm Quad Citce Unct6 1 and 2, AEC Docket6

50-254 and 50-265, Nov. 16, 1970.

EnvL'tonmental Impact Assessment: Supplemental Ino'mation to the'

Quad Cities Environmental Repo'rt, ptepated Aomt Commonwealth Edison

Co. by Battele- Columbus Labo.tatoZieu, Novembext 1971, and 6upplement6.

(15.5) USAEC, Nuclea Fuel and Wate Shipping Study (to be zinued).

3-79
(16) See Chapter 5 o thZ6 epont.

(17) Routine Radioactive ReLeaues

~Routine neLeae as es we'e estimated d'om a number od 4edeAences (Listed

below), no'matized to duet cycle thAoughtput, and to etect&icaL enegy

produced.

Uanum mitLing (17.1)

Conv.eAsion (TT)

En(Achment (T7--T)

Prepanation/ Fabnicat on (iTT 

Repnocessing (T~T, 17.2)

Reactor Powes Plant (T7~3, T~T, 17.5, 17.6 , 17.7, 17.8,

T , T7~T0,~TT11,~TT. 1 ~T7.T3-17. 14)

(17.1) Battetle, Data don PieLiminavt Demonstration Phase o the "EnvZ'tonmentat

~~~~Quatity In o Am n and Pannin uS s em iEUTP "BNW L-B-14-1 T9T.-

(17.2) A ied Gutd Nuclear Senvices , Env onmentat Report io. BanWeLU

Nucteav FueL Plant (Novembe 5, 1977)

(17.3) CommonweaLth Edison Co., FnvZ'ionmental Repo't o' Zion.

(17.4) Indiana and Michigan ELetki c Co., Envuionmental Report bon -~~~ Donald C. Cook Nucleav Plant (Febuacy 1971).

(17.5) Steoact, J. E. and A. F. Dear, "Cyogenic : A Solution to

Radioactive Pollution, " Etectni vcal Wonld (November 15, 1971).

(17.6) Van Hollen, H. J. and W. A. Webb, f P R Nuctean PowerPlant

Systems to Reducing Radioactive Release," P'oc. Ame'i.can Powe

Conde'ence, Volume 33 (1971).

(17.7) TVA, DVat Envijtonmental Statement on Watt6 Ba Nucleta Plant,

Unit6 1 and 2 (May 197J).

(17.8) Indiana and Michgan E Lect'ic Company, Ficnal Stagety AnaLy qsis Re pot

Donald C. Cook Nuclean Plant, Volume 4, Section 11.1.3.

(17.9) CommonweaLth Editon Company, FinaL Sadety AnaLys6t Report, Zion

Nuclear Plant, Volume VI, Appendix 14A.

(17.10) Commonwealth Editon Company, Envu.onmental Repot on Quad Cities

Nuclear Plant.

(17.11) Commonwealth Edition Company, Salety Anatyq.i Repo't o Quad Citie s,

Volume 11, Section 9, Radioactive Waste System.

(17.12) Te stimony o James M. Smith, Genenat Electviuc, be o1 e the itinoLs

PoLLution Control Board, May 24, 1971, PCB 71-20.

(17.13) Smith, James C. and C. E. Kent, "NucleaA Plant Envuonmental

Contotl, " P-oe. Ame.' ic.an Powe' Conde'ence, Volume 33 (1971).

(17.14) TVA, Dadt EnvZ'onmental Statement do Browns Feny NucleaA Plant

Unit6 1, 2, and 3 (Jutly 14, 1971) and 6supplements.

3-80
(18) Radiation Dose to the Gene'aL Popuwa.t on 4 um Routine Releases in the

u ear FueL C cLe

TabiefplesTestimated annual ! tdioactivity neteas e 'ates (cu ies /yea) by adionuwtide, 'com nuclear power plants and their c a ociated uele cqcZes

(prorated). CaLcuLated po putation doses (man-ad /yeae), covteasponding to

these neLeaa es , are aLs o given in these tables. The z ounce quantities (C L/ Y4 

and population dose quantities (man-nad/qy) ae netated through computationa.Z

mode2- which: . de c Lbe the trans port (dZnpvrsion) o adionucLddes through the envtonment,

yieLding envuZonmental concent ationz (e.g., cui eL /alter o av) o the

-adionuctides; and which

. estimate po putation dos e (man-tad) res uting tom these e envUtonmentaL

concentrations 

The computationa2 modeLing must tecognize geogtaphicaL dZstibutonA o

population in the vicinity o4 nuclear ac tites (in the case o short-Lived

nucLides) and national and won.'d popufatLon g'oth chaxactexistics (in

the case o .tong-Lived nucldes ). Vaiows pathways to man - ait, waten,

good chain - must be included. Fwthe.'t, there ae a vaPLiety o exposure

modes: tx'tanpZation, inhataton, ingeston, -ubmezion in water, and many

sub b-vaKents. Local meteopolo g y, hydoloq y, and po ptatLon pattern must be

considered. Fori alt o these easons, community dose catcufations may be

quite complex. ResuLt6 can be quite enitive to small changes in obscure

va'iLables6. When 6 mptZiying assumptons arse int'xoduced, they ae nonmadLty

selected to be conse-vative, that is, leading to higher dose jigueA.

ResuLtts should be treated as order-o6-magnitude e t mates onty.

Poputation dose caLcutations peoonmed in the couue o th% s study are dscussed in Chapte'r 4 and described in moe detail in the Appendix. Two models

we've eAtabished: the globaL model, which yields U.S. and wontdwide population

dozse commitments (alt tme )due To neteas es o4 onq-tLved Ziotopes (H-3 and

KA-84) during one yeaA's ope.'tation o4 a 1000 MWe nuc ea powe plant, and its

supporting sue! cycle (ponated) ; and a local model, which yieLds population

dos es within a 50 -mile nadius o nucea'ta7WLJ3, due to 'eteas e o

eLativety short-Lived Zcotopeas. Major assumptions aee isted below.

'4ajor Asumption

a. Global ModeL

a.1.Taif nuclide: Tritium ((H- 3)

ouce:A H -3 4elea ed n4om the AueL cycle is e4eased at the

'eptoce n plant in the 1om o a gaseouL etuent.

V t'ributXon: ULtimate 'e envoi Z o H-3 a'te the suk Aace ktters

o6 the woatd. H-3 Zis Zntantaneously dispensed according to the current

dist'ibution pattern oA envZ'to rentaL ttit um, i.e., one cueo, H-3

released contibuteas 3 x 10~ pCf/hers to sukace waters between 30

and 50 north Lattitude, and - 3 x 10- pC/Lite' to 6uAlace watenu

throughout the neat of the worLd.

Human Uptake: Concentkation o t't tium in human body water oLtows

that og envZ onmentat tAtitum Zntantaneouhly.

Dose Rate: The total body dose nate co e6ponding to an H-3

concern ion o6 1 nCZ/Lite/ in human body txte is 0.11 mad/year. The

total dose commitment (alL time) pen ZndividuaL the in.Ctial dose hate

muLtipled by the mean hatd-LiZe o H-3, 17.1 yeau.

Population: To account io U.S. and world population growth ove

the mean ha6T-&ie o H-3, the exposed population a taken to be that

ten years aten the LeLeaAe o6 the tritium.

3-.81
b. Local Model

.7. Radionucide : Shot-lived noble gae6 and t'L tium.

Sources: AU elea e6 thoughout the Luel cycles ate assumed

avcbone and eeeabed .shm a sZngte tackz. Yeah 2000 Study neau'te have

shown that dose jom wateA-bonne 4e eat e6 a'te Znaignei cant.

Dstnbution: Exposed population 6 that within 50-miLe adius o

the point o Aelease. Atmo phenic t anspor t Ls decr ibed by the GauwsZan

plume model. MeteorolAogical data, eective stack height, etc., ae

given in the dis cwu54on o6 Chaptet 4.

Human Uptake: Inhalation and toan6upL'aton. Only the total

body dose weLe caLcuLated.

Doe Rate: Doe hate gactoh oA submetS Lon in a ' wene

a66 umed as 6o ow6:

Dose Factors FoL SubmejtZion in A

(mneer v en.pCL/m 

H-3 2.5 - 03

KQ-83m :0

*Kr-85m 1.1 - 03

KA-85 2.3 - 05

*Kr-87 1.1 - 02

*K4-88 + Rb-88 1.8 - 02

K'-89 1.6 - 02

*Xe-131m 2.4 - 05

*Xe-133m 2.4 - 04

*Xe-133 2.2 - 04

*Xe-135m 3.1 - 03

*Xe-135 1.8 - 03

Xe-137 1.2 - 03

*Xe-138 1.1 - 02

*C6-138 1.6 - 02

*FAom The Yeat 2000 Study.

A.A - BB means A.A x 10

Population: To demonstate the 6en itiv ty o ntegqated population

dose to poputi on di toibution around the caci lty, th'ee population

ditA ibutiona weLe assumed. Do&e calcueationa wee pe't ormed 6ok each

dZ6tr buton.

Population VDZtibution6 Used o Doze Calculautions Fo' 1980

Annulus HighMedium Low

0-1 mile 2,200 170 0

1-2 18,000 350 0

2-3 40,000 1,270 0

3-4 20,000 680 0

4-5 30,000 1,105 20

5-10 190,000 11,845 508

10-20 1,100,000 68,680 55,792

20-30 3,100,000 79,200 50,680

30-40 5,500,000 310,700 33,000

40-50 8,400,000 2,246,000 73,700

Total 18,400,000 2,720,000 213,000

3-82
Data obtained ntom enviujonmentaL epo.ta (some Indian Point data

estimated gtom Figues 2.2-7 and 8 o the LaSaIJe County Station

Env~ionmenta2l Report). The di triibution is nepnesentative o Indian

Point, the Medium didthibtuion o Calve'tt C . 6i 41in 1970, and the

Low distibution o Hanbo'd in 1980.

(19) RadioLog caL Health E ects - LWR Energy System6

Assumpions:

. ose-4espon6e coe64icient: Individuao ptobabiity o6

malignancy (Chapten 4) .................................

on

. Time ost.................................................

. Cost ............ .......................................

PWR Enengg System (6.57 billion kzWhe)

OccupationaZ

. OccupatLionat Gkoup Expos u e (Exc . -mine6s), Ptom

Table 3.5.2 and footnote (12) ..........................

. Time Lost: 345 x 2 x 10-4 x 000.. ...........

. Cost: 414 x 50 ..........................................

Public

. Populaton Expo4uoe (Table 3.5.2 ):

152 man-tad Won td K-85 and H-3

4.2 LocaL, medium poputato n ass umption

156man-'tad Tota 

Time Lost: 156 x2 x 10 x6000 ........................

Cost: 190 x 50 ..........................................

BWR En egy System (6.57 biztion IkWhe)

Occupationao

. App toxic matey same as PWR ................................

Pubtiic

. Popu ation Expos uwe (Table 3.5.3):

151 man-4tad Wo4Zd, Kt-85 and H-3

25 LLocao, medium po pulatLon assumption

Tom' man-nad -4

. Time e ost: 176 x 2 x 10 x 6000 ........................

. Cost: 210 x 50 ..........................................

2 x 10_ 4 /rad

2 x 10 caue)s/man-ad

6000 MDL/case

$50 /MVL

345 man-had

414 MDL

0.02 x 10 6

=190 MDL 6

=0.095 x 106$

414 MDL 6

0.02 x 10 

=210 MDL 6

=0.011 x 106$

(20) See Appendixg ot quantifica tion o4 Land use in the nuc Bea ue cycLe6.

3.6 HYDROELECTRIC POWER

Water head is one of the oldest sources of electrical energy. Hydropower's

versatility provides many advantages including the ability to start quickly, adjust

to rapid changes in load, provide spinning reserve, maintain frequency control and

particularly to furnish peaking power. Hydro plants are sturdy, relatively simple,

require little maintenance, assure high reliability, and have a long service life.

3-83
Among all of the methods available for economic production of electric power,

hydropower is the only one utilizing current energy inflow from the sun. Fossil

fuels and uranium are nonrenewable resources, which, once expended, are gone

forever. The natural, downhill flow of water is continuously renewed through the

evaporation and precipitation of water.

Although the development of hydropower sources may have significant environmental

impact, those effects of greatest concern for fossil fueled and nuclear plants are

absent. Hydropower plants do not discharge chemical pollutants to the atmosphere,

nor do they produce radioactive wastes which must be carefully disposed of, nor is

there any production of waste heat. However, the availability of developable sites

in the continental U.S. for additional production of hydropower is severely limited

and this is the principal disadvantage of this energy source within the context

of future planning.

The Federal Power Conmission reports almost 52 million kilowatts of installed conventional hydroelectric capacity in the contiguous 48 states, which in 1970

produced 253 billion kilowatt hours or 16.4 percent of the electric energy of

the contiguous states.

By 1990, the FPC projects 82 million kW of conventional hydro producing 319 billion

Kwh, or only 5.4 percent of the Nation's electric energy. The 60 percent rise

in capacity accompanied by a rise of only 25 percent in energy output shows the

trend toward using h dro primarily for peaking duty, dependable capacity and

spinning reserves.(-

In the same report, the FPC estimates that the Nation's installed pumped storage

capacity will rise from 3.6 million kW in 1970 to 70 million kW in 1990, anticipating taking advantage of low incremental cost, off-peak nuclear energy for

pumping.- Pumped storage plants and nuclear plants are complementary and on

occasion are planned as a development unit.

At any potential hydropower site, the power that can be developed is proportional

to the product of the available hydraulic head and the flow rates. The head, or

difference in elevation between the water level upstream of the turbines and the

level downstream of their discharge, may be provided by the existence of a natural

waterfall but is more frequently created by the construction of a dam. In the U.S.,

Niagara Falls is the only waterfall site providing major amounts of power.

3-84
As the available head decreases, larger flow rates must be handled to provide a

fixed amount of energy, and this requires either larger turbines or more units with

consequent increases in costs. As a rule of thumb, heads of less than 30 ft. are

not developable. Low head developments are usually multipurpose projects where

substantial benefits to navigation and flood control are obtained.

Waterfall plants have the distinction of producing very limited environmental impact.

The aquatic life forms in the river are already adapted to the effects produced by

the falls. The provision of an alternate flow path from the upper to the lower

river does not significantly alter conditions. The major environmental effect is

an aesthetic one rising from the decrease in the flow rate over the falls and from

the interposition of manmade structures in a natural setting. In the case of

Niagara Falls, these effects have been minimized by limiting major water diversion

to the nighttime hours and by locating the power plant out of sight of visitors to

the Falls area.

Two major types of hydraulic turbines are used in U.S. installations. For higher

heads, Francis turbines are used. These are similar to a centrifugal pump. In

fact, in pumped storage installations, these machines are used both as pumps and

turbines. In the usual form of this machine, water is distributed from a spiral

casing, flowing radially inward through the runner, and is discharged downward near

the axis of the machine. These machines are used when the available heads are in

the range from 100 to 1500 ft.

For lower heads, Kaplan turbines are used. These machines resemble giant-sized

ship's propellers. The range of application overlaps somewhat that of the Francis

turbines with design heads up to 120 ft. Most turbines of this type are equipped

with variable pitch blades which permit more efficient operation over a range of

loads.

The machines are operated at constant speed to provide AC power at closely regulated

frequency. Load following is achieved by varying the water inflow through changes

in guide vane settings for both types and through changes in the pitch of the

runner blades in the Kaplan type. Efficiencies of both types are around 95 percent

when operated at their design points. Efficiency declines when the load varies in

either direction from the design point. Hydro turbine-generator sets usually have

a stretch capability for operation up to about 15 percent above nameplate rating,

the limit being set by the generator windings.

3-85
There are several phases of development of river basins as power supply systems.

Neglecting earlier phases, when the hydro potential is only partially developed,

the three major phases are: 1) system predominantly hydro with some undeveloped

potential for increased annual kilowatt hours; 2) no additional annual kilowatt

hours available from hydro, but peaking capability still being increased, growing

base load requirements must be met from thermal plants; and 3) system predominantly thermal, hydro used mainly for peaking.

The Columbia River Basin is presently in the first phase. Power supply in the

Pacific Northwest is almost entirely hydro. The composite annual plant factor

for the large plants of the Pacific Northwest is 75 percent. There are a few

areas on the major rivers and their tributaries where developable head has not yet

been exploited and at developed sites a significant amount of river flow during

high flow seasons is passed over the spillways. Nevertheless, projections of load

growth indicate that in the next decade some of the base load will have to be

supplied from thermal plants.

The second phase is typified by the upper Missouri River. The available head

from central Montana down through the fakotas to the Nebraska border is fully

exploited by six dams. With the exception of the last downstream dam, 99.75 percent

of the water released was utilized for power generation from 1966 to 1970. A

major function of the last downstream dam, Gavins Point, is to smooth out the flow

to facilitate navigation on the lower river which requires some releases without

power production. The composite plant factor for the system is 50 percent and

peaking operation is an important function. About 40 percent of the annual energy

generated in the service area is supplied by lignite burning steam plants which

have assumed a major part of the base load. Projected growth in demand is such

that additions of 1200 MW to the hydro-turbine capacity of the system are planned.

Since no additional energy is available, the plant factor for hydro will fall to

30 percent. Growth of base load will be met by additional thermal plants. 5

The third phase is typified by the TVA system. Here, the hydropower energy

generation and peaking capability have been developed. Less than 20 percent of

the annual Kwh are supplied by hydro. All future additions to the system will

be thermal plants. ()

With the exception of Alaska, the potential for increased base load hydroelectric power in the U.S. is limited. A twenty-year plan for the development

of the Pacific Northwest projects an increase of only 3,789 MW of firm hydropower

3-86
during that period.) Possibly twice this much exists for the entire Nation,

excepting Alaska. Peaking capacity potential is much less limited.

The impact of water development projects on the environment consists of a mixture

of benefits and costs. Multiple purpose project benefits may include flood

control, navigation, irrigation, hydroelectric power, domestic water supply,

recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement. Tradeoffs exist. Land and forests

lost to the reservoir may result in protecting downstream cities and lands from

disastrous floods. A detrimental effect on the fishery may be offset by building

a hatchery. On the other hand, severe floods are damaging to fish, hence a degree

of flood control can benefit the fishery.

Direct adverse effects on human health and safety are confined to accident situations:

accidents to workers during construction; accidents to employees during operation;

and accidental releases of large volumes of water, including major dam failures.

The accident rate for employees is expected to be similar to that for the electrical

generating industry as a whole; that is, six injuries per million manhours and

0.1 fatal accidents per million manhours.?)

Major failures of large dams have occurred from time to time with resultant loss

of lives and destruction of resources. However, the completeness and accuracy of

the record allows only a rough estimate of the probabilities of such failures.

Lessons learned from past disasters reduce the probability of future ones. The

adequacy of the design from the safety standpoint, including the nature of the

foundation rock, is examined as part of the Federal Power Comission licensing

process, and a periodic inspection program has been established. Some state

governments have also established dam safety programs.

While major dams are designed to withstand earthquakes, geologists now also include

in their site studies a seismic history of the area and an investigation of the

deep foundation characteristics such as rock stress, water table, and permeability.

Recent seismological literature suggests that earthquake activity has increased at

several large dams and reservoirs, including Kremasta Dam in Greece, Kariba in

East Africa, Koyna in India, and Hoover Dam. Some articles suggest seismicity

increases with reservoir loading. Earthquakes of magnitude 6 have occurred at

Kariba, Koyna, and Kremasta.(2 12) The number of these dams is small considering

the thousands of dams in existence. One authority in India challenges the presumption of a relationship between dam building and seismic activity, particularly

at the Koyna Dam.(-) The more recent concensus is that a combination of weak

3-87
subsurface foundation conditions coupled with injection of reservoir water under

pressure accounts for the seismic activity in the cases cited. The latest

literature suggests careful geological surveys of subsurface foundation conditions

at the sites of proposed dams and in the proposed reservoir area.(14-15)

Because of the small number of people involved, the displacement of the human

inhabitants of the area to be flooded is an additional impact of somewhat less

significance. This effect has been regarded as fully covered by the costs of

land acquisition.

The environmental impacts of a hydroelectric plant start with the construction of

the dam and the flooding of land to make a reservoir. Considerable acreage is thus

taken out of use.

In some cases, the impoundment of water will affect its quality. The large surface

area of a reservoir promotes evaporation, and this may produce an increase in the

salinity of the discharged water, making it less usable for some purposes downstream.

Some rivers carry a heavy sediment which may be dropped in the still waters behind

the dam, thus ultimately filling the reservoir with silt. On the other hand, some

ocean beaches require an annual deposit of river sediment to make up for erosion

losses caused by winter storms. When dams are built upstream, blocking the natural

flow of sediment, the beaches have to be rebuilt every year by other methods.

Public attention has often been focused on dams as barriers to upstream migration

of adult fish. However, fish passage facilities have been generally successful and

have created few problems for potential spawners. In the absence of dams,

these migrants would cover the same distance and "climb" to the same altitude to

reach their spawning grounds and would in many cases face more difficulty from

natural falls and rapids than are presented by the manmade facilities.

Under some conditions, passage of water over spillways can produce nitrogen

supersaturation in waters downstream. This condition has adverse effects upon

both adult and juvenile fish. (17) Effects can be reduced by use of slotted gates

in empty turbine bays rather than spillways for the release of surplus water.

Ultimately as upstream storage projects regulate stream flow, the spillways will

have much less overflow.

3-88
Impounding of water in the reservoirs creates a condition of temperature

stratification with little mixing of surface waters into the deeper layers.

Water drawn from lower layers may be deficient in dissolved oxygen. This

condition may confuse migrating fish.

Temperatures in a staircase of reservoirs tend to be higher than in a free flowing

river. However, selective release of deeper reservoir water can aid in lowerino

river temperatures.

Migrants going downstream face considerable hazard from natural predation by species

of fish resident in the river. These hazards are increased by reservoirs which are

favorable habitats for predators and which also increase the migration time and

thus the time of exposure to predation. The mean velocity of downstream migration

is the same as the river flow velocity. The migrants are also subjected to the

hazards of passage through turbines. Nitrogen supersaturation and oxygen deficiencies

are also injurious to juveniles. These hazards occur primarily on a reservoir-dam

passage basis and are only loosely related to the power produced. (-)

Footnotea and Regvtenee6 on Section 3.6: Hydoelectic Poen.

(1) Fedewal Power Commi sion, The 1970 Nationat PoweA Survey, Vol. 1, page 1-18-29.

(2) Ibid, page 1-18-i.

(3) T. H. Cann, Elect'uic PoweS tations, Chap. 24 -- HydtoeLectvic. Plants,

~ Chapman 9 Ha t 1955.

(4) Annual Report , BonnevL e Power AdministuNtion.

(5) Ceighton W. Becket, "Additional Power Devetopment at the M11'" 'ouri River Main

Stem Dam6," P'oc. Amen. PR. Cone. 33, 1971, pp. 842-847.

(6) PoweA Annua. Report 1970, Tennesee Vea tey Authority.

(7) The Hydro-Thernmal Powe Pognam: A Status Report, Bonnevi.te Power

Admitw'taation, Vecemben 1971.

(8) 1970 In juy RateA, Major lndust Ieh , National Saety council.

(9) "Seismolog y - Re ponibZL ties and Requi'temen-t6 o a Gnow~ing Science," Pant I

Poblem6 and Po'pect, 1969 National Reeanch Council, Academy o Scienee6,

Wash., D.C. See page 34 on man tUtiggeved eawhquaes.

(10) "Some Di xi minatory Chaacte iWtic& o6 E athquake PNea the Kaiba, Kema ta,

and Koyna Anti 6 icia Lakes ," Butetin Sei.mological Society o Ame.ica,

Vol. 62n2, pp 493-507, ApiL 1972.

(11) "Seismic Investigations in the Bouldert Dam Aea t940-t944 and the Influence

o 6 Rei e'vo&t Loading on Ea thquake Activity," Buttetin Sei.somologica l

Society o6 Amen.ica, Vol. 35, pp 175-192, 1945.

3-89
(12) "Study o the Koyna Eathquakze o6 Decembet 10, 1967," Buetin SeiAmologica

Society o4 Ame.ica, Vol. 59n3, pp 1149-1162, June 1969.

(13) "December. 10, 1967 Koyna Eaxthquakze and Res etvov Finng,5" Butetin

SeimologqcaZ Society of America, Vol. 62n2, pp 661-662, Ap'u797T~

(14) Fou pape' p esented at the Intenational SympoaIium on Man-Made Lakes,

Scienti4Lc Committee on Wate Reseatch, Inetmational Councit on

ScientL LZUnion6 , Knoxvilte, Tennessee, May 1971.

(15) Searinc Activity at Man-Made Rese.'woi.x, Poceeding, The InstitutLon

o J CiviU Engineexu, 50, Papers No. 7416, Sept. 1971, 15-4.

(16) F. A. David6on, The E Ject o6 a SucceIion o6 Dam6 on the Columbia Rivet

on the Upstteam Movement o the &uebac Salmon uns, Pubtic Utity

.st.kict o G rant Couty, Ephata, Washington, Januany 1967.

(17) F. A. Davi 4 on, The Suwvival o the Downstteam Migant Salmon at the Powe

Dams and in The'L ReetvoiZ on the Coumbca R vet, Pubic Uti ty Vietuct

o0 Gant County, Ephata, Wa.shington, Novembe't 1965.

3.7 ULTIMATE IMPACTS AND COSTS

In the preceding sections summary tables for each of the alternate energy systems

were presented. These tables contained conventional costs, abatement costs, and

environmental and human impact data normalized to the annual operation of a single

]000 MWe power plant (75% C.F.) and its supporting fuel cycle activities. Thus,

the quantities given in these tables are costs and impacts associated with the

production of 6.6 billion kilowatt hours of electrical energy.

Although normalized to the same quantity of electrical energy or electrical power

capacity, these quantities are in a variety of physical and nonphysical units 

dollars, man-days lost, tons of individual effluents, curies, man-rads, acres, etc.

These quantities were derived from a "direct inspection" of the respective energy

systems, and, in many cases, merely represent appropriately normalized "source"

terms for pollutants and other environmental burdens.

Ideally, one wishes to reduce all such quantities to the same dimension, e.g.,

dollars, in order to render them comparable and, perhaps, additive. Efforts to

accomplish this are highly preliminary, subjective, and generally imperfect. However in several specific cases, it is possible to make gross assessments, useful

in making order-of-magnitude comparisons.

Tables 3.8 through 3.12 below display evaluated effects, or ultimate impacts and

costs, of the coal, oil, natural gas, PWR, and BWR energy systems. These evaluated

effects are quantified in one or both of two dimensions: dollars, and mandays lost.

3-90
TABLE 3.8

EVALUATED EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

BASIS: 6.57

(one

billion kilowatt-hours

year operation @ 75% CF)

Category

Conventional Costs (1980 dollars)

Capi tal

O&M

Fuel

Total (28)

Comment

106$

Abatement Costs (1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers

SO2 Removal

Land Reclamation

Total

Mining & Transportation Impacts

Strip

Underground

Mine Drainage

Transportation

Loss of coal

Non-employee

accidents

Power Plant

Thermal Discharge

Pollution Damage

All Occupational Accidents

Strip Mining

Underground Mining

Transportation

Power Plant

Total

*MDL - Mandays Lost.

50% of production.

470 acres. External cost taken

to be $300/acre.

50% of production.

260 acres. Assume cost of

subsidence negligible.

$3.5 million for 500

billion gallons of drainage.

For 2.4 million gallons, the cost

is $20.

10,000 tons at $9/ton

Assumes one MDL is

equivalent to $50.

1.3 million KWt to cooling water.

SO2 and particulates. Includes

onTy damages to property and

materials. Human health

effects not evaluated.

Assumes one MDL is equivalent

to $50.

3-91

Costs

MDL*

Entirely

Entirely

Enti rely

internal

internal

internal

51

5.4

64

1-f

3.6

25.9

ti 0.1

30f~

0.1-0.2

0.000020

0.09

0.18 3500

0.4

0.8

0.065

0.35

0.03

0.02

0.47

1300

7000

600

350

9250
TABLE 3.9

EVALUATED EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe RFO-FIRED POWER PLANT

AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 Billion Kilowatt-hours

(one year operation @ 75% CF)

Comment

Conventional Costs (1980 dollars)

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Abatement Costs (1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers

Desulfuri zation

Total

Cos t

106$

47

4.0

180

23T

5.9

4.6

11~

MDL

Occupational Accidents

Refinery and Transportation Impacts

BOD

Ballast Discharge

Oil Spills

Power Plant Impacts

Pollution Damage

Thermal Discharge

Assumes $50 per MDL

See Section 4.11

SO2 and particulates.

Includes only damages

to property and

materials.

See section 4.9

Largely consumptive

use of water in

natural draft wet

cooling towers @

l0/1000 ga.

3-92

Category

Capital

0&M

Fuel

Total

.09 1725

.06

.04

0.6

0.4
TABLE 3.10

EVALUATED EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe GAS-FIRED POWER PLANT

AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 Billion Kilowatt-hours

(one year operation @ 75% CF)

Category Comment

Conventional Costs (1980 dollars)

Capital

0&M

Fuel

Total

Abatement Costs (1980 dollars)

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Cooling Towers

Total

Occupational Acci dents

Power Plant

Pollution Damage

Thermal Discharge

Assumes $50 per MDL.

SO2 and particulates.

Includes only damages

to property and

materials. See

section 4.9

Largely consumptive

use of water in

natural draft wet

cooling towers,

@ 10/1000 gal.

0.04 780

0.1

0.4

3-93

MDL

Costs

106$

42

3.7

237

7.1

7
TABLE 3.11

EVALUATED EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe PWR AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 billion kilowatt hours

(one year operation @75% CF)

Comment

Conventional Costs (1980 dollars)

Capi tal

O&M

Fuel

Total

Abatement Costs (1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers

Near-Zero Radwaste

Total

Occupational Accidents

Public Accidents During

Transportation

Occupational Health

Miners' Radiation Exposure

Other Occupational Radiation

Exposure

Population Radiation Exposure

Entirely

Entirely

Entirely

6, Costs

106$ MDL

internal

internal

internal

Entirely internal

Entirely internal

Assumes $50 per MDL.

Assumes 50% uranium

production from

underground mining.

Excl. radiological

hazards.

Excl. radiological

hazards.

Assumes $50 per MDL.

Assumes 6000 MDL per

case of lung cancer

and $50 per MDL.

Assumes 0.0002 cancers

per man-rad, 6000 MDL

per cancer, and $50

per MDL

77

5.2

39

TIT~

2.4

1.2

0.049 975

0.003 60

0.003

0.02

Assumes 0.0002 cancers per

man-rad, 6000 MDL per

cancer, and $50 per MDL. 0.009

60

414

190

Thermal Discharge Largely consumptive use

of water in natural draft

wet cooling towers @ 104/

1000 gal.

3-94

Itern

0.6
TABLE 3.12

EVALUATED EFFECTS OF A 1000 MWe BWR AND ITS SUPPORTING FUEL CYCLE

Basis: 6.57 billion kilowatt hours

(one year operation @ 75% CF)

Item Comment

Conventional Costs (1980 dollars)

Capital

O&M

Fuel

Total

Entirely

Entirely

Entirely

Internal

Internal

Internal

Costs

106$

77

5.2

39

12~

MDL

Abatement Costs (1980 dollars)

Cooling Towers

Near-Zero Radwaste

Total

Occupational Accidents

Public Accidents During

Transportation

Occupational Health

Miners' Radiation Exposure

Other Occupational Radiation Exposure

Population Radiation Exposure

Thermal Discharge

Entirely Internal

Entirely Internal

Assumes $50 per MDL.

Assumes 50% uranium production from underground

mining.

Excl. radiological hazards.

Excl. radiological

hazards.

Assumes $50 per MDL.

Assumes 6000 MDL per case.

of lung cancer and $50 per

MDL.

2.4

1.8

0.045

0.003

0.003

Assumes 0.0002 cancers per

man-rad, 6000 MDL per

cancer, and $50 per MDL. 0.02

Assumes 0.0002 cancers per

man-rad, 6000 MDL per

cancer, and $50 per MDL. 0.011

Largely consumptive

use of water in natural

draft wet cooling

towers @ 10/1000 gal.

0.6

3-95

903

60

60

414

210
Since quantification has not been possible for several impacts thought to be

important, these tables do not comprise complete lists, and thus do not yield "total

societal costs." The reader is cautioned, in interpreting these evaluated effects,

that these are preliminary estimates intended for comparative purposes. In many

cases, comparative conclusions based on these tables are valid only if quantities

differ by one or more orders of magnitude.

Chapter 4 and the Appendix deal in more detail with the effort to assign ultimate

cost values to the various classes of impacts for which "source terms" were

established in the present chapter. Thus much of the support for the figures

presented in the tables below is to be found in Chapter 4, as well as in the

footnotes, and in the Appendix.

Discussion

It is not feasible at this stage to determine exactly what fractions of nonconventional costs are, in fact, already internalized. For example, it is not

known to what extent costs of occupational injuries are included in energy costs,

through such mechanisms as insurance, miners' compensation, safety reulations,

and the like. However, from a comparative viewpoint, the exact partition between

internal and external portions of total social costs appears unimportant:

Tables 3.8 through 3.12 show that, for all of the competing energy

systems, the nonconventional costs evaluated -- excluding abatement

costs -- are small compared to conventional costs.

For the coal energy system, the conventional cost is 120 million dollars per year,

or about 18 mills per kWhe. Total injury costs, figured on a mandays lost basis

($50 per MDL) is about 0.65 million dollars, or about 0.1 mills per kilowatt hour.

This is less than 1% of the conventional cost. Other nonconventional costs

evaluated, excluding abatement costs, amount to about 1.5 million dollars, or

about 0.2 mills per kilowatt hour. Total nonconventional costs evaluated, excluding

abatement costs, are thus about ] to 2% of conventional costs. Similarly, for the

RFO-fired, natural gas-fired, and nuclear systems, the evaluated nonconventional

costs, exclusive of abatement costs, are 1% or less of their respective conventional

costs.

Ideally, an incremental abatement or restoration cost balances the corresponding

incremental damage cost. External costs are internalized in this manner. The abatement (or restoration) measures considered in this study are those for which technical

and economic data are available: cooling towers to dispose of waste heat at each

3-96
of the five alternate power plants, SO2 removal from coal-fired power plant stack

gases, "near-zero" radwaste treatment systems for light water reactors, desulfurization

of residual fuel oil, and reclamation of surface-mined land. This, of course, is

not a complete list, nor do the incremental abatement costs assembled here correspond

precisely to the various categories of damage costs given in Tables 3.8 through 3.12.

One notable omission, among the abatement costs considered, is the cost associated

with improving occupational health and safety conditions, and various forms of

workers' compensation for health impairment and injury. Likewise, costs associated

with health effects of fossil plant effluents have not been evaluated, although SO2

abatement costs -- flue gas treatment for coal-fired plants, and RFO-desulfurization

-- do appear in the tables. For these reasons, abatement costs cannot be matched

and compared on a one-to-one basis with other nonconventional costs listed in

Tables 3.8 through 3.12.

Nevertheless, some insight can be gained by comparing abatement or restoration costs

to conventional costs. Abatement costs are greatest in the coal energy system --

about 25% of its conventional cost. Control of flue gas SO2 emission accounts for

most of this. The RFO-cycle abatement costs are near 5% of its conventional cost.

Nuclear system abatement measures (cooling towers and near zero radwaste systems)

would add 3% to conventional costs. The natural gas cycle enjoys the least relative

abatement cost -- about 2-1/2% of its conventional cost.

Costs and impacts are compared further -- across and within fuel cycles -- in

Chapter 5.

3-97

CHAPTER 4

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND COSTS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this chapter is to bridge the gap between descriptions of the alternate energy systems (Chapter 3) and the display of ultimate impacts or costs on a

consistent basis (annual operation of one 1000 MWe power plant and prorated fuel

cycle activity) and in common units (dollars). Fuel cycle descriptions yield data

on activity levels, throughput, resource requirements, residuals, and effluent

source terms associated with the production of a unit of electrical energy or the

addition of unit of system capacity -- that is, data resulting from a direct

inspection of each of the alternate energy production systems. The aim of this

Chapter, and the supporting Appendix, is to answer the questions: So what? What

are the ultimate, non-conventional costs, and how may they be defined and measured?

For example, Chapter 2 identified several conceptual steps in assessing external

costs associated with pollutant emissions:*

(1) determination of pollutant emission rate from a process operation;

(2) description of the transport of the pollutant through various pathways

(air, water, food chain) to the subject (human, animal, vegetable,

structural material, etc.);

(3) estimation of the dose of the pollutant to the subject taking into

consideration the subject's population distribution;

(4) estimation of the damage done to the subject by the dose, using an

appropriate dose-response relationship (damage function) for the

particular subject-pollutant pair in question;

(5) placing a monetary value on the resulting amount of damage.

A careful description of an energy production system's material and energy flows

yields the emission rates, or source terms, for step (1). This was accomplished in

Chapter 3 and the Appendix. In general this Chapter and supporting sections of the

Appendix are concerned with the remaining steps. The weakest parts of the assessments are found to be those corresponding to step (4); in most cases, knowledge of

dose-response characteristics for the low-level-long-term exposures addressed here

is not sufficient to support a rigorous quantitative analysis.

*Similar steps could be devised to assess impacts other than those associated with

pollutants, or residuals.

4-1
This Chapter and supporting sections of the Appendix are attempts to assemble the

best available damage function information and to examine its limitations.

4.2 DIFFICULTIES OF DETERMINING DAMAGE FUNCTIONS

There are several problems connected with finding a quantitative relationship between

the occurence of any pollutant and its resulting damage. As opposed to acute damage

caused by large amounts of toxic chemicals or radiation, environmental pollution is

characterized by low concentrations of pollutants acting for long periods of time on

large numbers of subjects. In the case of acute exposure the cause and effect

relationship is readily apparent, but for chronic, low-level exposures the effect

may be masked by other factors.

A fundamental difficulty concerns the correct measurement of pollutant concentration

in the environment. The levels of interest of some pollutants such as mercury may

be so low that they are beyond the measuring ability of scientific instruments.

Although this problem is now being corrected, partly through the introduction of new

techniques such as the use of lasers and neutron activation, the result is the

absence of a complete set of data describing historic environmental pollutant

levels. This lack of historic data frustrates efforts to correlate pollutant levels

and health effects.

Similar problems exist in measuring the consequences of pollution. Chronic exposure

to low levels of some substances will eventually produce definite symptoms of a

specific disease. "Mad-hatters" disease is identified with exposure to mercurous

chloride vapors, "black lung" with breathing coal dust for long periods of time, and

the causes of several other specific diseases are also known, at least qualitatively.

However, other pollutants do not lead to exclusive, characteristic illnesses. Radiation, for instance, may cause cancer, but so does a large number of other agents,

man-made as well as natural. Thus, given a case of cancer, it is impossible to state

a priori that it was caused by radiation as opposed to some other cause. The same

situation occurs for air pollution from fossil plants, which is suspected of

causing respiratory illnesses. Yet these illnesses can also result from other

agents such as viruses and cigarette smoke. The impact of air pollution, therefore,

cannot be equated simply to the number of cases of respiratory illnesses.

Further, the role of natural repair mechanisms of a subject is not well understood.

The duration of an exposure is important. A given dose, which if received in a short

4-2
period of time may be lethal, can be harmless if received at lower levels of exposure

over a longer period.

The overall problem is that a pollutant, in amounts that are unknown or difficult to

measure, may be affecting (with unknown severity) some subjects, the number of which

is clouded by other factors. In dealing with this problem researchers usually

take one of three approaches.

The first method uses controlled experiments under laboratory conditions. This

enables the researcher to administer measured doses of a pollutant to a set of

subjects and compare the subsequent response to that of a control set of subjects

kept under identical conditions except for exposure to the pollutant under

examination.

However, this method still may not yield conclusive results. A major drawback with

studying pollutants in low concentrations levels is the consequent low probability

of a pollution related illness or death appearing before other natural causes affect

the subject. Thus, in order to get statistically significant data it is necessary

to use large numbers of subjects. For instance, to see significant effects from low

level radiation, it is estimated that an experimental population of hundreds of

thousands of mice is required. The expense and manpower needs of an experiment of

this size tends to rule it out for most applications.

In addition, results from laboratory animals like mice may not be applicable to

humans because of differences in biological makeup. However, laboratory experiments

on human subjects are not attempted for ethical reasons.

Finally, studies conducted in a controlled environment may leave out an essential

factor that accounts for the impact of a pollutant. For instance, it appears that

sulfur dioxide and particulate air pollution work in combination to cause respiratory

illness. When either one is tested by itself under controlled conditions, the results

prove to be inconclusive. For these reasons, data from laboratory experiments can

only approximate the actual behavior of the pollutant in the environment and may miss

some significant effects completely. Results from actual environmental exposures are

preferred.

The most unambiguous information comes from exposures under peak or unusually high

conditions. For instance, deaths due to air pollution become evident during extended

smog episodes. Effects from radiation are known principally from the results of a

4-3
few abnormal situations. Much of the data has come from a few groups of people, such

as the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bomb blasts, or pioneer researchers in

the field of X-rays and radioactivity. However, these data refer to the impact of

exposure to a high level of pollutant working over a short period of time. There is

evidence that suggests that when the same total exposure is due to low concentrations

acting over long periods of time, biological defense mechanisms work to repair the

damage. Consequently, the impact from low-level exposures may be much less than

would be expected based on information from peak exposures.

The 'third approach, epidemiology, attempts to measure directly the effect of lowlevel exposures by analyzing vital statistics of populations exposed to such low

levels. This method depends upon accurate records kept over long periods of time

describing pollution concentrations and concurrent health effects. However,

accurate pollution monitoring equipment is just now beginning to be installed.

Thus, adequate historical data for pollutant concentrations do not exist.

Furthermore, the vital statistics for an area do not reflect individual exposure

histories. Families move into the area as others move out, and the population may

shrink or expand greatly during the time period under analysis. Thus even if

records of pollution concentrations are in existence it is difficult to relate them

to long term exposures to a definable group of subjects.

Finally, other factors that affect public health complicate the interpretation of

mortality and morbidity figures. Factors like cigarette smoking or economic status

appear to be far more important in determining a person's life span and well-being

than exposure to pollution.

The discussion above pertains largely to human health effects, although the same

general considerations may be applicable when the subjects are animals, plants, or

materials. A further difficulty in impact assessment is the sheer numbers of

pollutants and subject types. If there are 0 objects (humans, animals, plants,

materials) and P pollutants, then the minimum number of damage function pairs to be

addressed is 0 x P.

The difficulties discussed above are most apparent when dealing with mobile objects.

Impacts on plants are generally easier to determine than on humans and animals.

Effects on materials can be measured with some degree of accuracy.

4-4
Table 4.1 is intended to provide a more or less subjective feel for the current

state of knowledge of damage functions. Generally, -the damage function information

is most adequate for materials, and least for humans.

4.3 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

As pointed out in Section 4.2, the facts regarding the impact of pollution are not

known well enough to support a rigorous quantitative analysis. However, protection

of public health and safety demands that government regulatory bodies act to restrict

exposures to levels that will minimize harm. This means that the required standards

and guidelines are set on the basis of incomplete knowledge, and under these circumstances it is common to make conservative assumptions. The standard-setting

procedure involved has several aspects of a cost-benefit analysis and the resulting

standards would ideally represent the optimum tradeoff between internal and external

costs.

Standards may or may not be legally binding. The air and water quality standards

administered by the Environmental Protection Agency put limits on various emissions

from the industries covered by Federal legislation. Any operation found exceeding

the standards may involve criminal charges. Other standards, usually established

by industry associations, may be in the form of recommended guidelines that members

of the industry may choose to comply with voluntarily. These may become legally

binding, indirectly, since in civil court suits an operation that exceeds guidelines

may be found negligent and liable for resulting harm.

The standards generally work in one of two ways, either by prescribing ambient

quality or by restricting emissions of a pollutant from a given source. The ambient

quality standard is designed to restrict the exposure of the subject* to pollution

in the environment. Examples include standards for chemicals in drinking water and

the limits on amounts of hazardous metals in the air breathed by workers. Emission

standards, on the other hand, are designed to prevent or constrain hazardous substances from reaching the environment by restricting their emission rate. Examples

include restrictions on release of sulfur dioxide from power plants and on release

of radioactivity.

In theory the emission standards should be consistent with ambient standards. That

is, the amount of pollutants released by each source should be fixed so that the

total amount of pollutants in the environment does not exceed the concentrations as

4-5

*Human, animal, vegetable, or material.
TABLE 4.1

STATE OF KNOWLEDGE OF DAMAGE FUNCTIONS

POLLUTANT

TYPE OF ACID MINE OIL THERMAL COAL TRACE WASTE

SUBJECT EXPOSURE SO2 NOX PARTICULATE DRAINAGE SPILLS RADIATION EFFECTS DUST METALS HEAT

Long Term

Low Level ? ? ? ? ? ? ? T D NA

Peak Levels b D 

. D D bTD D 7 NA

Humans Laboratory

Studies D D D D ? ? D ?D NA

Long Term

Low Level ? ? ? NA ? D NA ? D NA

Peak Levels ? ? NA ? NA ? NA

Animals Laboratory

Studies T T T NA ? C NA ? C NA

Long Term

Low Level T T T NA D T NA ? T NA

Peak Levels T T NA D NA NA

Plants Laboratory

Studies C C C NA D C NA ? C NA

Long Term

Low Level NA NA NA D ? D D ? D 

?

Peak Levels NA NA NA

Fish Laboratory

Studies NA NA NJA T T C T ? D 

D

Long Term

Low Level NA NA NA D D T D ? D 

D

PeakLevels NA NA NA D? D 

D

Aquatic Plants Laboratory

Studies NA NA NA T C T ? T 

D

Long Term

Low Level T T T T T T D ? D NA

Peak Levels C C C C C DNA

Materials Laboratory

Studies C C C C C C D ? D NA

Symbols:

C = confirmed relation

T = tentative relations

D = data exists

? = partial or no data

NA = not applicable

ship

ship

4 1

01
set forth by the ambient standard. Thus, ambient quality should be determined first,

and the emission standards should then be calculated from ambient standards.

Unfortunately, uncertainties inherent in dispersion of pollutants and measurement of

their effects, as described in the previous section, make this approach extremely

difficult.

In practice the two types of standards are set independently using different

criteria. For ambient quality the basis is minimizing harm, by reducing the

presence of a given pollutant to below some safe level.

Exactly what constitutes a safe level is a matter of controversy especially since

adequate data is usually unavailable. The level is set at a point somewhere between

that known to be harmful and zero, based upon the judgment of experts in the field.

Controversy arises over whether to assume a linear relationship between exposure

and damage, or to assume a threshold effect.

A linear relationship implies that the presence of a pollutant in any concentration

will always result in some damage, even as levels approach zero. Consequently,

standards should be set as low as practicable to minimize harm.

A threshold effect is observable for some pollutants. A threshold effect means,

simply, that below a certain concentration level, or threshold, no damage occurs.

As applied to standard setting, it suggests that any level below the threshold is

a safe level.

In the absence of a proven threshold effect, a linear relationship is generally

assumed. If in fact a threshold does exist, the assumption is conservative in the

sense that it overestimates damages at levels below the threshold. Because of the

lack of accurate data about most pollutants, the linear relationship is generally

used.

The concept of background level may also be used in setting ambient quality standards.

This recognizes that many pollutants already exist in nature, such as the radiation

due to cosmic rays and natural radioactivity in rocks. If the manmade contribution

is quantitatively and qualitatively negligible compared to this background level,

then the damage attributable to manmade releases will also be negligible compared

to that due to unavoidable natural causes. This is the philosophy used in setting

ambient radiation standards.

4-7
Emission standards, on the other hand, tend to reflect technological considerations.

To sustain activity, the typical industrial operation must dispose.of its waste

products, which in the environment become pollutants. In many cases it is possible

to reduce the emission of wastes, but impossible to eliminate emission completely,

without shutting down the plant. Thus, emission standards are based to a certain

extent on the requirements of the process involved and upon the available technology

for abatement.

Table 4.2 displays radiation exposure standards established by the U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission. Estimated actual U.S. per capita 1971 exposures from all sources --

medical, natural background, and nuclear power generation -- are also shown for

comparison. The table shows that total man-made sources in the U.S. contribute about

as much to received dose as do natural sources. Medical doses dominate the man-made

category; doses related to nuclear power production in 1971 are negligible by comparison. Current USAEC limits (10 CFR 20) are of the same order of magnitude as

background and medical doses. However, the proposed "as low as practicable" limits

(10 CFR 50, Appendix I), currently under review, would be about two orders of

magnitude below current limits, or about two orders of magnitude below background and

medical doses.

Table 4.3 shows emission limits, established by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), applicable to new fossil power plants. Table 4.4 summarizes EPA national

ambient air quality standards.

4.4 RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH IMPACT OF NUCLEAR POWER PRODUCTION

Since radiation from natural sources has always been present on earth, it seems

reasonable to assume that over the course of billions of years of evolution, living

organisms, including humans, have adapted themselves to a certain constant background

level. However, after x-rays and other forms of radiation were discovered around

the turn of the century, much more intense sources of radiation were developed,

without appropriate consideration of its harmful effects. When a consistent pattern

of cancers and early death became evident among such groups as radium workers and

x-ray operators, steps were taken to limit radiation exposure and to investigate

its effects on health. The development of information on radiation exposure began

in the 1920's, decades before the development of nuclear power. The accumulation

of knowledge on the subject makes it one of the few pollutants whose effects are

relatively well known.

4-8
TABLE 4.2

U.S. RADIATION DOSES AND PROTECTION STANDARDS

a. Sunnary of Annual Whole-body Doses per Capita in the U.S.*

Radiation Source Dose (rem/yr)

Medical

Diagnostic

Therapeutic

Radiopharmaceutical

Occupational

Environmental

Global fallout

Worldwide H-3 and Kr-85

AEC installations

Nuclear power reactors

Fuel reprocessing

0.103

.006

.002

.0008

.004

.00005

.00001

.000002

.0000008

Miscellaneous .0026

Total of Manmade Sources

Natural Background in U.S.

0.118

0.130

* [Estimates for Year 1971 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency given

in "Nuclear Power and the Environment," prepared by the IAEA in cooperation

with WHO.]

b. Radiation Protection Standards

Maximum Individual Dose (Public)

10 CFR 20 .........................................

10 CFR 50 App. I (proposed "As low as

practical" standard for LWRs) ...................

Average Individual Dose (Public) 10 CFR 20 .........................................

10 CFR 50, App. I (proposed "As low as

practical" standard for LWRs) ...................

0.5 rem/yr

0.005

0.17 rem/yr

0.001

4-9
TABLE 4.3

EPA EMISSION STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO NEW POWER PLANTS

(pounds discharged to the atmosphere per million Btu heat input)

Maximum 2-hour average

Fuel Sga Particulates NOx*

Coal 1.2 0.2 0.7

Oil 0.8 0.2 0.3

Gas - 0.2 0.2

*Expressed as NO2

4-10
TABLE 4.4

NATIONAL AMBIENTATF~ ULITY STANDARDS*

Primary Standard Secondary Standard

Max. Concentration Max. Concentration

Not To be Exceeded Not To Be Exceeded

Pollutant Annual Mean More Than Once Per Year Annual Mean More Than Once Per Year

Sulfur 80 (ug/m3) 365 (ug/m3) 24-hr. 60 (ug/m3) 260 (ug/m3) 24-hr.

Dioxide .03 (ppm) .14 (ppm) .02 (ppm) .10 (pir)

(SO2) (arithmetic) (arithmetic) 1300 (ug/m ) 3-hr.

.5 (ppm)

Particulate 75 (ug/m3) 260 (ug/m3) 24-hr. 60 (ug/m3) 150 (ug/m3) 24-hr.

Matter (geometric) (geometric)

Nitrogen 100 (ug/m3) Same as Primary

Dioxide .05 (ppm)

(NO2) (arithmetic)

10 (mg/m 3) 8-hr.

Carbon 9.0 (pm)

Monoxide 40 (mg/m )l-hr. Same as Primary

35.0 (ppm)

Hydrocarbons 160 (ug/m3) 3-hr. Same as Primary

.24 (ppm) (6-9AM)

-1

*Envi ronmental

40 CFR 50, 36

Protection Agency, Regulations on National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air

FR 22384, Nov. 25, 1971.

Qual i ty Standards,
Radiation interacts with all materials by colliding with the atoms present and

exchanging some of its energy. This results in alterations in the atomic and

molecular structure of the material. The nature of the collision is probabilistic

and it is possible for a radio-particle to pass through an object without

experiencing any collisions at all.

When the material is living tissue, the collisions result in the disruption of the

molecular structure of the cells. Depending upon which molecules are hit and the

energy involved, a cell may either die or reproduce abnormally. In the case of

very intense radiation dose, so many cells are killed that the result resembles a

burn extending throughout the exposed region of tissue. If large portions of the

victim receives radiation burns, the result is death within a short time after

exposure.

Lesser doses do not produce immediate effects but may lead to cancer in later years

due to abnormal cell reproduction. Also, other effects characteristic of deterioration of tissue may be observed such as cataracts, reduction of fertility, defective

growth and development, and early death. It should be emphasized that these results

are from exceedingly high doses as compared to that from background or from nuclear

power generation.

In addition, if the genetic material of the reproductive cells is affected, descendants of the person irradiated may show mutations. These mutations may be lethal,

resulting in still births or death in early childhood. A nonlethal mutation may

manifest itself in subtle ways that lead to decreased chance of survival for the

affected individual. It has been observed that when populations of laboratory

animals are irradiated, the birth rates of succeeding generations decline while the

death rates increase, and this is taken as demonstrating the genetic effects of

radiation.

Man-made chemical compounds also are suspected of causing mutations. Aside from

artificial mutagens, a natural spontaneous background of genetic damage occurs,

presumably due to mutagens naturally present in the environment, possibly including

cosmic radiation. Since the average dose to a member of the general population due

to the generation of nuclear power, is orders of magnitude below that from natural

background radiation, presumably it will not affect the spontaneous mutation rate.

4-12
Estimation of Radiation Effects

Two general groups of people at risk are considered in this report: (1) the population at large and (2) occupational personnel employed in the energy system. The

goal is to arrive at an order-of-magnitude estimate of the health damage to both

groups resulting from routine radioactive exposure occasioned by the production of

a unit of electrical energy, e.g., 6.57 billion kilowatt hours.

Public Health

Assessment of public health effects of radioactive releases involves several

conceptual steps: (a) determination of the release rates (source terms) normalized

to a unit of electrical energy produced; (b) description of the transport of the

radionuclides through air, water, and biological pathways; (c) computation of dose

to humans based on concentrations of the radionuclides in air, water, and food and

population distributions; and (d) assignment of an increment of damage associated

with the dose using a dose-response (risk) function.

Step (a) is accomplished in the Appendix. There, source terms in units of curies

per year by radionuclide, are established for individual steps in each of the

nuclear fuel cycles. The Appendix also describes in detail the computations

corresponding to steps (b) through (d), for hypothetical but representative

facilities. The assessment is discussed briefly below.

Radiological Dose-Response Coefficients (Risk)

Estimates of risk to man following radiation exposure are available for various

categories of cancer and for genetic effect. From an extensive detailed review of

the literature* the risk estimates of Table 4.5 are established for the purposes

of this study. These estimates are considered to be based on the best available

data.

The linear dose-response theory for radiation effects as exercised in this report

predicts a certain quantity of response per unit population dose (man-rad) independent

of the magnitude.of the dose to particular individuals and independent of the rate at

which individuals receive the dose. Thus, the same total radiation effect would be

predicted for a group of one million people receiving 0.1 rad per person in one hour

as for a group of one hundred million people receiving 0.001 rad per person in one

year. The dose-response coefficients have been determined by assuming a linear

*See Appendix.

4-13
TABLE 4.5

RISK OF RADIATION HEALTH EFFECT FOLLOWING TOTAL BODY EXPOSUREa

A. Somatic effect

Probability per rad of total body dose, that an individual, irradiated

at a specified age, will develop a radiogenic malignant tumor during a

specified age span following irradiation.

Age at

irradiation

Adult

Infant less than

6 months of age

In utero child

Age span for

which malignancy

predicted

Lifetime

Class of

malignant

tumorb

Leukemia

Thyroid

cancer

Total

Malignancies

Lifetime

Before age of 10

Thyroid

cancer

Total

Malignancies

Probability

per rad

0(2 x 10-5/rad)c

0(3 x 10-5/rad)

0(20 x 10-5/rad)

0(10 x 10-5/rad)

0(60 x 10- 5/rad)

B. Genetic effectsb

Probability per rad of total body dose, that a genetic death will

occur among the descendants of an individual who is exposed to

total body irradiation before the end of his reproductive lifespan.

The irradiated individual is assumed to be a member of a population

of constant size and all of his descendants are assumed to remain

within the population.

Age at

irradiation

Before the end of

reproductive life span

Probability

per rad

0(2 x 10-3/rad)

aThe dose in the various organs at risk is assumed to be equal to the average total

body dose.

bThe organs at risk are: (1) leukemia--red marrow, (2) thyroid cancer--thyroid gland, (3) total malignancies--total body, (4) genetic effects--gonads.

CThe notation 0(r) indicates that r is an order of magnitude estimate.

4-14
extrapolation from data in the high dose range. The estimation of biological effects

in the low dose range using such risk values is, therefore, subject to considerable

uncertainty. It has been suggested that risk values based on linear extrapolation be

thought of as order of magnitude estimates; such an attitude is adopted here and

emphasized in Table 4.5 through the use of the notation 0(r) to indicate that risk r

is order of magnitude.

Transport and Dose

Two models were established for computing public doses resulting from nuclear system

releases: (1) a global model, which yields U.S. and world-wide population dose

commitments (all time) due to routine releases of long-lived isotopes (H-3 and Kr-84)

during one year's operation; and (2) a local model which yields population dose

within a 50-mile radius of nuclear facilities, due to routine releases of relatively

short-lived nuclides, during one year's operation. In both cases, of course,

releases are normalized to energy system output of 6.57 billion kilowatt hours, i.e.,

one year's operation of one 1000 MWe nuclear power plant and its supporting fuel

cycle requirements. Results are summarized in Table 4.6. Source terms are developed

in the Appendix.

The global model dose represents an estimate of the world-wide population whole body

dose commitment resulting from all long-lived krypton (Kr-85) and tritium (H-3)

released as a result of one year's operation of the nuclear energy system. The

calculation thus relates the population dose to the electrical energy generation

responsible for that dose. It is assumed that the released isotope becomes widely

distributed throughout an identifiable and well specified reservoir. For H-3 the

reservoir is the surface water of the world, and for Kr-85 the reservoir is the

entire atmosphere. The Kr-85 is assumed to spread through the atmosphere uniformly;

50% of the tritium is assumed to remain between 30* and 50* north latitude as has

been observed for tritium produced from bomb tests. For conservatism all of the

Kr-85 produced in fission is assumed released.

Based on a computerized Gaussian plume calculation, the local model accounts for

whole body dose to people living within 50 miles of a hypothetical facility that

releases through its stack all the fission product noble gases and tritium which

are released to the environment at the reactor and reprocessing plant of a 1000 MWe

energy system. An examination of numerous environmental statements for U.S. reactors

and reprocessing plants together with the results of the Year 2000 Study has

indicated that the whole body dose from noble gases and tritium from such a

hypothetical facility would be the primary contributors to population whole body dose

4-15
TABLE 4.6

PUBLIC RADIATION DOSES FROM NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS*

(man-rad)

SStem**

Global Model (man-rad)

World

Krypton-85*** 130 130

Tritium 22 21

Rounded Total T3N

U.S. Only

Krypton-85*** 6.1 6.1

Tritium 2.4 2.3

Rounded Total $.3' ~T

Local Model (man-rad)

High Population Assumption 42 310

Medium Population Assumption 4.2 25

Low Population Assumption 0.6 4.4

*The number of digits shown is not indicative of precision. Two digits are

retained merely for calculational purposes. All doses are whole body doses.

**"Energy system" includes the reactor power plant and its supporting fuel cycle.

For practical purposes, all but the power plant and reprocessing plant releases

may be ignored in computing public dose.

***Assumes all of the Kr-85 produced is released.

in the region of the facility. A more detailed study would include an examination of

specific site conditions which could cause the dose from drinking water, eating fish,

etc. to become large with respect to the local model dose displayed in Table 4.6. It

is noteworthy that the local model population dose estimate itself turned out to be

small with respect to the global model population dose thereby indicating that the

inclusion of the neglected doses would not significantly change the estimated total

man-rad received by the general population.

Part of the dose determined from the local model is due to Kr-85 and H-3. This

population dose can be added to the man-rad determined using the global model

because, in the absence of a holdup mechanism, only a small fraction of the Kr-85

and H-3 would be expected to decay before crossing the 50 mile radius used in the

local model.

Only whole body dose has been calculated although it should be recognized that doses

to specific organs may be more important in some cases and would be considered in a

more detailed evaluation. The dose response function for total malignancies given

in Table 4.5 is for whole body dose, and that is the dose which has been determined.

4-16
Occupational Heal th

Two groups of nuclear energy-system workers are considered in this report: (a) uranium

miners (underground), and (b) employees in the remainder of the nuclear fuel cycle,

including the power plant.

The extensive study of lung cancer in American uranium miners carried out by the U.S.

Public Health Service has allowed the estimation of the probability that lung cancer

will follow exposure to airborne radon and its daughter products in the air of underground uranium mines. The order of magnitude estimate for the lifetime probability

of death from radiogenic lung cancer which has been adopted for use in this report

is 10-4 per Working Level Month (WLM)* of exposure. The total WLM exposures,

normalized to the annual mining requirements of the respective systems, are niven in

Table 4.7. The man-WLM figures given in Table 4.7 have been estimated assuming that

50% of the uranium ore is from underground mining and that each miner receives the

legal limit of 4 WLM per year. The latter assumption tends to cause an overestimate

of miners' exposure. A more detailed treatment of radiological health in underground

uranium mining is given in the Appendix.

TABLE 4.7

OCCUPATIONAL RADIATION DOSE IN LIGHT WATER REACTOR ENERGY SYSTEMS*

Miners' Exposure (man-WLM) 104

All Other fuel cycle steps (man-rad) 345

*The number of digits shown is not indicative of precision. Two or three digits

are retained merely for calculational purposes.

For occupational personnel throughout the rest of the nuclear fuel cycles, data are

available on the annual exposure to external penetrating radiation (x-ray, y-rays,

and neutrons) of individuals who are routinely monitored. The monitored occupational

populations are not well defined. They may include a variety of job categories and

often include visitors to nuclear installations. Because of this, occupational

population dose rather than individual dose has been adopted as the measure of

exposure (man-rad/year). The size of the labor force varies with the amount of power

produced, and production factors (e.g., MTU/year) have been used to normalize the

population exposures. The normalized population exposures are combined with risk

factors for the individual to provide a measure of health effect for the exposed

population.

*One WLM is 17t hours exposure to air in which a liter of air contains short-lived

Rn-222 daughter products which will yield 1.3 x 10- MeV of alpha particle energy

upon total decay.

4-17
The expected man-rad for the steps in the nuclear fuel cycle other than mining is

shown in Table 4.7. The exposures are essentially the same for all fuel cycles with

an estimated 300 man-rad occurring at the reactor. The estimates are based on past

experience and expected future conditions. Especially in the case of commercial fuel

reprocessing plants, there is little operating experience and the experience of

recent years may produce changes in operation which reduce the radiation exposure.

The application of the measures of health effect to the projection of health damage

to personnel as a result of future operation must be made with the knowledge that the

nuclear power industry is in a period during which changes will likely affect

personnel exposure.

A more detailed treatment of occupational doses excluding miners' exposure is given

in the Appendix.

Summary

The risk coefficient 0(20 x 10-5) malignancies per man-rad, from Table 4.5, is

assumed. For uranium miners, a risk coefficient of 0(10-4) lung cancers per minerWLM is assumed. Combining these coefficients with the normalized public and

occupational dose figures of Tables 4.6 and 4.7, the expected number of cancer cases,

for all time, attributable to one year's operation of the energy system are

obtained as summarized in Table 4.8.

TABLE 4.8

EXPECTED NUMBER OF MALIGNANCIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ANNUAL OPERATION*

OF NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS

PWR BWR

General Population

Global Model** .03 .03

Local Model *** .0008 .005

Rounded Total.03 -~.

Occupational Personnel

Miners 0.01 0.01

All Other Fuel Cycle Steps 0.069 0.069

Rounded Total 0.08- ~.0~

Rounded Total (malignancies) 0.1 0.1

*Basis: Annual Operation of one 1000 MWe reactor power plant @ 75% CF and

supporting fuel cycle requirements.

**Assumes all of the Kr 85 produced is released.

***From dose using medium population assumption. See Table 4.6.

4-18
4.5 HEALTH IMPACTS OF AIRBORNE FOSSIL POLLUTANTS

Gross Pollutants

The human health hazards from fossil fuel plant emissions, such as sulfur oxides,

nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and particulates, are not as well understood as the

health hazards from external whole body irradiation. This is due to the large

number of possible deleterious substances in the air, including their interactions,

to the existence of non-air-pollutant causative agents, to the lack of well-defined

dose data for studying past exposures, to the lack of disease response data considering age, sex, aand disease latency periods for the receptor, and to possible

synergistic and chemical co-agent accelerator effects. In general, air pollution

causes undesirable health effects, but quantizing these effects and the delineation

of causative agents are extremely difficult. There is no dose-response data comparable in quality to the therapeutic irradiation and atomic bomb casualty data

and no linear dose-response approach, both of which are so useful in estimating

radiation effects.

Numerous toxicological studies of animal response to general air pollution and to

specific air pollutants have been carried out in an effort to gain insight into the

levels at which pollution is harmful and into which pollutant combinations produce

the most severe response at a given level of exposure. (1,2,3,4) Although toxicological studies on animals are an invaluable aid to the study of human response,

they cannot yet be used as a basis for human dose-response relationships because

no extrapolation of animal response to human response can be made with confidence.

Thus predictions of human response to pollution and to specific pollutants must be

based on direct observation of human beings. Although toxicological experiments

are performed in laboratory settings under controlled conditions and thus yield well

defined results, the range of toxicological studies on human beings, which can be

made, is severely restricted by scientific ethics. Thus most of our knowledge of

human response to air pollution comes from epidemiological studies of the exposure

of human beings in the real environment.

There is a large variety of air pollutants simultaneously present in urban atmospheres. The epidemiological researcher cannot limit the exposure of his study group

to just one or a few pollutants of interest such as those generated by fossil fueled

power plants. The epidemiologist must deal with air pollution as a whole and thus

epidemiological studies are poorly suited to the study of the effects of specific

pollutants on man. Thus epidemiological studies for the most part examine the

relationship between health effect and general air pollution.0) Two different

4-19
types of general air pollution are recognized by air pollution epidemiologists:

(1) a reducing type, an example of which is London smog, and (2) an oxidizing type,

an example of which is Los Angeles smog. The reducing type is characterized by

high levels of SO2 and particulates, and finds its primary source in the burning

of fossil fuels. In a general sense the air pollution which evolves from the

operation of fossil fuel power plants is of the reducing type and information on

the health effects that are related to the operation of fossil fuel plants can be

obtained by studying human health in relation to reducing air pollution. Sulfur

dioxide and some measure of particulate matter are normally used as air pollution

variables when studying the relationship between health and levels of reducing-type

air pollution. These variables are normally interpreted as indices of reducing-type

air pollution and not as specific causative agents.

Epidemiological studies seek to establish relationships between health effect and

variables such as air pollution which are thought to play a role in causing health

effects. However, epidemiological studies alone are incapable of establishing that

a cause-effect relationship exists between health effect and specific variables.

The reason for this is that, although they may establish statistically significant

associations between health effect and specific variables, the existence of an

association does not imply that the specific variables under study cause health

effects; they may merely be indices of the true causative variables. Thus, SO2 and

particulates, as they are normally used in epidemiological analyses are thought of

as indices of the agents or combinations of agents in reducing-type air pollution,

which cause health effects. These agents and combinations of agents are themselves

unknown. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, however, strong associations

may be compelling evidence for the existence of a cause-effect relationship between

health effect and the given variables.

In the most thorough epidemiological studies the investigation is not limited to

the relationship between health effect and air pollution but includes study of the

relationship between health effect and several environmental and socioeconomic

variables. Such analyses are often performed using multivariate regression

analysis, and one product of such an analysis is a regression equation that relates

the health effect to the various variables.(5,6,7,8) The associations between

health effect and some or all of the variables are often statistically significant.

Typical of non-air pollution variables are meteorological variables such as temperature and socioeconomic variables such as percentage of the population of a

study group with annual income below a certain level. Some of these variables,

4-20
such as temperature, may be true causative variables but others, especially socioeconomic variables, are only indices of true causative variables. These indices may

or may not be statistically accurate indicators of the true causative variables.

Since these latter variables are unknown, one does not know whether the indices

are accurate. However, some regression equations have been formulated that explain

almost all of the variation in the data, i.e., a graph of the regression equation

would pass near the data points. If the data points to which the equation is fit

can be assumed to be devoid of measurement error, then one can interpret such

equations as containing variables which are accurate indices of all or nearly all

of the true causative variables.(7,8) If this interpretation is adopted, then the

regression equation may be used to predict health effects for the given sets of

values of the variables. Such a substitution of values is, however, incapable of

answering the question that is implicitly asked when a dose response relationship

is sought: What is the change in health effect which accompanies a given change

in an air pollution variable, when all other variables are held constant? This

question cannot be answered because statistically significant correlations exist

between the air pollution variables and other independent variables in the regression

equation so that it is impossible to change the air pollution variable without

simultaneously changing other variables. In effect, these correlations mean that

some of the variables are indices of other variables. Also, some variables are

possibly indices of a set of causative variables that is not included in the

regression equation. The regression equation thus fails to separate the effect

of air pollution from the effects of other variables.

Usually no quantitative treatment of measurement error is attempted in formulating

regression equations. However, specific estimates of the measurement error should

be made so that it is known how much of the variation in the data is due to variables which cause health effect and how much is due to the error of measurement.

Two examples of variables that may contain large measurement errors are health

effects variables and air pollution variables. For example, when death due to a

specific cause is used to measure health effect and a death certificate is used

to determine cause of death, error may arise because of incorrect recording of the

cause of death on the certificate, incorrect diagnosis, different diagnostic

criteria being employed in different locales, or because several equally important

competing causes may have been present at the time of death, but only one is

recorded on the certificate. Air pollution concentrations are measured at

monitoring stations and a person is often assumed to be exposed to the air

pollution level at the monitoring station nearest his home. However, normal

activities may take a person to areas where air pollution levels are quite

4-21
different from the levels at the monitoring station nearest his home. The air

pollution levels inside of the buildings where he works and inside of his house

will be different from the monitoring station levels and may be higher or lower

depending on such factors as his occupation and the integrity of his home heating

system. The presence of error in the measurement of variables and the lack of

quantitative estimates of the effect of such error on predictions made with regression

equations cast doubt on the usefulness of the regression equations for quantitative

prediction of health effects.

As epidemiological studies employing regression analysis have become more comprehensive, a number of studies have emerged which account for a large portion of the

variation in the data and which demonstrate statistically significant association

between SO2 and particulates and health effect. However, one still is unable to

be certain that the change in health effects associated with a specific change in

SO2 level in the regression equation, is valid. Indeed one is unable to quantify

the health effects from general air pollution caused by the generating plants.

Fossil fuel combustion products are believed to cause health effects. For a

specific disease, lung cancer, the following quotation by the Committee on Biologic

Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants, Division of Medical Sciences, National Research

Council, displays a partial basis for this belief: 2

"The POM (Polycyclic Organic Matter) found in high concentration in cigarette

smoke causes cancer of the lung and other organs in experimental animals; it

is also present in the industrial environment, in which lung cancer rates

are high, and is found generally in the air of urban communities. Examination of epidemiologic studies shows that, although a major factor in the

causation of lung cancer in man is cigarette smoking, it does not account

completely for the increased incidence of this disease. It appears that the

incidence of lung cancer among urban dwellers is twice that of those living

in rural areas; and within urban communities, the incidence is even greater

where fossil-fuel products from industrial usage are highly concentrated in

the air."

Because of the impossibility of isolating the effect of air pollution from other

variables in regression equations and because of the uncertainty in the precision of

regression equation predictions due to the neglect of measurement error, no

quantitative estimates of the health effect that results from the air-borne

emissions from fossil-fuel plants are made in this report.

4-22
Trace Metal Emissions

Trace metal emissions from fossil-fired power plants have been roughly estimated

because a large fraction of the fly ash is in the respirable dust ranee and because

some metals, occurring in coal particularly, probably display more mobility into the

atmosphere than corresponds to fractional escape of fly ash. Mercury is the most

volatile, followed by arsenic and its compounds; a few percent of the beryllium

content in coal is assumed to escape regardless of the degree of removal of particulate matter from stack gas. The rest of the thirty or more elements including

radium isotopes are assumed to follow the efficiency of fly ash recovery. Concentrations in the coal were averaged to represent total production in the United

States. Based on the above considerations and an assumed effective atmospheric

dilution factor of ten thousand, only beryllium amona the toxicologically important

or suspect elements might approach its suggested limiting community ambient concentration level within a factor of ten; the estimated level of 0.002 pi/M3 is a

factor of 5 below the recommended community limit of 0.01 ig/M3. The radium 226

stack gas concentration corresponding to 0.02 cures per year from a 1000 MWe plant

in 1980 is an order of magnitude below the maximum permissible concentration in air.

This generalized estimate may not be appropriate for considering combustion of some

low grade western coals where elements of health significance, beryllium, arsenic,

and uranium sometimes occur in concentrations 100 to 1000 times greater than the

national averages used in this rough estimating.

The perspective on trace elements has been broadened in the study by a review of

health aspects of trace metals in the environment; this work supports the view that

much more research is needed on the toxicology of low levels of atmospheric

pollutants.

Health Impacts of Airborne Pollutants From Fossil Fired Power Plants

Because the health effects of combustion-related air pollution are so poorly understood, it is not meaningful or possible at this time to associate an increment of

health damage with an increment of electrical energy production. Some perspective,

however, can be gained by comparing man-made, combustion pollutant concentrations

with natural background levels, with standards imposed by regulatory agencies, with

a broad range of concentrations considered by experts to result in perceivable

medical effects, and with similar quantities related to radiation releases from

nuclear systems. This comparative material, based largely on a recentstudy by the

University of California (0), is presented in Section 4.8.

4-23
Footnotes and Re enencea of Secton 4.5 - Hea th lmpact6 o A bonne Fossit

PoLtutant6

(1) The Sowtces o A#%t Pothution and They. Con.t'oL, PubLic Heath Senvice

Pu bLca.&on No. 7548 (1968).

(2) AL QuaiZt y CZt euia6 0o& Su2.uh Oxides , Natet. AU. Poll. ContnoZ Admin.

PubL cation No. AP-50 (1969).

(3) AiU Q(uaiti' C'i tozia on PatZcuf a te Matten, NatZ. AaPL. Poll. ContAot

Admn. Pubt'c aton No. AP-49 (1969).

(4) ALt Quait y C'te'ut t M tgen wi Oxides, AZ' Po12. Conttov 6 6ce

Pub caLn No. AP-84 (1971).

(5) RWichand J. Hickey, David E. Boyce, Evelyn B. Hane and Rfi chad C. CelLand,

" Ecolog caZ Statistica2 Studie6 Conce.n'ivng Envtonmental Pollution and

CLano.ic DiZease," IEEE T-'ans. on Geosci. EectAon. GE-8, #4 186-202 (1970) 

(6) RiLchaud J. Hickey, "A&A Pollut on," Chapte 9 in Envijonment, Reaowuce4

Pollwti on and Society, SiJnaue J Associates , Pub Qish1e , StamT, Connecticut

(7) Leste B. Lave and Eugene P. SeAIain, "Health and Ai Pollution, The E6ect

- o6 Occupation Mix," Swed. J. Econom i&cs, 73, 76-95 (1971).

(8) Leute B. Lave, "The HeaLth E4 ects o, EectLcity Gene aton 6om Coat, 0it, and NuceaVL Fue.Z," Graduate Schooe o6 lndustAi2a AdminLst'unt on, CannegieMellon Univeei ty, PittSbugh, Penns qtvanLa 15213 (ApxiL 1972).

(9) NatLonag Academy o Sc i.enceA, Pan ticutate PotyeIJ.c O' ganic Matter, Vivi6ion

o6 MedicaL Sciencea, Hat ona2 ReaeanLt Counr L, AS, Was tngton, P.C. (1972),

page 245.

(10) Green Jeed, M. A., Pubic HeaLth RUike o6 TheAmat Power. Pant6, Unive.a.i ty

o6 CaLso'nna, UCLA-ENG-7242 (May 1972).

4-24
4.6 RESPIRATORY DISEASES AMONG COAL MINERS

In addition to the safety hazards to be found in underground coal mines, the miner

is exposed to disease causing conditions. The cold, damp atmosphere underground

leads to high rates of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and the presence of coal

dust causes coal workers' pnemoconiosis (CWP), more commonly known as "black lung".

This is defined as "the accumulation of (coal) dust in the lungs and the tissue

reaction to its presence."(4

Simple CWP is the buildup of dust in the lungs which may affect breathing. About

15 years of underground exposure are required for the development of CWP.-- In

progressive massive fibrosis (PMF), an advanced form of CWP, the lung tissue reacts

to the coal particles, forming fibers which spread through the lungs, reducing

respiratory capacity. Once a certain degree of simple pneumoconiosis is present,

the development of PMF does not require further exposure to dust. Thus it can

appear in miners who have left the mines. (15) PMF implies total disability according to the 1969 Act criteria.1)

Random samples of U.S. miners show that 10% have CWP and one third of these have

PMF.() About 2% of simple pneumoconiosis cases develop PMF each year.(17) It is

difficult to connect these statistics with past mine conditions since records of

U.S. dust concentrations have not been kept or reported. Results of recent

measurements are, however, available. It was reported at a 1969 meeting that the

average dust concentration in U.S. mines was about 7 mg/M3 and that in some mines

the average concentration was between 3 and 4.5 /M3.(17_) Extensive measurements

made in 1968, 1969 and 1970 have been reported. (18) They show wide variations in

dust exposure for various job categories in large underground bituminous coal mines

A significant number of job categories receive exposures greater than 2.9 mg/M3

In a survey of strip mines, auger mines, and preparation plants, 88% of all workers

had exposures less than 2 mg/M3

British data reflect the impact of an extensive program to abate the disease.

Statistics for the program kept over a ten year period indicate that the annual

incidence of CWP has dropped from 6 per thousand men to 2 per thousand. (la, 7)

British studies show that about 1% of the cases of simple CWP develop PMF per

year (3 and about 5% of the PMF cases progress. The British dust standard for

bituminous mines is 700 ppcc. (Ip)While there is no simple conversion of this

figure to milligrams per cubic meter (mg/M3), it has been suggested that 700 ppcc

could be equivalent to more than 10 mg/M3 (lb)

4-25
Although the British recognized CWP as an occupational disease in 1943 and began

programs of treatment and prevention at that time, the disease went officially

unrecognized in the U.S. until recently. Several states have passed legislation

providing compensation for miners disabled by CWP. In addition the Federal Coal

Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969 contains a provision for paying compensation

where none is available from the State.( '0' The Act also contains standards

limiting the concentration of coal dust in the mine air. The upper limit of the

average concentration of respirable dust, set by the Act, is 2 milligrams per cubic

meter (2 mg/M3).

Quantification of CWP Health Impact

As with other impacts considered in this report, an attempt is made to estimate

the CWP health impact associated with the mining of coal to produce a oiven quantity

of electrical energy, i.e., 6.57 billion kilowatt hours. This effort encountered

several difficulties enumerated below.

The connection between CWP, which is diagnosed radiologically, and disability, which is diagnosed by clinical symptom and lung function test, is not

known. Definitions of both CWP and CWP disability have recently been established

in the U.S. 1-' 1 '14 ) but legal and technical viability of these definitions is

still subject to dispute.

Epidemiological data for CWP in the U.S. is lacking because adequate

records and statistics have not been kept. For this reason heavy reliance is

placed on British experience. The applicability of British studies to U.S. conditions - past and future - is tenuous. For example, the British dust concentrations

are given in units of particles per cubic centimeter, as determined by a micrographic

count method, while U.S. concentrations are measured in milligrams per cubic meter.

There is no simple conversion factor between the two units. (16) Moreover, the

British mine conditions (dust concentrations) and the mechanics of the British

regulatory programs may be vastly different from those in the U.S. The prevention

of CWP as practiced in Britain involves dust abatement, and periodic examinations

of the miners. Any who show a tendency toward CWP are given jobs in non-dusty

locations.

Current CWP incident rates in the U.S. reflect past conditions before

the 1969 Act went into effect. The average miner is now about 55 years of age

and has seen long service under dusty conditions. Because CWP results from

cumulative exposure and because no statistical information is available for

4-26
average 2 mg/M3 exposures, the time-response and degree of the reduction in CWP

incidence, resulting from the 1969 Act, is speculative.

U.S. Experience

In 1970 there were roughly 90,000 men working underground producing 339 million

tons of coal in the U.S. The productivity of U.S. underground coal miners is

thus about 4,000 tons per man-year, One 1000 MWe coal fired power plant consumes

about 2.3 million tons of bituminous coal annually.

Half of this, or about 1.2 million tons, is assumed produced in underground mines

and requires about 300 man years of labor. Assuming 10% of the underground miners

have CWP and that 2% of these develop PMF per year, then 0.2% of the underground

mining work force incur PMF per year. Thus, about 0.002 x 300 ~ 0.6 cases of PMF

are attributed to the annual underground mining requirements of a 1000 MWe coalfired power plant. This corresponds to mine conditions and health monitoring

procedures prior to the implementation of the 1969 Act, i.e., a national average

mine dust concentration of, say, 7 mg/M3 , considerably in excess of the 2 mg/M3

standard set by the 1969 Act.

British Experience

As noted above, British statistics show the result of a vigorous program for preventing

CWP. Incidents of CWP in Britain have been reduced by a factor of three or more

over a period of ten years. In 1967 about 2 new cases per 1000 men were reported.

Thus about 0.6 new simple CWP cases are attributable to the annual mining requirements of a 1000 MWe coal fired power plant. About 1% of the British CWP cases

develop PMF, so that about 0.006 new PMF cases per year are assigned to the 1000

MWe plant, a factor of 100 below the U.S. figure.

As discussed above, future CWP and PMF incident rates (after full implementation

of the 1969 Act) are difficult to forecast. For the purposes of this study, it is

assumed that the U.S. experience will be similar to that of the British. Table

4.9 summarizes the normalized results, based on British statistics.

TABLE 4.9

CASES OF COAL WORKERS PNEUMOCONIOSIS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE

ANNUAL REQUIREMENTS OF ONE 1000 MWe COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT

Cases per Year

Simple CWP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.6

PMF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.006

4-27
Footnotes and Re etences on. Section 4.6 - Re pZJatoryV VIAeau ea Among Coat Mineu

(1) Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labor o the Committee on Labo4 and PubLic

Wetla'e, U.S. Senate, on Coat Mine Health and Safety, Part 3 (February, Mach,

May 1969).

a. Teatimony o Jethro Gough (United Kingdom), May 1969, including tthe

4ottowcng UK report appended: National Coat Boad, Medical Sexvice and

Medical Research, Annual Report 1967-68, Hobat House, London, S.W.1.

b. Report appended May 2, 1969 by Senator J. Randolph page 1017: "D cuZion

of CWP by James Hootey, Veteran &t lish Mining EnqineeA and Coat Mine

Manager."

(2) Hearinga bejo'e the Geneval Subcommittee on Labo& o the Committee on Education

and Labor, House o 1Repeentative4, on Coat Mmne Health and Salety, (March,

ApuL, May 1969).

(3) Ameican Con~enence o6 Governmental Industrial HygienZ.t6 (ACGIH), "SynopiZ o

~ the Work Proceeding" Spindtetop International Conenence on Coat Woken

Pneumoconiosi.s, Anhve6 o EnvJonmentat Health, VoL. 21 (Aug 1970) page 221.

(4) Gno'LO, P. and R. DeTrevitLe, "Black Lung&" Achive6 oj Environmental Health,

VoL. 20 (Apr. 1970) page 450.

(5) Handy, H. J. "Comment6 in '&lack Lungs' " (Letteu to the Editor), Archive o6

EnvuZonmentat Health, VoL. 21 (Nov 1970), page 697.

(7) Appataeh.ian 1Regionat CommiZsion, "The Safety and Health o6 Coal Mines,"

- Appatach.ia VoL. 2 #5 (Feb. 1969).

(8) Heao.ing4 before the Subeommttee on Labo4 o6 the Committee on Labo4 and Pubtlc

- We.LaLe, U.S. Senate, on Health and Saety in the Coat Mine6 (June, August 1970).

(9) Hearings before the Subcommittee on Labo, of the Committee o Labors and Pubi

Wetiare, U.S. Senate, on Btack Lung LegiZtation (Dec. 1971, Jan., Feb. 1972).

(10) "Title IV -- Back Lung BeneZit6" Federal Coat Mine Health and Safety Act o - 1969, PubL.c. Law 91-173, 916t Congress, S.2917, Dec. 30, 1969.

(11) Pant 410 -- Federal Coat Mine HeaLth and Saety Act o 1969, Title TV -- Btack

Lung Benei t6 , Federat RegLste.' 35, pp. 5623-5626 (Apri.t 7, 1970).

(12) DoyLe, HenAy N., "PneumoeonoiosAZ in 5ituminouw Coat Wokeu in the U.S."

W. S. Lao./nha t, et at., "PneumoconoZIs in Appalachian Bituminou4 Coat Mine,"

U.S. Dept. o Health, Education and WeL la'e, Public Health Sevice, Bu.. o

Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, Ohio 1969.

(13) Lee, DougLaA H. K., "Histoical A6pect&" in M. M. Key et at. (Ed6) Ptmonay Reaction6 to Coat Duht, a Review o4 U.S. Experience, Academic Pre~s, WY,

MY 1971.

(14) KejV, John vZector, Dept. o6 Occupational Health, United Mine Workes o - America, Washington, D.C., personal communication, April 26, 1972.

(15) PendengMas , Eugene P. "Some ConaLde'ation6 o Coat Wofkenxa' PneumoconioZi,6,"

A oEnyuonmental Health, Vat. 20 (1970) VhioveL p. 545.

4-28
(16) Hume, &u t, Death and the. Mnea, Gnoaaman PubLt hews, NV (1971).

(17) Lee, V. "Coat Woke neumocono Z6 -- State o Knowledge and Reseaxch Needs," ~~ J. Occupationat Medicine, VoL. 13 (1971), pp. 18 3-192.

(18) Sch2Zck, V. P. and N. L. FannA.ck, "Coat in the U.S." in PutLmonauJ Reactions to

Coat Dust, A Review of U.S. Expei'ence, M. M. Key et aX. (Ed6.) Academice Pe.6,

NV, NV 971).

4.7 DOLLAR COSTS OF HEALTH AND ACCIDENT IMPACTS

Other parts of this report have attempted to quantify health and accident effects in

the alternate energy systems. In Chapter 5 and the Appendix, occupational injury

rates, throughout each of the alternate energy systems, are compiled and normalized

to a unit of electrical energy produced. The Appendix also addresses occupational

and public injuries due to conventional accidents in the transportation of coal

and nuclear fuels. Radiological health impacts -- both public and occupational

-- of the nuclear fuel cycles are treated in detail in the Appendix and summarized

in Section 4.4 of this chapter. The Appendix also quantifies the incidence of

radiologically induced lung cancer among uranium miners. Section 4.5 of this

chapter deals, without success, with the problem of quantifying public health

effects of airborne fossil pollutants.

In all cases the basis for normalization is the annual operation of one 1000 MWe

power plant at 75% CF, i.e., 6.57 billion kilowatt hours of electrical energy.

Health and accident effects, where quantifiable, are displayed in various units:

fatalities, non-fatal injuries, severity for occupational accidents;

. cases of cancer, coal workers pneumoconiosis, etc. for occupational and

public health impacts.

To render such quantities comparable and additive, one wishes to reduce them to

consistent units. A unit of health and accident impact adopted for this study,

following practices used in reporting industrial accident statistics, is the manday lost (MDL). Ultimate health and accident impacts, based on MDL, are in dollar

units.

Assessment of Man-Days Lost

The measurement of accident severity in terms of disability days (called man-days

lost here) is common industrial practice. The American National Standard Method

of Recording and Measuring Work Injury Experience(I) lists the estimated number of

4-29
man-days of time lost for various injuries. A few examples of the loss of time

assessed for some permanent injuries are given below.

Type of Injury Man-Days Lost

Death 6000

Permanent total disability 6000

Loss of or loss of use of

Arm, at or above elbow 4500

Arm below elbow 3600

Hand 3000

Thumb 600

One eye, loss of sight 1800

Both eyes, loss of sight 6000

One ear, loss of hearing 600

Both ears, loss of hearing 3000

The three injury statistics which are often given per million man-hours of labor are

the number of deaths, nonfatal injuries, and severity (man-days lost). Since the

types and numbers of nonfatal injuries vary from industry to industry, there is no

single value which can be used for man-days lost per nonfatal injury as there is

for death or permanent total disability. Severity rates used in preparation of

this report have been obtained from sources such as the Bureau of Labor, Bureau of

Mines, and the Bureau of Railroad Safety.

The man-days lost.concept has been used in this report as a measure of severity not

only for occupational accidents but also for occupational radiation exposure, public

radiation exposure, accidents causing injuries to members of the public (e.g., a

coal trains runs over a person at a grade crossing), and coal workers' pneumoconiosis.

This extension of the man-days lost concept allows a comparison among energy systems

of the total human health and safety effects which have been quantified in this study.

It must be recognized that quantification could not be accomplished for many items

thought to have significant impacts on human health and safety.

The quantification of occupational and public health effects has been accomplished by

using dose-response relationships discussed elsewhere in this chapter and in the

Appendix. For conservatism all neoplasms and all cases of progressiv massive

fibrosis are assumed to result in 6000 man-days lost, the value given above for

accidental death. There is no non-fatal injury category given here for health

4-30
effects, since precision of the data used elsewhere in the calculations do not

justify such finesse.

The procedure described above suffers many obvious flaws. Conceptually, the incremental health impact associated with the operation of an energy system in a given

year will, in most cases, appear in succeeding years. For example malignancies

(considered equivalent to death here) occuring after the year 19XX due to radiation

exposure resulting from nuclear power plant operation during 19XX are accounted for

in the same manner as accidental deaths occurring during 19XX. Neither present

worth factors nor escalation factors are applied. Moreover, the cost to society in

terms of productivity for, say, the accidental death of a young coal miner could

very well be greater than the cost for a death of a uranium miner from lung cancer

after 30 years of exposure to radon gas in underground mines. One should take into

account such factors as the age distribution of the people affected and any latent

period between cumulative exposure and the human impact to determine the productive

man-days lost per death. In a more detailed study an investigation into the

various categories of man-days lost, including non-fatal impairment, would ideally

result in refined sets of numbers accounting for age, latency period, type of health

effect, and the like.

Dollars Per Man-Day Lost

The societal cost of the man-days lost due to the operation of the energy system

depends not only on the category of loss, i.e., injury, sickness, or death, but also

on the occupations of the individuals involved and their ages. A model of the event

that includes the descriptive parameters might be established. At this time,

however, the obtaining of a consensus for values of men's health as a function of

the numerous variables involved is beyond the work scope. Rather, an attempt is

made to find a reasonable cost that may be applied to all man-days lost and this

cost should be in a range that is compatible with the value system of concerned

individuals and with the society.

Trying to assess the man-days lost due to a death from the objective view of society

as was done here is different from commenting on the pricelessness of an individual's

life. In line with the objective approach of this study an attempt was made to find

a reasonable cost ($) that could be applied to all man-days lost. Use of this dollar

figure allows the human health and safety effects of an energy system to be compared

with other costs incurred by the system. However, the man-days lost as well as their

dollar value in each energy system are displayed in all the tables of results in

order that the comparison of human health and safety effects can be made with ease

4-31
and so that the effect of changing the dollars per man-days lost figure is obvious

to the reader.

A rough estimate of a man-day value can be made by dividing the gross national

product by the number of people-days in the U.S. for one year; this gives a value

of ti $15 per man-day. The wages and salaries paid to workers per day worked is

about twice this value. The medical and funeral expenses for health and accidents

must be included in the analysis to obtain a value of dollars per man-day lost. A

rigorous analysis would also require adjustments for the time effect of the incurred

expense due to any latency period between the time of emission and the appearance of

health effect. Other adjustments such as those for effects on family life are also

needed depending on the category of the health or accident detriment. For the

purposes of this study, $50/man-day lost is selected as a representative value. The

selection of this value is somewhat arbitrary, reflecting the difficulties of dealing

quantitatively with abstract detail. A review of the study results shows that

conclusions drawn from the study are probably not altered if 25 or 100 $/man-day lost

is assumed.

Dollars per man-day lost can be related in a numerical fashion to the cost of a life

lost or to an agent causing health effects. The cost of a life lost in terms of

dollars has been estimated by others; -'- still others have reported on the cost of

radiation health damage.(2,3,4,5,6,7,10) Cohen and Higgins(7) have tabulated the

estimates of dollars per man-rad made by a number of authors. Otway(I0) has collected

similar information. His tabulation ranges from $10 to 600. A similar tabulation, (10)

inferred from life value estimates, range from $135 to $980/man-rad.

Neglecting the low value ($10/man-rad) and the high value ($980/man-rad), the range

is much the same as that derived by Lederberg,(6- $100 to $600/man-rad. A value of

ti $200/man-rad is close to the most prevalent estimate. From Otway's figure of one

death per 103 man-rads (which is a higher rate than the estimate in this report)

the value of life is ti $200,000. Otway argues that this may be a subconscious

assessment of the value of life, based on a survey of recollections of catastrophic

events. When the ratio of property damage to number of lives lost exceeded

$200,000, the individuals surveyed tended to remember the property damage rather

than loss of life.

The parameter assumed for the present study is $50/MDL. In Bureau of Labor statistics a loss of life is equivalent to 6000 MDL. 1 Thus, the life equivalent cost,

used in this study, is $300,000.

4-32
Sunmnary of Quantified Health and Accident Effects

The MDL ratings/event and $/MDL factors are applied to health and safety effects,

normalized to 6.57 billion kilowatt hours, derived elsewhere in the report. Results

are summarized in Table 4.10. The reader is reminded of cautionary remarks made

throughout the discussion of the quantification of these impacts. In general the

results displayed should be regarded as order-of-magnitude estimates based on best

available data.

Footnotes and Re enence 6on. Section 4.7 - Dottai' Conts o Health and Accident

lmpach4

(1) Ameuican NatiotwL Standards Inat tute, Amexican Nadional Standard Method

o6 Recording and Mea wr ing Wonz Inj uy EzpeA ence, ANSI Z16.1-1967.

(2) Cohen, J . J., "PlowShaxte: New Challenge bokt the HeaLth Physicizt,"

~ Health Phyq.ic6, (Nov. 1970).

(3) Hedgntan, A. and B. Lindell, "PQR -- A Special Way o Thinking ," Health

~ Ph .S , (July 1970).

(4) Becg st'tom, Stig 0. W. "EnvL'onmental Cons equence6 rom the Nonmal OpeMat on o4

an Urban Nucear Powe Plant, " Health Physics Society Topieal Symposium, Idaho

FaLZs (Nov. 1970).

(5) Dunaten, H. J. and A. S. McLean, "The U-6e o 1RZiz ZE ima te in Setting and

U6 Zng Banic Radiation Pkotection Standard6," Health Phys c (JuLy 1970).

(6) Ledenberg, J. "Squaring an In6inite CZ'cwle: Radiobiolog y and the Value o6

Lie: (1971).

(7) Cohen, J. J. and G. H. Higgins, "The Socioeconomic Impact o6 Low-Level T4it um

Releases to the EnviZonment," Zn Proceedings o6 the T4itium Sympo~sium, SWRHL,

Lab Vegan, Nevada (Aug. 1971).

(8) Rice, Vorothy and Banba'a Cooper, "The Economic Valve oj Human Lse,"

Ame'ican Journal o6 Public Health, 57 (1967) pp. 1954-1966.

(9) Ca'rlon, J. W., "Va uation o LiZe Saving" Ph.D. The6 in Economica, - Ha'vand Univentsity (1963).

(10) Oxty, H. J., "The Quan tiZcation of Social Values " in Rikz v6 BeneZit:

- Solution on V.eam, LA-4860-MS (Febuan.y 1972) 

4-33
TABLE 4.10

HUMAN (OCCUPATIONAL AND PUBLIC) HEALTH AND SAFETY IN ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTIONd

Effect Man-Days Lostc Dollarsa

(Thousands ofoll1a

Occupational Accidents Fb NFIb

Coal 1.1 46.8 9250 460

RFO 0.17 13.1 1725 86

Natural Gas 0.08 5.3 780 39

PWR 0.1 6.5 975 49

BWR 0.1 6.1 903 45

Public Injuries in Transportation of Fuel F NFI

Coal 0.55 1.17 3500 175

LWR (PWR, BWR) 0.009 0.08 60 3

Radiological Health Effects (Occupational) Mb

LWR (PWR, BWR) 0.08 480 24

Radiological Health Effects (Public)

PWR 0.031 186 9.3

BWR 0.035 210 10.5

Coal Worker's Pneumoconiosis (CWP) Cb

Simple CWP 0.6 600 30

PMF 0.006 36 1.8

a. MDL=

b. F = accidental fatalities; NFIl- accidental non-fatal injuries, M E malignancy cases; C - CWP cases

c. Accidental Fatality - 6000 MDL; Malignancy 6000 MDL; Simple CWP 1000 MDL; PMF = 6000 MDL

d. Basis:- Power Plant and supporting fuel cycle, 1000 MWe, 75% CF (6.57 billion kilowatt hours)

rs)
4.8 FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR SYSTEM POLLUTANTS: NATURAL BACKGROUND, STANDARDS, ACTUAL

MAN-MADE EXPOSURES, AND HEALTH EFFECTS

Attempts were made in this study to normalize each impact to a quantity of electrical

energy produced or to a unit of electrical production capacity and to display each

impact in consistent units such as dollars. As discussed in Section 4.5, this was

not possible in the case of public health effects of airborne pollutants from fossilfired power plants. In spite of the failure to quantify these effects some gross

perspective can be gained by comparing natural background concentrations to regulatory

standards, to actual man-made exposures or concentrations, and to broad ranges of

perceived medical effects. Figure 4.1 illustrates the comparisons for sulfur dioxide,

nitrogen oxide, and whole body radiation. The areas labeled "medically perceivable

effects," which cover very large ranges (several orders of magnitude), are adopted

from a recent University of California Study.ji The study cited did not normalize

health effects with respect to durations of exposure at the respective exposure

level.(2 Several tentative conclusions may be drawn from Figure 4.1.

(a) Environmental Protection Agency standards for SO2 and NO2, applicable to

fossil-fired power plants and other man-made sources of these pollutants,

are above natural background levels of these pollutants. Current USAEC

regulations (10 CFR 20) for radiation exposure are about equal to doses

from natural background sources. However, the new proposed "as low as

practicable" guidelines (10 CFR 50, Appendix I), applicable to light water

reactors, would restrict individual doses to orders of magnitude below

that from natural sources.

When man-made and natural sources are added, the total levels permitted

by regulations or guidelines are:

about a factor of 100 over natural background for SO 2;

about a factor of 4 over natural background for NO2; and

. about a factor of 2 over natural background (10 CFR 20) or about a

factor of 1.01 over natural background 10 CFR 50, Appendix I)* for

radiation.

(b) As expected, ranges of medically perceivable effects are well above

natural background levels for all three pollutants.

*Proposed.

4-35
WHOLE BODY RADIATION (RADS) SO2 (PPM) WITH PARTICULATES

300

MEDICALLY 102

PERCEIVABLE

EFFECTS

10

NATURAL

BACKGROUND

LEVELS

DIAGNOSTIC 10

XRAYS

AEC STANDARD

1970 EXPOSURE FROM

REACTORS AND

REPROCESSING PLANTS

2YS~

0.5

10-1

FED. AIR

QUALITY

STANDARD 1-2

500

100

0.17 (MEASURED)

CHICAGO 1964

0.015 (MEASURED)

URBAN SO2 1970

(21 CITIES, AVG.)

0.006 (MEASURED)

MILWAUKEE 1970

10

NATURAL BACKGROUND

LEVEL

10.1

FED. AIR

QUALITY

STANDARD

10.2

VERY SEVERE TO

ONSET OF LETHAL

RANGE

INCREASING

SEVERITY

I

I

MEDICALLY

PERCEIVABLE

EFFECTS BEGIN

TYPICAL URBAN

CONCENTRATIONS

1970

NOTE: NEITHER THE UNITS NOR FACTORSOF 10OON THE SCALES ARE THE SAME.

FIG. 4.1 COMPARISON OF POLLUTANT STANDARDS, BACKGROUND LEVELS, MANMADE EXPOSURES, AND HEALTH EFFECTS

NO2 (PPM) WITH PARTICULATES

1

1

-4|b

10
(c) With the exception of SO2 , the standards are well below the ranges of

medically perceivable effects.

(d) Actual average annual radiation whole body exosures from nuclear power

facilities in 1970 were several orders of magnitude below the existing

standards (10 CFR 20) and natural background. Concentrations of fossil

pollutants (together with background) were substantially above background levels in 1970.

Footnotes and Rejevences on. Section 4.8 - Fos4L and Nuclear System PoUwtants :

Na tuwaZ a&tcIzg'ound, Standa.ds., Actual Man-Made Expos u&es, and Health Efects

RZkZs o4 Thermal (1) Powet H Plants, aug knech Lnivest t, y V., o Publtic Hea i 6 

Ca i oirnia UCLA-ENG-7242 (May 197Z1.

(2) The .lethat tevet o6 300 'ads ot whole body adiation, used in the UniveM ty

of CacLionrna Study, s a 4ep'esentative vaLue 6ot shot-dunaton, singte

event-type exposures. The p'obabi ty o4 cancer, Lesutinq tom Long te4m Low

tevet iAnadia ton, adopted jo'. the present study, is o the o'deit o 10- pe

nad. See Section 4.4 and the Appendix.

4.9 PROPERTY AND MATERIAL DAMAGES FROM AIRBORNE FOSSIL POLLUTANTS

One part of the external cost of power is the loss imposed on property and materials

in the area around the plant as a result of exposure to emissions from the plant

into the air. An attempt was made to quantify this loss for fossil-fuel plants

based on available information about the effects of air pollution. Although data

limitations make a precise estimate impossible, the figures developed are useful in

indicating the order of magnitude of the loss. In addition, the sensitivity of

damage to the choice of plant location, fuel, and emission controls was examined.

A more detailed description of this part of the study is given in the Appendix.

Estimates of pollution costs associated with a single power plant in an urban area

are made using two different methods. One estimate used a method based on figures

for corrosion rates and maintenance expenditures of 53 common materials presented

in a study by Richard L. Salmon.i) He estimated (1) the difference in productive

lifetimes of materials between urban and rural environments and (2) the total value

of materials in urban areas exposed to pollution. From the two figures he made an

estimate of national pollution-related corrosion costs. To this was added an

expenditure which would be required to keep non-industrial property in urban areas

at a given level of cleanliness. In the present study, the same general approach

was taken, using (a) an estimate of the value of property exposed to pollution in a

single urban area in which a hypothetical power plant is located, and (b) an estimate

4-37
of the proportion of urban air pollution attributable to the power plant. The result

was an estimate of costs associated with shortening of productive lifetimes of

materials and more rapid soiling caused by air pollution from SO2 and particulates

for a single fossil fueled electric power plant.

Calculations were made for a 1000 MWe coal-fired plant that had annual average daily

emissions of 66 tons of SO2 and 5.5 tons of particulates. These emissions are

representative of a plant burning coal of 2.5% sulfur and 11% ash for 75% of each

day and having SO2 and ash removal efficiencies of 80 and 99%, respectively. For an

urban site, the annual damage amounts to about 4 million dollars (in 1980 dollars)

-- about 1 million dollars associated with material deterioration and about

3 million associated with soiling. This amounts to about $1 per person per year

in the exposed area. Another view of the damage cost would be to express it in

terms of the recipients of the plant output; with an assumed average use of 1.4 kW

per person in the U.S., the damage is about $6 per person per year. The damage is

not of uniform intensity around the plant; maps have been made to indicate the areas

of principal geographic concentration of pollution, and hence loss, in relation to

the plant location.

For comparison, another estimate of the loss was calculated using a method based on

observed relationships between air pollution and residential propert values. The

principal study cited is by R. J. Anderson, Jr. and T. D. Crocker. ( They used

regression analysis to investigate the relationship between median values of owneroccupied housing for census tracts in 1960, and eight explanatory variables

including concentrations of particulates and sulfur dioxide at the same locations.

The same method was used for rental housing. A depressing effect of air pollution

on property values and rents was noted. Their estimate of the quantitative

relationship was applied to figures for property values in an urban area around a

hypothetical coal-burning electric plant with the same characteristics as those

assumed in the direct analysis of corrosion and soiling. Conceptually, the resulting

estimate of cost should differ from the first estimate because it includes locationspecific costs other than those associated with materials and also because it is

restricted to residential property alone. This estimate gives damages of about

6 million dollars -- in rough agreement with the Salmon methods.

The property value method was used in addition to estimate the loss under a number

of different assumptions about fuel type and quality, plant location, and emission

controls. A wide range of figures is noted. The loss for the hypothetical coalburning plant described above is shown to be of the same order of magnitude as for

4-38
an oil-burning plant using 0.7% sulfur oil with no SO2 emission controls on the

stack. The loss for a qas-burnino plant with no stack controls is shown to be two

orders of magnitude lower than for either the coal or oil alternatives. Finally,

the loss is noticeably reduced if the plant is relocated to the edge of an urban

area.

The results from both estimates indicate that the damages caused by fossil-fueled

plants in the non-urban setting are less than 10 million dollars per year. Despite

the reasonable agreement in results by both estimating methods, the relative damage

by SO2 and particulates is not consistent; in one method the major damage is caused

by the SO2 and in the other by the particulates. Based on this observation, an

average collective damage was calculated for a non-urban setting. This averaging

method raises the damage estimate for gas-fired plants by an order of magnitude.

The results for the 1000 MWe plants were:

. Coal fired 0.8 million dollars/year

. Oil-fired 0.6

. Gas-fired 0.1

Concerning completely rural locations, it was noted that some vegetation is

sensitive to SO2 ambient levels in the air and to sulfur contents of soils: some

effects are damaging, others may be veneficial. Limited literature on agricultural

damage from SO2 indicates a loss substantially less for a plant located in a

wholly rural setting than the figures cited for an urban coal-burning plant.

Footnote and Rete ence ot Section 4.9 - PopeAtyj and Mate4ra t Vamages Fom

A~iJbonne Fos.L Pottutant6

(1) Samon, R. L., Sydtem6 Ana ea o6 the Eg ec t6 o6 AZA PoLtution on Mateia26,

Midwe6t Reaea.ch Intitu e, 1970.

(2) CockeL, T. V. and R . J. Andenson, AiZJ Po uton and Hou.nc : Some FLnding 

K'anne t Goraduate SchooL o Induia w, Administjzgon, Pwr4ue Univeci ty,

Papex No. 264, JanuaAy 1970.

4.10 IMPACTS AND COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE HEAT

The impacts of waste heat are connon to all of the energy production systems

considered in this study, except hydro power production. A more detailed and

thorough discussion of comparative impacts and costs is given in the Appendix.

All forms of energy harnessed by man - "useful" energy as well as "wasted" energy 

ends up as dispersed thermal energy in the environment. Regarding the electrical

energy production systems under consideration, heat is dissipated or rejected

4-39
throughout each of the alternate fuel cycles. Each supporting fuel cycle activity

involves energy inputs, energy dissipation, and energy rejection, but the major

point of energy release is at the power plant, as demonstrated by the overall system

energy balances displayed in Section 5.4 and the Appendix. Thus, in the consideration

of impacts and costs associated with energy release in electric power production

attention is focussed on waste heat at the power plant because it is relatively

large and localized.

As a consequence of fundamental laws of thermodynamics, all steam power plants,

fossil as well as nuclear, reject (or waste) a fraction of the energy input. This

energy is rejected in the form of heat to a "heat sink." Generally water is used

as the environmental medium for heat rejection either in once-through systems,

where it is taken from a natural body and returned at a higher temperature, or

closed systems where cooling is accomplished by evaporating some of the water in a

cooling tower or cooling pond. Some systems combine both methods, using, for

example, cooling towers to lower discharge water temperatures sufficiently to meet

thermal standards at the discharge. Another alternative, now being considered for

some large power plants, is the rejection of heat directly to the air in a dry

cooling tower.

About four-fifths of our electrical energy is generated using steam as a working

fluid, where heat is rejected through a condenser to cooling water. To date, most

of this heated water is returned to the natural water body in an open (once-through)

cycle. The trend, however, is toward greater use of man-made, closed-cycle heatdissipation facilities. This trend is motivated by two general considerations:

Use of closed cycle facilities may be necessary to meet local water

quality (temperature) standards; and

Use of closed cycle facilities, by reducing intake water requirements by

as much as 50-fold, makes siting of electrical power plants somewhat more

flexible.

Global and Regional Considerations

Concern has been expressed over several gross effects of thermal discharge, including:

its impact on the global energy balance, and its contribution to global temperature;

effects on regional weather patterns; and effects on natural hydrological cycles,

more particularly, the withdrawal and partial consumptive use of water in electric

power generation.

4-40
Regardless of cooling method, the waste heat from the generating plant increases the

local air temperatures as well as contributes, althugh in a very minor way at

present, to gross temperatures on the planet. The ultimate disposition of this heat

is by radiation to outer space. The sun's heat that is absorbed by the planet

contributes in a very large fashion to the gross temperatures and has the same

ultimate disposition. By way of comparison, a 3100 MW light water reactor power

plant installation, which has an efficiency of ti 32%, would generate 1000 MW of

electrical power and reject 2100 MW of thermal power directly to the environment.

Ultimately, of course, the electrical energy also appears in the environment as

thermal energy. The sun at our latitude inputs 3100 MW to the surface of the

earth over an area of about 4 square miles as averaged for a day in June or July.

Not all of the incident energy is absorbed. Some of the sun's energy is reflected,

the amount reflected depending on the nature of the receiving surface. The average

energy from the sun for a day in December and January is about 1/3 that for June

and July because of the decrease in the hours of sunshine in a day and the change

in angle of incidence of the solar flux.

On an annual basis, the conterminous states of the United States in 1970 had a net

electrical energy generation of about 1600 billion kWhe. Assuming a 32% average

efficiency for all generating plants excluding all hydro generation, and using an

area of 3 million square miles for the U.S., the equivalent steady waste heat load

from the generation of this electrical energy was 0.18 MW per square mile. This

compares with a value of about 500 MW per square mile as the yearly average incident

power from the sun. Thus, the sun input is about 3000 times that from electrical

power generation. The total thermal energy consumption in the U.S. for all energy

sources is about four times that of the electrical energy industry. On this basis,

the U.S. had, in 1970, a man-contrived energy consumption rate, excluding food, of

about 0.1% of the sun's input. This is a small percentage and has little effect on

gross temperatures. With worldwide man-made heat releases of 0.25% in our net solar

input, an overall warming of about 0.1*C plus a small increase in cloudiness would

be expected. Gross weather patterns would probably not be upset with this amount

of man-made heat.('-

These relative heat loadings of our environment by the sun and by man-made sources

are gross effects. Concern has also been expressed for environmental consequences

on a regional basis of the large heat inputs in metropolitan or megalopolitan areas,

e.g., New York or Boston-Washington complexes. In these regions, local weather

patterns might be significantly influenced by the large heat releases, which could

be a sizable fraction of the sun's input energy in the year 2000. Local weather

4-41
effects have been reported downwind from Chicago and St. Louis due to heat and

aerosol releases.(?) The major concern is not with gross man-made effects, but

with regional and local effects and what happens as demands for all energy and, in

particular, electrical energy growth in the future. Because water has been used as

temporary heat sink for the discharge heat, some overall numbers on the water supply

are worth reviewing before considering local and regional effects and other details

of thermal discharge.

Whereas the thermal energy from the electrical generating plant adds to the energy

source from the sun and results in increased temperatures, water for power plant

use comes from a relatively fixed water runoff. Our average annual equivalent

rainfall is ' 4 x 1012 gallons per day. Nearly 70% of this rainfall is evaporated

from wetted surfaces and transpired by vegetation. Of the natural runoff of

1.2 x 1012 gallons per day, about 22% was withdrawn for man's use in 1960.(3) The

majority of the water withdrawal is returned to the water courses; however, some is

lost (mainly by evaporation) and the water returned is often at a higher than the

original temperature, which results in more losses in the water courses. These

losses, or consumption, of water and the withdrawal are of concern for the future.

The steam-electric plant consumptive usage is relatively small compared to such

usage in agriculture. In the year 2000, it is believed, that water losses from

steam-electric plants will be about 3/4% of the annual runoff. Consumptive water

use in the generation of electrical energy is expected to be a small fraction of

total consumptive use in the U.S. in the next 30 years.(-

Alternate Cooling Methods

While the above discussions of gross temperature and water effects are relevant in

placing quantities of energy released in perspective, the selection of cooling

methods is governed by local and regional conditions, i.e., conditions-at the

power plant site. Various site conditions -- including meteorology and hydrology --

favor various cooling methods.

Major cooling methods and some of the attending environmental impacts, are

described qualitatively below.

Once-Through Cooling

The cooling water passing through a condenser experiences typically a 10-20 F.

temperature rise, which for a modern 1000 MWe fossil fuel plant implies a total

flow of about 2000 cfs. and for a nuclear plant ti 3000 cfs. Although this is not

4-42
strictly a consumptive use of water, it would be a major diversion of flow for many

water bodies. Such quantities, however, would not be noticeable for very large

rivers, large lakes, and the oceans, and overall, the amount of heat added to such

large water bodies would be negligible compared to the natural heat balance due to

incoming solar radiation and cooling by evaporation losses. Evaporative losses

resulting from thermal discharges to small rivers may result in a noticeable

reduction in water for use downstream.

In the immediate area around the discharge, however, there will be a temperature

elevation with the maximum temperature occuring at the point of discharge. The

heated water will usually be observed as a plume extending from the discharge

outward to where it is cooled to nearly the original temperature of the water

body. The exact shape and size of the plume depends upon many factors including

volume of flow, initial temperature difference, wind and current conditions,

bottom shape and type and velocity of discharge. Generally, the greatest dimension

of the plume, i.e., from discharge to where the temperature elevation is less than

one degree, is about 1/2 mile. The excess temperature drops off rapidly away from

the discharge, and most of the area of the plume consists of water only slightly

warmer (1-3 F) than the ambient.

The environmental impact of heated waters under such circumstances is difficult to

assess. It is known that different species of aquatic life have differing temperature tolerances that change with age. Fish and other mobile organisms generally

avoid unfavorable temperatures if possible. Immobile organisms which cannot

tolerate the higher temperatures will eventually be replaced by those that can.

Since most forms of life can accustom themselves to higher than normal temperatures

if the rise is gradual enough, some experts maintain that the rate of change of

temperature may be more important than the steady state temperature. The startup

and shutdown operations of power plants may cause sudden temperature changes in the

vicinity of the discharge. However, large natural fluctuations also occur due to

changing current or weather conditions, which may be of equal or greater magnitude

to start up and shut down operations.

In addition, fish may be drawn into the inlet of the cooling water system and killed

on the screens used to prevent floating trash from entering the condensers. The

accumulated debris on the screens is periodically removed and may be dumped into the

discharge, where the dead fish may be assumed to have died from high temperatures.

Where the inlet velocities are high and large fish populations are present around

4-43
it, fish kills at the inlet may be extensive. The total count may be increased by

the carcasses of fish which have died elsewhere of natural causes being swept

into the screens by the cooling water flow.

Cooling Ponds

Where local natural water bodies do not have enough capacity to handle the discharge,

cooling ponds may be created as a form of closed cycle cooling. The heated water is

discharged into the pond where it is cooled by natural processes of evaporation,

radiation, and conduction. The cooled water then is recirculated through the

condenser.

Roughly one acre of pond is needed for every megawatt of capacity; thus a 1000 MW

plant requires over 1000 acres. Cooling ponds for the largest power plants tend to

have multiple uses such as flood control, irrigation and hydroelectric power.

Cooling ponds have water conservation (storage for low flow conditions) and

recreational advantages.

Aside from land use the environmental impacts of cooling ponds involve possible

increased evaporative losses which will result in less water for use downstream

and increased total dissolved solids. The cost of cooling pond involves intake

structures, discharge structures, and land. The price of land and the amount of

excavation necessary will vary widely from site to site. Additional costs (above

once-through cooling) may range from $2 to $15 per kilowatt of capacity. The pond

area can be greatly decreased by using spray systems to improve heat transfer to

the atmosphere. Improvements in performance of up to a factor of 20 over ordinary

ponds have been demonstrated. However, the reduction in cost of land may be offset

by the additional capital costs of the spray system and the increased power requirements for pumping. Thus, the costs of spray pond will be in the same general range

as ordinary cooling ponds, but one method may have a cost advantage over the other

for a given site. In addition to the environmental effects noted for the ordinary

pond, spray ponds may also cause local fog and icing, and there may be objectionable

drift.

Wet Cooling Towers

Wet cooling towers cool the circulating water by evaporation. Makeup water is

required to replace that consumed in evaporation. The water is sprayed from the

top of the tower into a counter-flowing or cross-flowing stream of air. In

mechanical draft towers the air is drawn through by fans, while natural draft

4-44
towers use natural buoyancy forces to set up a flow as in chimneys. The heat

of evaporation of water is great enough so that only 1-2% of the circulated water

needs to be evaporated to give sufficient cooling, but the minimum temperature

obtainable in wet cooling towers is set by the wet bulb temperature of the air.

Thus, the use of cooling towers will generally result in reduced plant efficiency.

Natural draft towers are larger structures than mechanical draft towers and cost

roughly 10-15 $/kWe, while the mechanical draft towers cost roughly 4-12 $/kWe.

The actual cost is heavily dependent upon local conditions at the site. The

mechanical draft systems require more power to run fans and thus have higher

operating costs.

Although cooling towers are mostly operated on a closed cycle, some water must be

withdrawn and discharged from the system in order to keep dissolved salts at a

manageable level. This blowdown water will contain various chemicals used in water

conditioning such as algaecides, chromates, etc. and may have to be treated before

release to the environment.

A major impact of wet cooling towers is visual. Both natural and mechanical draft

systems will emit large plumes of water vapor under the proper meteorological conditions. With mechanical draft towers, which are lower, the plumes may obscure

visibility on roads in the vicinity and cause local icing. The plumes from natural

draft towers are released sufficiently high that this does not occur, but the bulk

of the tower itself--400 to 500 ft. or more high and 400 ft. in diameter--may be

objectionable. A certain amount of the cooling water spray may be blown out of the

tower. This drift will contain the salts present in the system and in the case of

salt water or brackish water towers, may harm local vegetation.

Dry Cooling Towers

Dry cooling towers evaporate no water and thus can be used in arid regions where

even wet towers cannot be used. However, the heat transfer is directly to air and

is less effective than evaporative methods, thus requiring large heat transfer

surfaces. Also the lowest attainable temperature is the dry bulb temperature,

which reduces plant efficiency.

Both natural draft and mechanical draft dry towers have been built, and the capital

costs may be roughly double those of comparable wet towers. For this reason, few

power plants have dry towers. They may eventually be utilized in regions such as

4-45
the Western U.S. where location near a mine mouth is more economical than locating

the plant near scarce sources of cooling water. Major environmental impacts of dry

towers include the amount of land they occupy and the noise which may be generated.

Comparative Impacts and Costs

Table 4.11 compares impacts of alternative cooling methods, based on a more detailed

analysis presented in the Appendix. Whether incremental abatement costs are

matched by a reduction in environmental impacts was not determined in the course

of this study. Ideally, one would display individual costs and impacts of each

combination of power plant type and cooling method. The results would further be

permuted to show relative advantages and disadvantages at various representative

sites for each combination. Such a massive detailed undertaking was beyond the

resources available for this study.

On the basis of the analysis presented in the Appendix, a reference cooling method

was selected from the types of closed cooling systems included in Table 4.11. It is

recognized that no single waste heat rejection system can be representative and

optimum for the total United States and for each power plant type. However, as

noted above, without this attempt to narrow down the options the work would have

been unmanageable. The criteria for selection of the reference method included low

environmental impact, low dollar cost, an active trend in utility acceptance, and

wide applicability in most utility systems. A natural-draft wet cooling tower

system was selected as the reference. Table 4.12 displays additional costs of

natural draft wet cooling towers for the alternate energy systems as developed in

Chapter 5. The figures are based largely on cost studies performed for the Division

of Reactor Research and Development, USAEC, by United Engineers and Constructors.(5

The abatement costs for natural draft wet cooling towers given in Table 4.12 are

assumed to internalize the environmental impacts associated with once-through

cooling. Several categories of costs, however, remain external. These include

consumptive use of water, the slight decrease in water-base activities, fogging

and icing, deposition of salts on surroundings due to drift, and effects on biota

of cleaning chemicals discharged with blowdown to natural water bodies.

With the exception of the dry cooling tower, water is required for the heat rejection system to account for evaporation and blowdown. The drift of the water ih the

towers and spray canal also is another, but much smaller, source of water use. The

drift from the well-designed towers is in the range of about 0.1 to 1.0% of the

amount of water lost in evaporation.

4-46
TABLE 4.11

SUMMARY COMPARATIVE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATE COOLING METHODS

Mech. Draft Natural Draft Spray Artificial Forced Draft

Units Wet Tower Wet Tower Canal Lake Dry Tower

Resource

Land

Water

Air

Other

Populations

Terrestrial

Aquatic

Man & His Activities

Man

Aesthetics

Noise

General

Recreation

Commerce

Acres/MWt

Gal/kWht

($/kWt)t

Consumption

of Materials

Local changes

in diversity 

dominant

species.

Appearance

Level

Interaction

Opportunities

Interaction

0.01

.3

(1.2)

Medium

Small

Smal 1

Poor

Noticeable

0.01

.3

(1.2)

Slightly

> Mech.

Small

Small

Poor--Fair

Slight

0.04

.3

(1.2)

Medium

.5 to 1

.4

(1.6)

Lowest

0.015

None

Highest

Wet Tower

Small

Small

Good

Slight

Fog and ice in some locations could

cause transportation hazards.

Slight Slight Slight decrease decrease decrease

Fog and ice in some localities could

cause transportation hazards a few

times/year. Some farming could be

adversely affected.

Small

Small

Unknown

None

Good Poor--Fair

None > Mech. Wet

Tower

Favorable Slight

Usually an

increase

Slight

Probably a

slight decrease
TABLE 4.12

ADDITIONAL (ABATEMENT) COSTS FOR ALTERNATE ENERGY SYSTEMS 14T' NATURAL DRAFT WET TOWERS

(90Dollars)

Nat.

Coal RFO Gas LWR

($106 per year)

Additional Costs

Capital 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.2C

O&M 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.45

Fuel 1.28 3.60 4.74 0.7E

Rounded Totals~.5~~- 2~

Basis: Annual Costs per 1000 MWe Power Plant, 75% CF (6.57 billion kilowatt hours); 15% fixed charge rate.

co

5

B
The amount of blowdown from the mechanical and natural draft wet towers, the spray

canal, and the artificial lake depends on equipment performance and on the allowable

dissolved solids concentration in the receiving water body. In addition, the

temperature of water returned to some sources must be reduced, or the blowdown must

be well-mixed with the receiving water to meet the water quality standards.

Water use is normally not accounted for in conventional power plant economics. In a

real sense water is used when the operation of a facility causes evaporation to

occur; this water is lost to use by others in the watershed. The value of

raw water to the user who withdraws from streams and lakes varies widely in the U.S.

Water in the past was treated as a free good; however, with increased demand water

rights based on various principles came about. 6) Water has become an even more

valuable commodity. Prices charged for water withdrawn from water courses varies

from none to a few cents per 1000 gallons. To quantify this water use, a cost of

10t per 1000 gallons consumed is assigned to represent the water value in 1980.

This assignment is arbitrary, but reasonable. In many cases water uses by the

power plant do not interfere with other water uses; however, with greater water

use in the future, water charges may be prevalent. To capitalize the water operating

change, a 75% annual capacity factor of equivalent full power operation and 15%

annual charge for capital are assumed. This gives a coefficient of about $4-hours

per gallon. When this coefficient is multiplied by the water loss expressed in terms

of gallons per kWh of rejected heat, the equivalent capital cost per thermal

kilowatt rejected is obtained. For example, with a water loss of 0.3 gal per kWht,

the cost is 1.2 dollars per kilowatt of reject heat.

The consumption of water in natural draft wet cooling towers, from Table 4.11, is

about 0.3 gal/kWht of rejected heat. Thus the equivalent capitalized charge is

about 1.2 dollars per kilowatt of reject heat. For the purposes of this study, a

round figure of 2 dollars per kilowatt of reject heat is assigned. This figure is

assumed to include not only water consumption, but the other impacts identified for

natural draft wet cooling towers. Table 4.13 gives annual costs of water consumption

and other external effects, for the alternate energy systems.

Footnotes and Refetence Jot Section 4.10 - Impact and Comt6 A66ociated With Waste

Heat

(1) Weinberg, A. M., papeA #49/P-033, 1971 Geneva Conetence on the Peaceeat

U6 ea o Atomic Energy.

(2) Hud6, F. A., et at, E66ect o6 Cooting Towet E46tuent6 on A-tmo pheAic Condition6

~in Nontheas teicn Ittinoia, TI State Vatek- utvey Citatax 100 (9).

4-49
TABLE 4.13

EXTERNAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH REJECT HEAT FROM ALTERNATE POWER PLANTS USING

NATURAL DRAFT WET COOLING TOWERS

Coal RFO Gas LWR

Net Thermal Efficiency, % '38 39 38 32

Net Electrical Energy, 1010 KwHe/yr. 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66

Stack Heat Discharge, 1010 KwHt/yr. 0.16 0.17 0.22 0

Reject Heat, 1010 kWht/yr 0.89 0.87 0.88 1.4

106 kWt 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.1

External Cost, 106$/yr. 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6

Basis: 1000 MWe power plant, 75% CF

15% Fixed Charge Rate.

External Cost = 2$/kWt, including ' 1.2$ for water consumption, based on

t 104/1000 gal.
(3) P4pez, A. M. Ha the United States Enough Wate? Geo. Suvey Waten-Supply

~ Paper. 1797, USGPO (19651 

(4) WoZ man, N. and G. W. Bonem, The OutZooz o Wate, Johns Hopkins Pe6S

(1971).

(5) United Engineer and Cont uctona, "Summary o6 Power Plant Cost Studie,,"

pLe aen ted to USAEC, Augu6t 1971.

(6) Pos , R. G. and R. L. Seale (Ed6) Wate' P'oduction Uing NucZeaA Ene gy,

Univ. o6 Aizona P'eas, Tucson (1966).

4.11 OTHER DAMAGES: MINING, OIL SPILLS, AND REFINERY EFFLUENTS

Coal Mining

Damage and reclamation costs associated with environmental disruption in coal mining

are normalized to the annual mining requirements of one 1000 MWe power plant. Coal

is assumed produced by contour, area strip, and underground mines in the fractional

amounts 0.1, 0.4, and 0.5 respectively.

Contour Mining

Some insight on the ways in which contour strip mining in eastern Kentucky affects

social and economic conditions are highlighted in James Branscome's symposium speech

on Coal and Environment and are not restated here. 0! For the purposes of this

study, it has been assumed that the annual amount of coal from contour mining comes

from a seam of about 60 acres in area and a little over 2 feet thick. In general,

the costs of reclamation of surface mining can vary from a few hundred dollars per

acre to over $5000/acre.(2- In West Germany where "brown" coal is being surface

mined, the cost is estimated at $3000 to $4500 per acre. In a discussion of the

economics of strip mining for West Virginia,. an estimate of acceptable reclamation

was from $1200 to well over $2000 per acre. (3) In this same general reference

another author gave a breakdown of anticipated cost according to category:

planting $225 to 250/acre

grading $150 to 175/acre

drainage control $200 to 215/acre

diversion ditch construction $2000/mile

slide damage repair $2000 to 1500/mile

haul road repair $3000/mile

stream channel repair $300 to 325/acre

pond stabilization $10 to 20/acre

high wall access construction $700/mile

4-51
elimination of hazardous

conditions $100/acre

For the purposes of this study, a value of $2000/acre is the assumed reclamation

cost, although it is recognized that substantial reclamation of contour mined land

is very difficult or almost impossible. The cost for the sixty acres amounts to

"$120,000, which is charged to the annual operation of the energy system.

In addition to the reclamation costs are the costs due to uprooting families. If

one assumes that the families affected come from a much larger area than that

directly mined, five families is a reasonable number. The welfare costs and

replacement living quarter costs are assumed to result in an externality of about

$100,000.

Area Strip Mining

Roughly 250 acres are strip mined to supply 40% of the coal required by the 1000 MIle

plant. The dust or erosion effects, damage to roads by coal trucks, explosive damage,

24 hour per day noise level, and degraded real estate value all contribute to the

external cost. In general, the average external cost for area strip mining is

expected to be significantly less under 1980 regulations than the cost for contour

mining. Considering the costs stated above, a cost of $500/acre is selected to

represent the externalities caused by area strip mining. The annual cost is

$125,000.

Underground Mining

It is assumed that the mine depth, geology, and operational methods are such that the

cost of any subsidence is essentially zero.

Assuming that the mine drainage is 2.4 million gallons per year, and that the cost

of 500 billion gallons of mine drainage is $3.5 million, the operation of the

underground mine is assumed to cause no significant external cost to mine drainage.

Uranium Minin

Uranium mining for the PWR and BWR energy systems may contribute a small external

cost of the type being discussed in this section. The amount of land required for

mining and mill tailings is small: less than 10 acres per year. Approximately 50%

of the uranium comes from surface mines, the rest from underground mines. If a

projected general damage for mining and tailings land use of $2000/acre (which is

4-52
the amount assigned for external cost in contour mining of coal) is assigned, the

external cost is $20,000.

Oil Spills, Ballast Discharge

The effects of oil spillage have been examined by a number of investigators.'

A social cost analysis of the Santa Barbara spill indicated that the oil companies

bore most, if not all, of the social costs of the spill(6) Studies have shown that

the cleanup costs for near-shore spills generally lie in the range $40 to $120 per

barrel spilled. A social cost of $50 per barrel is attached to those ballast-water

discharges. By 1980 the oil companies should bear most of the social costs

associated with accidental oil spills.

Biological Oxygen Demand of Refinery Effluents

The external damage costs associated with refining biological oxygen demand (BOD)

effluents were obtained by relating the marginal costs of removing BOD from

municipal waste streams with the marginal benefits of removal. At the level of

secondary treatment, the marginal costs of BOD removal are approximately $300 per

ton of BOD removed.(2) If it is assumed that treatment to the secondary level is

"optimal" (in the sense of ecuatino marginal benefits and costs as they are now

understood), then the incremental damage costs of an additional ton of BOD must

also be $300. This method of assessing damage costs provides only a rough estimate;

it neglects many important aspects of the problem, particularly the locationspecific nature of the damage function.

Footnote4 and Regehence s fon Section 4. 11 - Othev Damages : Miningq, Oil SpZ!JM 

And Re4.inery EQZuent6

(1) B&'ancome, J. "Coat and the Envijtonment" Symposium o Cool and Pubtic

Polices, Univ. o6 Tenn. (Oct. 1971).

(2) Councti Lor EnviZ'onmentat Quaitty, Annua2 Report on Environmentaol Quatity - 1972

(3) M~ie..vnck, W. H., "The Economic6 oL St'uLp Mining" The Strip{ininq o,

Ame4iZa, Sienvau Cub (July 1971).

(4) Appalachian Regional CommiZsion, Acid Mine VD'ainage in AppaLachia (1969).

(5) Gainez, T. H., "PotUwtion Cotno1. at a Majot Oil Spill, " J. Watet Potution

~ Contot Fed., 43 #4, p. 651 (1971).

(6) Mead, W. J. and P. E. Soteneon, "The Economic Cot o the Santa &baa

- Oil Spill," Santa &vbaa Oil Symposum, Univ. o4 Cal., Santa &arbana,

(Dec. 1970).

4-53
(7) MktcheU, C. T. et.ac., "What Oil Voes! to Ecoology" J. Water Pollution Cont'oZ

~ Fed., 42 #5, p. 821 (1970).

(8) "Oil SpZiWM : An Envi~tonmenta2 Threat ," EnviAonmenta2 Science and Technotogy,

~ 4 #2, (1970).

(9) The co5t o $300 pen ton covte pond to a 4econdavL y teatmen t cob t oj 20#

pe 1000 galon6 and a waste water S0D concentta ton o6 150 ppm. The

igue 20# peg 1000 aflon4 Z based on data in Re jeVence (9.1) ajteA an

upward >4evui.on o6 the capital cha ge to 12% pen annum.

(9. 1) Smith, R., Coot o6 ConventionaL and Advanced Treatment o Wcatewaters

U.S. Vepavtment o1 The InteAio'., FWQA, Advanced W ate T eatment

Bltanch, Div. o6 Reaeanch, Cincinnati W ater Reasearch Labo' atop y,

Cincinnati, Ohio (1968).

4-54
CHAPTER 5

COMPARISONS ACROSS AND WITHIN ALTERNATE

ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter 3 contained semi-quantitative descriptions of the alternate fuel cycles for

the production of electrical energy. Tabular summaries of evaluated costs and impacts associated with the respective fuel cycles were also presented. Chapter 4,

together with the Appendix, provided supportive material for evaluating ultimate

impacts and costs - that is, for reducing non-conventional costs to consistent units

such as dollars or man-days lost.

The purpose of the present Chapter is to summarize, display, and compare cost and

impact information in parallel fashion for the respective fuel cycles. Much of the

information assembled here has been developed (quantified and normalized) in previous

chapters, and the present chapter merely rearranges this material into a format

permitting rapid comparisions across and within the competing fuel cycles. Some new

material is, however, developed in this chapter. This "new" material involves cost

and impact considerations common to all of the energy systems -- conventional costs,

fuel consumption and fuel resource bases, overall system energy balances, conventional

occupational injuries, and the like. In each of these areas, it was convenient and

practical to locate the discussion in one position in the report to assure uniform

treatment of the subject across the competing fuel cycles.

Normalization is the same here as elsewhere in the report: costs and impacts

related to fuel cycle throughput (or electrical energy produced) are normalized to

6.57 billion kWhe, the energy produced annually by one 1000 MWe power plant

operating at 75 percent capacity factor, and those related to system capacity are

normalized to the requirements of one 1000 MWe power plant or its prorated fuel

cycle capacity.

5.2 CONVENTIONAL COSTS

Conventional or internal costs are those costs borne by the electricity consumer in

the price of electricity. In this section, conventional costs for the competing

energy systems, corrected to the year 1980*, are assembled. Where possible, abatement costs have been excluded. The main objectives of providing this cost

*Plant startup in 1980.

5-1
information are to show roughly the dollar competitiveness among the energy systems

and to provide reference points for the comparison of conventional, external, and

abatement costs.

It is difficult to arrive at representative values of costs, even for purely illustrative purposes. Costs vary widely with plant location and with time. Plant

capital costs are sensitive to construction, labor, and material cost variations

from region to region. Fossil fuel transportation costs are, of course, highly

dependent on location. A multitude of factors causes costs to vary with time:

inflation; the capacity versus activity level effect in new fuel cycle industries;

improved technology; scarcity of resources; and legal and regulatory actions. All

of these factors can alter the cost competitiveness of the alternative energy systems as location and time of starting operation are changed.

Three major components of electricity generation costs are (a) plant capital costs,

(b) fuel costs, and (c) operating and maintenance costs.

Plant Capital Costs

Plant capital costs are those costs associated with the construction of the power

plant, i.e., the acquisition of land and its preparation, the construction of

buildings, and the purchase and assembling of equipment.

Table 5.1 compares 1000 MWe plant costs(), in dollars per installed kilowatt of

capacity, for plants commencin operation in 1980 and located at a hypothetical

site called Middletown, USA.?' Abatement costs have been excluded.

Also shown in Table 5.1 are the annual costs ($/year) and energy costs (mills/kWhe)

resulting from amortizing the plant costs over the energy-producing life of the

plant. An annual fixed charge rate of 15% is assumed. This includes depreciation,

interest on bonds, return on equity, local, state and federal taxes, interim

replacements, and conventional property insurance. A capacity factor of 75% is

assumed.

Plant costs vary significantly with plant location. The variation may amount to as

much as 10% around the Middletown values. Location variations are also given in

Table 5.1 in $/kWe.

5-2
TABLE 5.1

POWER PLANT CAPITAL COSTS*

(1980 Startup)

Direct

Contingency & Spares

Subtotal

Indirect

Total

EDC&IDC (to 1980)**

Total

Rounded Total

Regional Variations

Annual Cost @ 15% Fixed Chg. Rate

Energy Cost @ 75% Capacity Factor

$/kWe (1973 $)

$/kWe

$/kWe

$/kWe

$/kWe

$/kWe

$/kWe (1980)

$/kWe

10 $/yr

mills/kWhe

Coal

162

12

T30

24~

133

3TT

340

34

51

7.8

oil

150

11

ETT

28

124

310

31

47

7.2

Gas

132

10

25

T7

110

277

280

28

42

6.4

LWR

226

17

61

202

510

51

77

11.7

* See footnotes (1) and (2). Costs are based on a two unit station, each unit with a net capacity of 1000 MWe.

** EDC - Escalation during construction.

IDC - Interest during construction.

U,
Operating and Maintenance Costs

Estimated annual operating and maintenance costs (3) , for plants goina on-line in

1980 are summarized in Table 5.2. The values shown are levelized values for the

first 10 years of power operation.

Fuel Costs

Costs incurred throughout a fuel cycle are ultimately transferred to the utility

company and borne by the electricity customer, along with the utility company's

working capital charges associated with fuel cycle transactions. The carrying

charges of the fuel cycle industries, i.e., depreciation of processin facilities,

cost of money, taxes, etc., are included in fuel cycle prices, and appear as direct

costs to the utility.

Fossil fuel costs vary with power plant location, owing to the high transportation

component of cost. Also, a variety of factors including inflationary pressures,

regulatory actions, short-term scarcity, constrictions in the fuel supply and transportation capacities, and market place effects have resulted in drastic increases

in fossil fuel prices over the past several years.

The cost of transporting nuclear fuel is a relatively minor component of fuel costs,

and thus nuclear fuel costs are practically independent of power plant location.

Improvement in fuel cycle technology and increased utilization of fuel cycle processing capacity should tend to decrease nuclear fuel costs, while ultimate depletion

of low cost ores, increases in enrichment charges, and routine escalation will tend

to increase fuel costs in light water reactor systems.

Figure 5.1 displays national-average fuel cost trends for coal, oil, gas, and

nuclear (LWR) for 1969-71.(4) Table 5.3 demonstrates the broad variation of fossil

fuel costs over the nation. 

Estimated fuel costs, representative of a plant going on-line in 1980, are summarized

in Table 5.4. The projected costs of coal and oil were derived from Ref. (5) and

were escalated from 1974 to 1980 at 8% per year. The price of natural gas is a

very rough estimate of that which may be reached with price deregulation. Nuclear

fuel costs are based on essentially the same economic ground rules used in Ref. (6).

These represent the economic conditions expected to exist during the first 10 to 15

years of nuclear plant operation. Nuclear fuel costs were escalated from 1974 to

1980 using an overall escalation rate of 8% per year. Economies of scale may lead

5-4
TABLE 5.2

ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE

(Thousands of Dollars per

Staff

Fixed Maintenance

Variable Maintenance

Supplies & Expenses

Administrative and General

Nuclear Insurance

Total 1980 Costs (103$/yr)

Energy Cost (mills/kWhe)

Coal

1500

1900

1000

600

400

5400

0.82

COSTS FOR 1980*

Year)**

Oil

1300

1300

700

400

300

4000

0.61

* See footnote (3). Costs are for one 1000 MWe unit of

2000 MWe station.

** Levelized over first 10 years of power operation.

Gas

1200

1200

600

400

300

3700

0.56

a two-unit

5-5

LWR

1700

1500

500

500

400

600

5200

0.79

...
60

V OIL

50

40 V

0 COAL c

30- O GAS

20

NUCLEAR

10-

1969 1970 1971

Figure 5.1 STEAM-ELECTRIC FUEL COSTS, U.S. (1969-1971)

5-6
TABLE 5.3

FUEL COSTS BY REGION*

(1969-71)

(Cents per Million BTUs)

COAL OIL GAS

1969 1970 1971 1969 1970 1971 1969 1970 1971

New England 36.9 41.9 62.5 29.9 35.6 49.3 33.7 35.3 46.4

Middle Atlantic 30.0 36.1 41.6 34.7 42.6 59.2 35.6 38.3 45.3

E. No. Central 26.4 30.4 35.3 68.6 63.7 74.6 31.6 37.1 46.4

W. No. Central 26.2 28.2 32.1 57.1 65.1 76.8 24.9 25.6 28.0

So. Atlantic 28.4 36.1 41.3 33.0 34.8 45.7 31.6 34.7 40.3

E. So. Central 21.1 23.6 29.6 49.5 50.5 51.4 24.3 25.3 26.6

W. So. Central None 40.1 None 37.7 44.9 66.4 20.5 21.1 22.2

Mountain 20.6 19.8 22.2 27.5 28.5 39.5 27.3 29.3 33.7

Pacific None None 14.0 36.4 39.0 54.6 31.2 32.4 34.1

*See footnote (4)

TABLE 5.4

POWER PLANT FUEL COSTS (1980 DOLLARS)

Coal Oil Gas LWR

Net Heat Rate (BTU/kWh) 8900 8830 9110 10850

Fuel Cost (4/106BTU) 110 310 395 55

Annual Fuel Cost* (106$/yr) 64 180 237 39

Fuel Energy Cost (mills/kWhe) 9.8 27.4 36.0 6.0

*At 75% capacity factor

5q.7
to cost improvements partially offsetting escalation, but these economies were not

included in this cost estimate.

Total Conventional Costs

The total conventional costs for neneratin electricity--the sums of plant, operating

and maintenance, and fuel energy costs--are given in Table 5.5.

TABLE 5.5

SUMMARY: CONVENTIONAL ENERGY COSTS

Estimated Total Electricity Generating Costs (1980 Dollars)

(mills/kWhe)

Coal Oil Gas LWR

Plant 7.8 7.2 6.4 11.7

0&M 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8

Fuel 9.8 27.4 36.0 6.0

Total 18.4 35.2 43.0 18.5

Footnotes and Regerences o Section 5.2 Conventional Costs

(1) Ptant capitaL cogsto p'es ented in this ection age based on captaf costs

studies peoonmed by United Engineen and Constuctont, Inc., and by Oak Ridge

Na~tona2 Labonatony. UE6C has estimated plant capital cots con the RUR, RUR,

Coat, and Oi type power plants in some detail. The UE6C base co-&ts, together

with ORNL data, have been assembled by ORNL as input injonmatLon AoA use in

the compute code CONCEPT, developed by ORNL.

(1.1) Cunxent Status and Future Technicat and Economic Potentiat o Light

Water Reactos, USAEC Repont WASH-108Z,, Mach 1968.

(1.2) Trends in the Cost o Light Waer Reactors PoweA PLants o UtZL ties 

USAEC Repont WASH -1150, May 1970.

(1.3) Guide onAEconomic Eval2uations o6 NucLeaA Reactor Plant Vesigns,

USAEC1Repo t NUS-531, NIUS Co'po aton, JanuaAy 1969.

(1.4) 1000 MWE Cent'rat Station Powe Plant Investment Cost Study:

Pnewautized Wate ReactoL PLait, USAEC RepoJCt WASH-1o30 (VOL 7),

United Enginen 5 Cont ucto4S Inc., June 1972.

(1.5) 1000 MWE Centuat Station PoweA Plant Investment Cost Study: Botin

WteAeaoxt 04 , ACepo- WASH-o230 (o .11), Uniced

EngineeA S Constuc o'u Inc., June 1972.

5-8
(1.6) 1000 MWE CentawL Station Power Plant Investment Cost Studg: Coal-Fijed

FosZ Plant, USAEC Repo t WASH-1 30 (Vol. ITT), Un ted EnqineeJL 

Contu cob Inc., June 1972.

(1.7) 1000 MWE Centtat Station Power Plant Investment Cost Studg: OiI-Fired

FoiI Plant, USAEC Repoat WASH -1230 (Vol. TV), United Engi.neen

Cont tuctors Inc., June 1972.

(1.8) CONCEPT: A Computer Code on Conceptual Cost Estemate4 og Steam-ELechJic

Power Pant - Status Repo t, USAEC Repo-t-WASH-1180, Ap4itl 1971.

(1.9) R. C. DeLozie.L, L. D. Reynold6, and H. I. BoweAt, CONCEPT: Computerized

Conceptual Cost E6timate6 bon Steam-Elect ivc Powet Plant6 - Phase I

User's Manual, USAEC Repo ORNL-TM-3 76, Oak Ridge Natkonal L.abonatoy,

Octobe' 1971.

(1.10) H. 1. Bowens, et al., CONCEPT 1I: A Computer Code bon Conceptual Coast

Estimates o Steam-EtecAic Power Plan t - Phase If Ue ' Manual,

USAEC Repo ORN L-4809, Oak- R dge ationalLtbo alony, -Api't 1973.

(1.11) H. I. Bowe and I. T. Dudley, Muti-Unit Powers Plant Cost ModeLs ot

the CONCEPT Code, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-4300, Oak Ridge attZonal

Laboxatoy, Ma4CJ. 1974.

(1.12) M. L. Mye'6, Cost Estimate bon the Limestone-Wet Sceubbinq Sulfu Oxide

Control Process, USAEC Report ORNL-TM-414, Oak Ridge Nattonal

Labo nyatou, Ju y 1973.

(1.13) Power Plant Capital Cost6: Cux'tent Tend6 and Senitivity to Economic

PaMamete~t, USAEC Repot W AS IH-1345, Octobe 1974.

(1.14) Heat Sink De.sign and Cost Study' on Fo.Ll and NucleaA Plants, USAEC

Repo t WASH-1360, Vecembe4 1974.

(2) NUS Conponation, Guide aon Economic Evaluation o 6 Nuclea Piant Desiqn, ~ NUS-531 (Januaty 1969).

(3) M. L. Myens and L. C. FuLeL, Ope'ating and Maintenance Cost Estimating

~ 

j

(4) FueL cost data lon Figue 5.1 and Table 5.3 were extracted tom the

~ ot lowing z ouwce6s:

a. Coal and gab costs 4o't 1969 and 1970, tom: Natonal Coat

Association, Steam- Elect'iuc Plant Factots. (NCA obtains it data

fnom annual utzity >epots ubm tted to the Fedevat Powe Commiszion. 

b . Oil cost Son 1969 and 1970, tom: Edison Etecti'c Institute,

AnalysZ o Fuel bot Elect4ic Gene ration By the Electuic Utti ty

Indust ty - Fuet Buwned Unde Boi ens and y InteAnal Combustion

Engte6 

c. Nuclea t SueL costs gont 1969 and 1970, >tom: Federtal Powe Commission,

Steam-Elect ci Plant Const'tuction Cost and Annual Poduction Expen6es 

d. Coal, oil, gas, and nuclear uel costs ot 1971 wee obtained by

aggtagating data tom annual utility' >epo'ts submitted to the Fedeal

Powert Cormission (FPC) and on 1l2e in the FPC Public Document Room.

5-9
(5) FedvzaL Powet Commasion, News Reeaue No. 20707, Septembevt 22, 1974.

(6) The NucBeanL IndustLy - 1974, USAEC Repot WASH-1174-74.

5.3 CONSUMPTION OF EXHAUSTIBLE FUEL RESOURCES: FUEL RESOURCE BASES AND

UTILIZATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SYSTEMS

Introduction

Most of the material assembled in this report concerns the environmental and human

impacts of producing electrical energy. To place these nonconventional costs in

perspective, some representative conventional costs* are cited also.

Environmental, human (health and safety), and conventional costs do not alone constitute a basis for making choices among alternative national energy strategies.

Other major constraints in formulating energy policy are the fuel resource bases

associated with the competing energy production systems and the relative efficiencies

of the competing systems (or potential systems) in transforming these resources into

useful energy. For example, if choices were made on environmental considerations

alone, natural gas mioht be the preferred system. However, the current known U.S.

resource base for natural gas will be exhausted in about twelve years at current

consumption rates, without additional discoveries.

The purpose of this section is to provide gross comparisons of the coal, oil,

natural gas, and uranium resource bases in terms of equivalent quantities of electrical energy. These results serve as figures of merit reflecting both the extent

of various energy resources and the efficiency of utilization by the respective

electrical energy production systems.

Difficulties

Several difficulties plaque attempts to determine resource bases and to reduce

them to comparable form:

. First, there is no widely accepted standard terminology, applicable to all

energy fuels, designed to qualify the abundance of fuel resources. Each fuel

industry has adopted its own unique set of conceptual describers, e.g., "reserves",

"resources", "known reserves", "proven reserves", "estimate of proven recoverable

reserves", "ultimate resources", "remaining resource", "estimated additional," and

*Intern costs less any identifiable abatement costs.

5-10
the like. While a given set of terminology and definitions may be meaningful to a

specialist in one energy technology, the same word sets and concepts may not be

acceptable to his colleague in another technology. Resource bases change with time

due to a host of factors, including depletion of reserves and new discoveries. The

aim in the computations below is to establish, however crudely, bases comprised of

the present known reserves and estimated additions through the next several decades.

. Knowledge of extent of resources varies considerably among the competing

fuels. For example, uncertainties in estimates of oil resources are, in general,

greater than estimates of coal resources because coal is a solid and is found

relatively near the surface.

. Grades of fossil fuel resources vary according to heating value, sulfur

content, and other characteristics. A thorough compilation of fuel resource bases

would include such delineations.

. To render resource figures comparable, limitations imposed by extraction

technology and economics must be carefully defined and normalized. In many cases,

it is physically impossible to extract all of the resources from a known deposit.

For instance, as oil is removed from a pool the pressure in the pool decreases, and

eventually a point is reached where the driving forces on the remaining oil are

too low to cause it to flow up the well. Even with pumping and other techniques

of increasing flow, an average of only 30% of the oil in a pool is extracted.

Similarly, pillars of unmined coal must be left in place in underground coal mines

to support the roof over the working area. In some circumstances, the pillars are

pulled down as the mine is worked out. However, the average recovery of coal is

only 60% of the amount present in the seam.

Moreover, comparative resource assessments must explicitly recognize extraction

costs. In general, as a given resource base is progressively consumed and as

deposits of lower concentrations are exploited, extraction costs (per unit contained

energy) rise.

Indeed, extraction costs may make the entire energy production system uneconomic.

Further, the economics or diseconomics of a resource base are determined not only

by extraction costs but also by all remaining components of energy costs. For

example, if an energy system is advantaged by low power plant capital costs, higher

extraction costs per unit energy can be afforded, resulting in an "extension" of

its resource base. Thus, a rigorous comparative assessment of resource bases would

5-11
require establishing parity or breakeven extraction costs of each fuel as functions

of all components of energy costs of all competing fuels. This, of course, would

be a very formidable undertaking, particularly in a climate of rapid escalation of

fossil fuel costs and all plant capital costs. Fortunately, most of the major

conclusions vis-a-vis relative resource bases and fuel utilization characterizations

can be reached using very gross calculations.

Legal, regulatory, and subsidy conditions affect the relative resource bases.

For example, limitations on sulfur content of coal burned in power plants tend to

shrink the coal resource base.

Further, it must be recognized that not all of the energy resources are

available for electrical energy production. There are, for example, competing uses

for coal, RFO, and natural gas.

In the computations below, resource bases associated with electrical energy

production were assigned according to 1970 production - consumption statistics,

i.e., the following percentage of the respective total resource bases were assigned

to electrical energy production: coal, 54%; residual fuel oil, 39%; natural gas,

21%; and nuclear fuels, 100%. These fractions will, of course, change with time in

accordance with market conditions, technological advances, legal and regulatory

constraints, and a host of other factors. Use of 1970 statistics is, therefore,

somewhat arbitrary.

The electrical energy equivalent of a given resource base depends, of

course, on the conversion technology attached to it. Thus, as improvements in an

existing energy production system (the entire fuel cycle, including the power plant)

are made or as new.conversion technologies are developed, the resource base may

expand or contract.

Coal

The total amount of coal in the U.S. with overburden depths to 6,000 feet has been

estimated, without reference to extraction economics, to be about 3.2 trillion

tons.* Since the deepest U.S. mines go down only 2,000 feet, a number more closely

approaching the economic reserves would be about 1.1 trillion tons. Total reserves,

determined by mapping and exploration, for overburdens to 3,000 feet, are estimated

to be about 1.5 trillion tons, of which about 0.67, 0.43, and 0.45 trillion are

*Averitt, Paul, Coal Reserves in the U.S. as of January 1, 1967.

5 -12
bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite grades, respectively.* Most of the coal

presently consumed by utility companies is bituminous.

Current recovery rates are about 60 percent for underground mining and about 80 percent for surface mining.** Ignoring sulfur limitations, the reserves corresponding

to current extraction economics and technology, for the purpose of this study, are

set at 200-400 billion tons.

In 1970 about 54 percent of the marketed coal was used in generating electricity.

The resource base for coal fired electric power plants is thus taken as 100-200

billion tons. A modern 1000 MWe coal fired power plant produces about 2800 kWhe

per ton of coal burned.*** Thus the coal resource base, for current extraction

economics and technology is equivalent to 300-600 trillion kilowatt hours of

electrical energy.

Residual Fuel Oil

Estimation of an RFO resource base for U.S. consumption by electric utilities is

complicated by several factors: a) RFO is one of many refinery products; the ultimate resource is, of course, crude oil, and the yield of RFO per barrel of crude

depends on the economic environment, location (domestic or foreign) of the refinery,

etc.; and b) a significant portion (about 72 percent) of RFO consumed in the U.S.

is imported or is produced in domestic refineries from imported crude; the amounts

of foreign crude or foreign RFO available to the U.S. in the long term future is

unknown.

U.S. crude reserves at current prices and technology are estimated at about 460

billion barrels, including offshore fields. Assuming an RFO yield of 6 percent in

domestic refineries, this is equivalent to about 27- billion barrels of RFO. Current

known and probable crude reserves in Venezuela, a major supplier of U.S. crude and

RFO, is about 69 billion barrels. Caribbean refineries yield about 60 percent RFO,

so that the Venezuelian reserve is equivalent to about 41 billion barrels of RFO.

Other sources of U.S.-consumed RFO are two African countries, Nigeria and Libya,

most of whose crude is refined in Caribbean refineries. The combined proven crude

reserves of these two countries is 36 billion barrels or potentially 22 billion

barrels of RFO.

* Averitt, Paul, Open File Report 1968, Geological Survey, Dept. of the Interior.

** FPC, The 1970 National Power Survey, Part I, page 1-4-4 (Dec. 1971).

*** Assumes plant net thermal efficiency of - 40 percent and coal heating value

of - 25 million BTU/ton.

5-13
All of the foreign potential RFO reserves mentioned (Venezuela, Nigeria, Libya) are

assumed available for U.S. consumption. These potential RFO reserves, together with

the domestic potential RFO resource base, total about 90 billion barrels. Electric

utilities presently account for about 39 percent of RFO consumption in the U.S.

Thus 35 billion barrels of RFO (about two-thirds of which would be imported) is

taken as a rough estimate of the RFO available for electricity generation.

A modern 1000 MWe RFO-fired power plant produces about 720 kWhe per barrel of RFO.*

Thus the RFO resource base assumed available for U.S. electricity generation is

equivalent to about 25 trillion kWhe.

Natural Gas

Estimated proved recoverable reserves of natural gas as of December 31, 1970 were

about 260 trillion cubic feet in the lower 48 states and about 31 trillion cubic

feet in Alaska, totaling about 291 trillion cubic feet** -- about fifteen times the

current annual consumption rate. The Federal Power Commission forecasts reserve

additions of about 325 trillion cubic feet in the 1971-1990 period (lower 48).***

The ultimate remaining natural gas resource base may be between one and two thousand

trillion cubic feet. 

For the purposes of this comparative assessment the natural gas resource base is

assumed to be 616 trillion cubic feet, the estimated proved recoverable reserves

plus assumed new finds in the 1971-1990 period. In 1970 about 21 percent of the

marketed natural gas was consumed in the generation of electricity. Thus, reserves

of about 130 trillion cubic feet are assumed available for electric power production.

From Figure 3.6 about ten cubic feet of natural gas are required to generate one

kilowatt hour of electrical energy in a modern gas-fired power plant. Thus the

natural gas resource base available to electric energy production is equivalent to

about 13 trillion kilowatt-hours of electrical energy.

Assumes plant net thermal efficiency of - 40 percent and a heat content of

6.3 million BTU per 42-gallon barrel of RFO.

**  American Gas Association, Gas Facts (1971 Data).

*** "FPC Sees the U.S. Gas Deficit Soaring," Oil and Gas Journal (March 6, 1972).

**** Federal Power Commission, The 1970 National Power Survey, Part I

(December 1971), p. 1-4-15

5-14
Uranium

Two potentially fissionable* nuclides occur in nature, uranium and thorium.

Natural uranium contains only 0.71 percent of fissile U235, the remainder being

essentially all fertile U238, which may be converted to fissile Pu by parasitic

capture of neutrons. LWRs and LMFBRs operate on uranium fuel cycles. Thorium

occurs only in fertile form, Th232, and may be converted to fissile U233 by neutron

capture. The HTGR uses both uranium and thorium.

The discussion below is restricted to uranium resources and the utilization of these

resources in LWRs and LMFBRs. Uses of these resources other than in the production

of electrical energy are assumed negligible.

LWR Fuel Resource Base and Fuel Utilization

Two sources of makeup uranium for LWRs are a) economically extractable uranium

still in the ground and b) the uranium concentrate stockpile. The extraction cost

cutoff representative of "current extraction economics and technology" for the LWR

is taken to be 10 dollars per pound of U308. About one million short tons of unmined

U308 are estimated available at 10 dollars or less per pound -- about 0.4 million

in reasonably assured reserves and about 0.6 million estimated additional potential.**

The concentrate stockpile as of the beginning of fiscal year 1973 was about 40

thousand short tons U308*** -- essentially negligible compared to the economic

unmined resource. For the purpose of this study one million short tons of U308 is

assumed.

Figure 5.2 contains an abbreviated form of the eequilibrium LWR-fuel cycle material

balance. uantities are normalized to one kilowatt-hour of electrical energy produced. About one ton of U308 must be mined to produce 40 million kWhe. Thus if

all of the $10 (or less) U308 is consumed in LWRs, the electrical energy produced

would be about 40 trillion kWhe.

In the computation just described, no energy credit was given for the plutonium

output of the cycle. Plutonium produced by light water reactors may either be

stored to provide startup inventory for LMFBRs or it may be recycled in LWRs. If

* There are two types of fissionable nuclides: fissile and fertile. Fissile

nuclides are fissionable by neutrons of all incident energies, but are more

readily fissioned by low energy neutrons. Fertile nuclides can be fissioned

only by very high energy neutrons but can be converted to fissile material by

non-fission capture of a neutron.

** As of January 1, 1974. Personal communication, J. Patterson, USAEC.

*** Nucleonics Week, Vol. 12 #11 - March 18, 1971.

5-15
the plutonium is recycled, the makeup uranium requirements may be reduced by as

much as 25 percent, extending the equivalent electrical energy (from LWRs) of $10

or less U308 to about 50 trillion kWhe.

Another way of measuring the fuel utilization efficiencies of nuclear systems is to

conceptually assign an energy equivalent to each stream of fissionable material

entering or leaving the fuel cycle. Fertile material, as well as fissile material,

is assigned an energy value. Energy released per fission is roughly independent

of the nuclide species fissioned. Also, corrections for atomic weights are small,

so that masses of fissionable material may be used in the calculation, rather than

equivalent energies.* Fuel utilization is the mass fissioned plus the mass of

plutonium produced (stored), divided by the mass of makeup uranium. The result,

for the LWR, is about 0.0092, or about 1 percent. This method explicitly credits

the light water system with its plutonium production, even though it is assumed in

Figure 5.2 that Pu is not recycled in the LWR system. The potential energy content**

of one million short tons of U308 is about 1.7 x 1016 kWh (heat) or 5.8 x 1019 BTU.

Applying the fuel utilization efficiency of about 1 percent to this figure, one

obtains about 156 trillion kWh (heat). The net thermal efficiency of the LWR power

plant is about 32 percent, so that the corresponding quantity of electrical energy

is 50 trillion kWhe, the same figure estimated above for the case of Pu recycle in

LWRs.

The computations above restrict the LWR uranium resource base to $10 (or less) per

pound U 308 , and AEC resource estimates as of January 1, 1974, were used. Several

factors could, of course, alter this picture, such as the possible discovery of

vast new quantities of uranium at this price, or the enhanced competitiveness of

uranium-based energy due to rise in fossil prices, or, conversely, the decreased

competiveness of nuclear plants due to rising capital costs.

The salient point with regard to uranium use in the LWR system is that most (about

98 percent) of the potential energy of the resource base ends up as enrichment plant

tails (see Figure 5.2). The LWR, alone, is not an efficient user of uranium

resources. Further, because the LWR system uses relatively large quantities of

natural uranium, energy costs of this system are relatively sensitive to natural

uranium costs, thus restricting the economic resource base of the LWR system.

* About one megawatt-day is released in the complete fission of one gram of

fissionable fertile or fissile) material. Another useful conversion is

2.205 x 1010 kWh (heat)/metric ton.

** As if 100 percent of the uranium atoms, fertile as well as fissile, were

fissioned.

5-16
LMFBR Fuel Resource Base and Fuel Utilization

By producing more fissile plutonium (from fertile U238) than it consumes, the breeder

reactor will extend uranium resources indefinitely. An equilibrium LMFBR (1000 MWe)

fuel cycle material balance shows an annual uranium makeup requirement of about one

metric ton, assuming recycle of uranium. Without uranium recycle, the makeup requirement is about 19 tons. About 0.2 metric tons of excess plutonium* are generated per

year which may be used as inventory for new LMFBRs in an expanding nuclear power

economy, or burned in LWRs, or other nonbreeders, should the nuclear energy demand

flatten out.

Depleted uranium tails from enrichment plants, a byproduct of LWR fuel cycles, will

be the source of uranium for many decades after the commercial introduction of

breeders. Annual tails from one 1000 MWe LWR fuel cycle would supply the annual

makeup requirement of about one hundred 1000 MWe LMFBRs, assuming uranium recycle in

LMFBRs (or about five LMFBRs, assuming no recycle). When the tails stockpile (plus

additions from concurrent LWR operation) is exhausted, uranium for LMFBRs will, of

course, have to be mined. Because the uranium makeup requirements of the breeder are

small, breeder energy costs are quite insensitive to uranium costs. Thus essentially

all of the estimated uranium resource base, regardless of its price structure, is

economically available for the LMFBR. Further, since the LWR system rejects about

98 percent of mined uranium, essentially all of the uranium "consumed" by LWRs

remains available for LMFBRs. Thus the LMFBR resource base "overlays" the LWR

resource base.

For the purpose of this assessment three components are assumed to comprise the

LMFBR resource base: the current depleted tails stockpile, the current concentrate

stockpile, and all of the remaining unmined uranium up to, arbitrarily, 100 dollars

per pound U308. The concentrate stockpile and a portion of the unmined uranium may

indeed be used as input to the LWR system, but as noted above all but about 1 or 2

percent remains available for the breeder.

The unmined resource base to $100 per pound U308 is about 17 million short tons

U308.** The concentrate stockpile as of the beginning of FY 1973 was about 40

thousand short tons U308, negligible compared to the unmined resource. The current

depleted tails stockpile is classified, but it is possible to infer an upper bound

* Excess Pu over that recycled in the LMFBR.

** As of January 1, 1974. Personal communication, John Patterson, Division of

Production and Materials Management, USAEC.

5-17
for this stockpile from the open literature. AEC purchases of concentrate between

FY 1948 and 1971 total 173,665 short tons U 30 8 .* Some of this may be included in

the concentrate stockpile, and some may exist as enrichment plant tails from the

submarine program, from civilian nuclear power, and from the U235 weapons program.

An unknown amount has been consumed in production reactors to obtain plutonium for

the weapons program and is thus unavailable as breeder fertile material. In any

case, the upper bound of the current depleted tails stockpile should be about 135

thousand metric tons of uranium.** Compared to the 17 million tons U3fl8 unmined,

this quantity is negligible. For the purposes of making gross comparisons of

resource bases among the energy fuels 17 million short tons of U308 is assumed to

be the resource base of the breeder.

Figure 5.2 contains an abbreviated form of an LMFRR fuel cycle materials balance,

normalized to one kilowatt hour of electrical output. About 2.5 x 10-10 ST U308

(or about 1.9 x 10-10 MTU depleted tails) is required as makeup in producing one

kilowatt hour of electrical energy. The LMFBR resource base of 17 million ST U 3 08

corresponds, then, to about 6.8 x 1016 kWhe of electrical energy. This computation

gives no energy credit to the excess plutonium bred.*** To credit the system with

excess plutonium, a fuel utilization efficiency is computed in a manner consistent

with that applied to the LWR system above; the mass fissioned plus mass of plutonium

produced, divided by the mass of uranium makeup. Using the quantities shown in

Figure 5.2, the result is about 75 percent. The potential energy content of 17 million

short tons U308 is about 29.0 x 1016 kwh (heat) or about 1021 BTU. Applying the

fuel utilization efficiency of 75 percent to this figure, one obtains about

22.0 x 1016 kWh (heat). The net thermal efficiency of the LMFBR power plant is

about 40 percent, so that the corresponding quantity of electrical energy is

9 x 1016 kWhe.

Summary

Table 5.6 summarizes the comparative information developed above. More detailed

information is displayed schematically in Figure 5.2.

* USAC, Statistical Data of the Uranium Industr, Jan. 1, 1972, GJO-100.

** 174,100 (ST 308) x 0.909 MTST x 0.85 (MUMU308).

*** This is plutonium in excess of that which is recycled in the equilibrium

LMFBR fuel cycle.

5 -18
RESOURCE COAL

BASES 100 - 200 x 109 TONS

PUEL INPUT .7 LB. COAL

TO ENERGY

SYSTEM (3.5 x 10-4 TONS)

COAL

SYSTEM

COMBUSTION COMBUSION HEAT ON FISSION 2.5 kWht HEAT

.23 kWht

(Stack) 40% REJECT THERMAL

HEAT 1.27 kWht EFFICIENCY

(Thermal

Discharge)

ELECTRICITY

PRODUCED 1 kWhe

RFO

35 x 109 BARRELS

(2/3 imported;1 /3 dom.)

1.4 x 10-3 BARRELS

RFO

RFO

SYSTEM

COMBUSTION HEAT

2.5 kWht

.23 kWht

(Stack) 40%

THERMAL 1.27 kWht EFFICIENCY

(Thermal

Discharge)

1 kWhe

NATURAL GAS

130 x 10 12 FT.3

10 FT.3 NG

URANIUM (LWR)

-106 STU 3 08

(E$10/lb. U 3 08

NET NATURAL U MAKEUP

1.91 x 10- 8 MTU

(2.5 x 10-8 STU 0 

LII GDP TAILS

NG LWR 1.87 x 0-8 MTU

SYSTEM 1.8 x 1 0

_10 SYSTEM .35x10 10 MTPu

MTU (1.3 x 10-10 MT F. P.)

COMBUSTION HEAT FISSION HEAT

2.5 kWht 3.12 kWht

.30 kWht

(Stack) 40% 2.12 kWht 32%

THERMAL THERMAL 1.20kWht EFFICIENCY (Thermal EFFICIENCY

Discharge)

(Thermal

Discharge)

1 kWhe

POTENTIAL

ELECTRICAL 300 - 600 x 10 12 kWhe 25 x 101 2 kWhe 13 x 1012 kWhe ENERGY PRODUCTION

URANIUM

(LMFBR)

17 x 106 STU 308

(E$100/lb. U 3 0 8

NET NATURAL U MAKEUP

1.84 x 10-10 MTU

(2.39 x10-10 STU 3 08

LOSSES LMFBR EXCESS Pu

.52 x 10_10 SYSTEM .30x 10- 10 MTPu

MTU

(1.04x 10-10 MT F. P.)

FISSION HEAT

2.5 kWht

1.5 kWht 40%

-NOTHERMAL

(Thermal EFFECIENCY

Discharge)

1 kWhe 1 kWhe

(-1% Fuel Utilization) (--73% Fuel Utilization)'

*Fuel Utilization efficiencies include energy credit for unfissioned plutonium

Uranium Resource Base

40 xt012 kWhe Uranium Resource Base 71,000 x 1012 kWhe

Plutonium Credit Plutonium Credit 20,000 x 1012 kWhe

lox 101 2

kWhe

Figure 5.2 FUEL RESOURCE BASES AND UTILIZATION CHARACTERISTICS OF ALTERNATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS

(73
TABLE 5.6

RELATIVE RESOURCE BASES FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY*

Fuel Estimated Remaining Resources, Equi valent Electrical

@ Current Extraction Economics Energy Producable with

and Technology Current Conversion

Technology**

(Conventional Units) (trillion kWhe)

Bituminous Coal 200-400 x 109 short tons 300-600

Residual Fuel Oil 27 x 109 bbls (U.S.)

41 (Venezuela)

22 (Africa) ~ x 10 bbls (Total) 25

Natural Gas 616 x 1012 scf 13

Urani um

LWR 1 x 106 short tons U3 08 50

LMFBR** 17 x 106 short tons U3 08 90,000

*See text for assumptions.

**While the LMFBR is not considered "current conversion technology" (commercial

introduction is expected in the 1990s), its fuel resource base is included for

purposes of comparison.

5.4 FUEL CYCLE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND OVERALL SYSTEM EFFICIENCIES

Processing and transportation steps in the various fuel cycles require energy in

the form of heat or electricity. This is illustrated, for an arbitrary fuel cycle,

in Figures 5.3 and 5.4. The total heat energy input to the system, including the

heat released from the fuel at the power plant, is H. Of this energy, Rh is

rejected as thermal energy, including the heat rejected at the power plant, Re (=e)

is dissipated in the fuel cycle electrical load, and T is lost in transmission,

leaving E as the quantity of useful, delivered electrical energy. Thus it is possible to speak of an overall energy system efficiency, defined, for the purposes of

this study, as E/H.

Figure 5.5 displays the energy balances for representative coal, residual fuel oil,

natural gas, and nuclear fuel cycles. Quantities are normalized to a quantity of

useful, delivered electrical energy E in arbitrary units.

5-20
NET ELECTRICAL

ENERGY DELIVERED

E

PROCESS

e e2 e3 e4 Te5 e 6 ELECTRICITY

EpREQUIREMENTS

-h h2 h3 h4 h h5 h6 PROCESS HEAT

TOTAL HEAT

INPUTS AND LOSSES

H T

Rh Re TOTAL HEAT TRANSMISSION

REQUIREMENTS LOSSES

REJECTED ENERGY

Figure 5.3 SCHEMATIC ENERGY BALANCE FOR A TYPICAL FUEL CYCLE
TOTAL ENERGY REJECTED

Rh Re

FUEL CYCLE

INDUSTRIES AND

H ELECTRIC POWER

PLANT

TRANSMISSION

LOSSES

4

T

E

I No

e

ELECTRICAL ENERGY

REQUIRED BY FUEL CYCLE INDUSTRIES

NET

DELIVERED

ELECTRICITY

(OVERALL SYSTEM EFFICIENCY) = E/H

Figure 5.4 SCHEMATIC DEFINITION OF OVERALL SYSTEM EFFICIENCY

(,T1
COAL OIL GAS PWR BWR

1000 -.. :

500 E

0 T

- Re

500

w

z

w

u. 1000

0

z Rh

1500

9 

2000 1 2

2500

2,613 2,613

3000 KEY:

E = ELECTRICITY DELIVERED TO CONSUMER OUTSIDE ENERGY SYSTEM

T = TRANSMISSION LOSSES

Re = ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIRED IN FUEL CYCLE INDUSTRIES

Rh = THERMAL ENERGY REJECTED THROUGHOUT FUEL CYCLE

H = TOTAL THERMAL ENERGY INPUT TO ENERGY SYSTEM

E+ T+ Re+ Rh

Figure 5.5 ALLOCATION OF ENERGY TO PROVIDE 1,000 UNITS OF

NET ELECTRICAL ENERGY AT POINT OF USE

5-23
Tables 5.7 and 5.8 show the fuel cycle energy requirements, by process, normalized

to 6.57 billion kWhe, the annual electrical energy generated by a 1000 MWe plant

with a 75% capacity factor. Table 5.9 summarizes this energy balance data and gives

values of the overall system efficiencies. Supporting material for this section is

given in the Appendix.

Several conclusions may be drawn from the data assembled above.

1. Process heat requirements for all fuel cycle processes are negligible compared

to the heat input at the power plant. Most of the heat rejection occurs at the

power plant.

2. With the exception of LWR fuel cycles, the process electrical energy requirements are negligible. For the LWR cycles, the electrical load at the enrichment

plant is about 3% of the power plant output.

3. The LWR cycles reject significantly more energy at the power plant than do the

other cycles, which, together with their higher process electrical energy requirement, results in lower overall system efficiencies.

5.5 HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY

This section summarizes the relative impacts of the operation of alternate electrical

energy production systems on human health and safety. Two general groups of humans

at risk are considered: the population at large, that is, the public; and those

who are employed in an energy system, that is, occupational personnel.

Occupational Safety

Figure 5.6 and Tables 5.10 - 5.12 present comparisons of occupational injury rates

across and within the competing energy systems. Injuries considered in this analysis are those incurred in conventional, industrial-type accidents, and are of a

mechanical, thermal, or electrical nature. Health effects resulting from exposure

to toxic or radioactive materials released in accidents are excluded.

Figure 5.6 displays a comparison of occupational mandays lost due to conventional

accidents in the alternate power plant types and their supporting fuel cycles.

Tables 5.10 - 5.12 show deaths, nonfatal injuries, and mandays lost by fuel cycle

steps. Data are normalized to the operation of a 1000 MWe plant for one year at

75% capacity factor, that is, to 6.57 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity.

5-24
TABLE 5.7

PROCESS HEAT REQUIRED IN THE INDIVIDUAL STEPS OF THE FUEL CYCLES

[billions kWht per year]

Coal Oil Gas PWR BWR

Mining 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.0 0.0

Milling - - - 0.014 0.012

Conversion - - - 0.004 0.004

Diffusion Plant - - - 0.0 0.0

Preparation - - - 0.0 0.0

Fabrication - - - 0.0 0.0

Reprocessing - - - 0.011 0.013

Transportation 0.068 0.13 0.12 0.001 0.0019

Desulfurization 0.287 0.066 0.0078 -

Cooling Tower Penalty 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.63 0.63

Power Plant Operation 16.44 16.44 16.44 20.38 20.38

Total 17.44 17.24 17.17 21.04 21.04

Basis: 1000 MWe Generatino Plant

75% Annual Capacity Factor

6.57 billion kWhe

5-25
TABLE 5.8

ELECTRICAL ENERGY REQUIRED IN THE INDIVIDUAL STEPS OF THE FUEL CYCLES

(billions kWhe per year)

Step Coal Oil Gas PWR BWR

Mining 0.0078 0.011 0.011 0.0008 0.0008

Milling - - - 0.0015 0.0014

Conversion - - - 0.0012 0.0011

Diffusion Plant - - - 0.264 0.216

Preparation - - - 0.0028 0.0034

Fabrication - - - 0.0002 0.0005

Reprocessing - - - 0.0031 0.0037

Transportation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Desulfurization 0.094 0.056 0.0001 -

Total 0.10 0.067 0.011 0.27 0.23

Basis: 1000 MWe Generating Plant

75% Annual Capacity Factor

6.57 billion kWhe.

5-26
TABLE 5.9

ANNUAL ENERGY FLOWS FOR THE ENERGY SYSTEMS

Net Elec. TransOutput of mission

Pwr. Plant, Losses,

Energy billions billions

System kWhe kWhe

Coal 6.57 0.53

Oil 6.57 0.53

Gas 6.57 0.53

PWR 6.57 0.53

BWR 6.57 0.53

Process

Heat

Requi red

billions

kWht

17.44

17.24

17.17

21.04

21.04

Electrical

Energy

Required

billions

kWhe

0.10

0.067

0.011

0.27

0.23

Net

Cycle

Output,

billions

kWhe

5.94

5.973

6.029

5.77

5.81

Net Cycle

Efficiency

34.0

34.6

35.1

27.4

27.6

Rounded Net

Cycle Efficiency Used

in This

Study, 

34

35

- 35

28

28

Basis: 1000 MWe Generating Plant

75% Annual Capacity Factor

5-27
DEATHS (1 Death = 6000 man-days lost)

NON-FATAL INJURIES

BASIS: Annual Operation of One 1000 MWe Power Plant at

75% C. F. (6.6 Billion KWHe) and its Supporting

Fuel Cycle Requirements

Figure 5.6 ANNUAL OCCUPATIONAL INJURIES IN THE ALTERNATE ENERGY SYSTEMS

BWR

PW R

GAS

V.""""""""

ti ti 

' " 

". ....

"....

V"""": 

... ".

r 

00

OIL ~~.1

COAL .. . .I I I I I | 

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

Man-Days Lost Due to Occupational Accidents
TABLE 5.10

OCCUPATIONAL FATALITIES DUE TO ACCIDENTS

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processina

Coal

0.96*

0.02

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

NA

0.055

0.03

1.1

Oil ras

0.06 0.02

0.04 S

NA NA

0.03 0.02

0.03 0.03

0.16 0.07

PWR

0.09*

0.003

0.0003

0.001

0.0004

0.0001

NA

0.002

0.01

0.1

BUR

0.09*

0.003

0.0002

0.001

0.0005

0.0001

NA

0.002

0.01

0.1

Mininq

Millino

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

Reprocessing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

*Assumes 50% production from underground mines.

5-29
OCCUPATIONAL

TABLE 5.11

NONFATAL INJURIES DUE TO ACCIDENTS

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

39.8*

0.7

NA

5.1

1.2

46.8

Ga

2

Oil

7.5

3.0

NA

1.1

1.2

12.8

N

1

1

s PWR

.5 3.6*

- 0.99

0.028

0.18

0.26

0.079

A NA

.3 0.045

.2 1.3

5.0 6.5

BWR

3.3*

0.85

0.026

0.16

0.31

0.092

NA

0.045

1.3

6.1

Mining

Milling

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

Reprocessing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant

Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

*Assumes 50% production from underground mines.

5-30

. ,.'. _
TABLE 5.12

OCCUPATIONAL MANDAYS LOST DUE TO ACCIDENTS

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

8,186

144

NA

570

350

Oil

735

420

NA

220

350

9,250 1,725

Gas

250

90

NA

180

350

780

PWR BWR

762* 696*

63 58

2.2 2.0

14 11

8.5 9.9

Mining

Milling

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

2.4 2.9 Reprocessing

NA NA Waste Disposal

13 13 Transportation

110 110 Power Plant

Operation

975 903 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

*Assumes 50% production from underground mines.

5-31
These normalized injury rates are inferred from published statistics (past experience).

Injury statistics are commonly reported on a per million man-hour basis, i.e., events

per million man-hours of labor. Using labor productivity rates in each of the fuel

cycle stages, e.g., tons per man-hour, and the fuel cycle material balance, the

injuries can be allocated to a quantity of electrical energy produced.

Injury rates in mining coal and uranium are normalized to annual operation of respective 1000 MWe coal-fired and LWR power plants by assuming 50% production by underground mining and 50% production by surface mining. Injury rates in the RFO cycle

up to and including the refinery are based on a BTU-equivalent method, and assume

10% volume yield of RFO in domestic refineries and 50% yield in foreign refineries.

The import fraction is assumed to be 68%. Oil and gas production injuries at wells

producing both oil and gas are separated according to dollar values of production

(75% oil, 25% natural gas).

In Figure 5.6 and Table 5.12, 6000 mandays lost are assigned per death. There is no

such conversion assigned nonfatal injuries, since the average severity (mandays

lost per accident) of accidents varies from industry to industry.

Detailed supporting material for the occupational injury analysis is given in the

Appendix.

The above results show that, on a per unit energy basis, far more injuries are

incurred in the coal fuel cycle than in the oil, gas, and nuclear fuel cycles. Most

of these injuries occur in underground coal mines. Assuming 50% production by

underground mining, about one mining fatality per year can be attributed to one

1000 MWe coal-fired power plant. The large difference in injury rates, between the

coal based system and competing energy systems, reflects the large amount of material

that must be handled, per unit of electrical energy delivered, in the coal system.

Occupational Health

Like workers in other industries, employees of energy industries are routinely

exposed to substances (chemicals, particulates, radionuclides, toxic metals, etc.)

and to working conditions (heat, confinement, etc.) which singularly or in combination are potentially harmful to their health. As discussed in Chapter 4, human

dose-response characteristics are not well known for most agents at low levels- of

exposure and under a wide variety of conditions. Thus, in most cases only orderof-magnitude estimates of potential health impact can be made.

5-32
TABLE 5.13

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IN THE LWR ENERGY SYSTEM

Occupational

Dose

0.4 man-rad/

MWe-Yr

Normalizat ipn

Factor( 4)

750 MWe-Yr

Normalized

occupational

Dose

300 man-rad

Expected Occurances

Per 1000 MWe

Risk Reactor per Year

(order of magnitude)

0.0002 malignancy/rad(1) 0.06 malignancies

Reprocessing 1 man-rad/ 30 MTU 30 man-rad 0.0002 malignancy/rad (1)0.006 malignancies Plant MTU

Other Fuel - - 15 0.002 malignancy/rad(l) .003 malignancies

Cycle Steps

Uranium 1.3(2)man-WLM/ 80(3)MT-U308 104 man-WLM 0.0001 lun malignancy/ 0.01 lung malig.

Mine MT-U308 WLM

(1) Whole body dose

(2) 4 WLM/year; 3 MT U308/miner-year

(3) 160 MTU308 required for one 1000 MWe LWR per year; 50% underground mining.

(4) Basis: Fuel cycle requirements are those of one 1000 MWe plant operating for

one year at 75% load factor.

LWR Plant

U,1

_
TABLE 5.14

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH IN THE COAL ENERGY SYSTEM

Incident

Rat~e

Simple

Pneumoconiosos

Massive

Fibrosis

2 cases/1000 man-yr

0.02 cases/1000

man-yr

Inverse

Pro activity

2.5 x 10 4man-yr/

ton coal

2.5 x 10- 4man-yr/

ton coal

Normalization

Factor-O)

1.2 million tons

1.2 million tons

Expected Cases

Per 1000 MWe

Pant per Year

0.6

0.006

7n (1) Basis: Coal requirements for one 1000 MWe coal-fired plant operating for

one year at 75% load factor. Assume 50% of coal from underground mining.
TABLE 5.15

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THE LWR AND COAL FUEL CYCLES

Health Effects

Cases MDL Fatalities

Injuries

Nonfatal

Injuries

Total

MDL*

MDL

LWR FUEL CYCLE:

Uranium Mine

All Other Fuel

Cycle Steps

Totals (incl. other

fuel cycle steps)

COAL FUEL CYCLE:

0.01 malignancies

( uno) 60

0.07 malignancies 420

~0.08 malignancies 480

.09

.01

0.1

3.5 750

3 225

6.5 975

0.6 cases simple

pneumoconiosis 600

0.006 cases massive

fibrosis 36

0.98 41 8,330

Totals (incl. other

fuel cycle steps)

0.6 cases simple

pneumoconiosis

0.006 cases massive

fibrosis

600 1.1 47 9,250 10,000

36

*Health Effects and Injuries

5-35

Coal Mine

810

650

1,500

9,000
The occupational health effects considered in this report are coal workers' pneumoconiosis, lung cancer among uranium miners, and somatic effects of exposure to

radiation by workers throughout the remainder of the light water reactor fuel cycle

(including the power plant). As in other parts of the study, attempts are made to

normalize these effects to a given quantity of electrical energy produced, i.e.,

6.57 billion kWhe, the electrical energy produced by one 1000 MWe power plant

operating for one year at 75% C.F. Detailed supportive material for the quantification and normalization of occupational health effects is given in Chapter 4 and

the Appendix. Occupational health effects in the coal and LWR systems are summarized

in Tables 5.13 - 5.15.

Public Safety and the

Transportation of Fuels

Considerations of safety are restricted in this report to conventional injuries of

a mechanical, thermal, or electrical nature. Health effects resulting from accidental exposure to chemicals or radioactivity are excluded. (Health effects of

routine and accidental exposures are addressed under the headings "Occupational

Health" and "Public Health.")

The major source of conventional public injury in an energy system is that activity

in which the public comes in closest contact with the system -- the transportation

of fuel. Rates of human injuries attributable to the annual fuel transportation

requirements of 1000 MWe coal-fired and LWR power plants are assessed in the

Appendix. The results are shown in Table 5.16.

TABLE 5.16

TRANSPORTATION INJURIES IN THE COAL AND LWR FUEL CYCLES

Coal LWR

Public

Fatalities 0.55 0.009

Nonfatal Injuries 1.2 0.08

Mandays Lost 3500 60

Occupational

Fatalities 0.055 0.002

Nonfatal Injuries 5.1 0.045

Mandays Lost 600 13

5-36
Public Health

As in other parts of the study attempts were made to normalize public health effects

of energy production to the annual operation of 1000 MWe power plants and their

supporting fuel cycles. Section 4.4 summarizes conservative estimates of health

impact resulting from routine releases of radionuclides .from light water reactor

systems. More detailed discussion of these computations is given in the Appendix.

The public health effect of LWR system operation is conservatively estimated at 200

man-days lost per year per 1000 MWe.

Parallel estimates for fossil systems were not possible with the current state of

knowledge of fossil pollutant dose-response characteristics. In lieu of a comparison of normalized health impacts of nuclear and fossil systems, comparisons of

regulatory standards, background levels, actual manmade exposure levels, and ambient

concentrations corresponding to broad ranges of perceived health effects were presented in Section 4.8.

5.6 ENVIRONMENTAL BURDEN

5.6.1 Land

Two concepts of land use are used in this report: (a) "inventory" land use and

(b) "annual" land use. Tables 5.17 and 5.18 display inventory and annual land use

parameters, by fuel cycle process step, normalized to the requirements of 1000 MWe

coal, oil, gas, and LWR power plants.

Annual land use is related to the actual electrical energy produced. It is the

incremental amount of land "consumed" in producing a given quantity of electrical

energy, e.g. 6.57 billion KWHe, the electrical energy generated annually by one

1000 MWe power plant operating at 75% CF. Two prominent examples of such land use

are land disruption due to mining operations and land inundated by fuel cycle wastes

and residuals.

Inventory land use is related to energy system (power plant and supporting fuel

cycle) capacity, e.g. 1000 MWe, and to commitment of land resources, used incrementally, for the duration of power plant life. The capacity-related component is

simply the land occupied by the power plant (site) and supporting fuel cycle facilities, including exclusion areas, parking lots, etc. This land is "tied up" and

unavailable for other uses during the life of the system. The commitment component

refers to the commitment of land for incremental disruption (annual land use) over

the lifetime of the power plant. In most cases the figures derived in this report

5-37
TABLE 5.17

INVENTORY LAND USE

(Acres per 1000 MWe Power Plant)

Mining/Pumping(3)

Fuel* Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

21,700

300

(1)

NA

400

22,400

Oil

1,425

75

S

NA

80

~1,600

Gas

90

30

S

3,200

100

~3,600

LWR

50

10

5

1

NA

1C

~1,O(

)0 Minin(3)

)0 Milling(4)

0 Conversion

10 Enrichment

4 Fabrication

73 Reprocessing

~) Waste Disposal

Transportation

)0 Power Plant Operation

)0 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant S = Small

75% Capacity Factor NA = Not applicable

(1) Coal ash waste disposal area committed for 30 year power plant life is included

in Power Plant Operation.

(2) Radwaste disposal area committed for 30 year power plant life is included in

Reprocessing.

(3) Land disturbance - commitment for 30 year power plant life is included.

(4) Land commitment for U-mine tailings for 30 year power plant life is included.

5-38
TABLE 5.18

ANNUAL LAND USE

Year per 1000 MWe Power Plant)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

730

6

(1)

NA

5

741

Oil

S

S

NA

0

S

Gas

S

S

NA

0

S

NA

1

4R

9 Mining

2 Milling

S Conversion

S Enrichment

S Fabrication

S Reprocessing

1 Waste Disposal

Transportation

0 Power Plant Operation

12 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

S = Small

NA = Not applicable

(1) Coal ash waste disposal is included in power plant operation.

5-39

(Acres per

LW
for the capacity-related component and the commitment component are not mutually

exclusive; that is, they are not additive. The capacity-related component

frequently includes land commited for incremental use. Both parameters are displayed, however, for sake of completeness.

For both measures of land use - inventory and annual - the land use parameters

associated with supporting fuel cycle activities are normalized to the requirements

of a 1000 MWe power plant.

To summarize, "inventory" land use includes land use related to capacity of the

fuel cycle, and is land tied up by fuel cycle facilities and the power plant independent of the amount of electrical energy actually produced. It also involves land

committed for disruption in winning the fuel resource from its natural habitat and

land committed to the disposal of residual wastes. Units of "inventory" land use

are acres. "Annual" land use, on the other hand, includes only the land disruption

or inundation associated with the production of 6.57 billion kWhe of electrical

energy. Units of "annual" land use are, of course, acres per year.

5.6.2 Air

As discussed previously, releases of air pollutants from one source will disperse

and mix with those from other sources according to local conditions so that at the

point of interest it is difficult to assign the amount of exposure due to a given

source. Furthermore, the effect of such exposures has not yet been quantitatively

determined. Thus, the actual impact of air pollution cannot be calculated. Therefore, for purposes of comparison the quantitities of pollutant emitted at the stacks

will be used, since these numbers can be calculated fairly accurately.

The pollutants considered are SO2, particulates, NOx, trace metals, and radioactivity. Tables 5.19 through 5.23 compare source terms for these pollutants in

the various fuel cycles. For purposes of comparison no emission controls are

assumed for the fossil pollutants, and the advanced "near-zero" radwaste systems

have been omitted from the LWR system. In the LWR fuel cycle, a range of fossil

pollutants is given, the upper limit corresponding to the assumption that power

for uranium enrichment is supplied by a coal-fired power plant.

With the exception of some dust releases in coal cleaning plants, the most significant source of air pollution occurs at the power plant for the fossil fuels. Coal

is clearly the most prominent source of SO2 and particulate emissions, while N0,

emission depends more on combustion conditions than choice of fuel.

5-40
TABLE 5.19

Sg RELEASES*

(Tons per Year)

Mining/Pumpino

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

S

S

NA

S

120,000

120,000

Oil

S

S

NA

S

38,600

38,600

Gas

S

S

NA

S

20

20

LWR

S Mininn

S Milling

S Conversion

0-3,600** Enrichment

S Fabrication

S Reprocessing

NA Waste Disposal

S Transportation

0 Power Plant Operation

3,600 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

S = Small

NA = Now applicable

*Wi thout abatement

**Zero emission corresponds to an all-nuclear power source for the gaseous

diffusion plants. Upper limit is based on coal-fired power source.

5-41
TABLE 5.20

NO RELEASES* --x

(Tons per Year)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processinq

Coal

S

S

Oil

S

S

Gas

S

S

LWR

S Minino

S Millino

S Conversion

0-810** Enrichment

S Fabrication

S

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

NA

S

27,000

27,000

NA

S

26,000

26,000

NA

S

13,400

13,400

NA

S

0

810

Reprocessing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant S = Small

75% Capacity Factor NA = Mot applicable

*Without abatement

**Zero emission corresponds to an all-nuclear power source for the naseous

diffusion plants. Upper limit is based on coal-fired power source.

5-42

i
TABLE 5.21

PARTICULATE RELEASES

(Tonsi Yar

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processina

Coal

S

3,000

Waste Disposal NA

Transportation S

Power Plant Operation 267,000

Totals 270,000

Oil

S

S

NA

S

26,000

26,000

Gas

S

S

NA

S

518

518

LWR

S Mining

S Milling

S Conversion

0-8,000* Enrichment

S Fabrication

S Reprocessing

NA Waste Disposal

S Transportation

0 Power Plant Operation

8,000 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant S = Small

75% Capacity Factor NA = Not applicable

*Zero emission corresponds to an all-nuclear power source for the gaseous

diffusion plants. Upper limit is based on coal-fired power source.

5-43
TABLE 5.22

TRACE METAL RELEASES

(Tons per Year)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Dispsoal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal(1)

S

S

NA

S

5

5()

Oi1(2)

S

S

NA

S

1,500

1,500(2)

Gas

S

S

NA

S

S

S

LWR(3)

NI

NI

Mining

Milling

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

Reprocessing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

S = Small

NA = Not applicable

NI = Not included

(1) Mercury. Mercury is the element of greatest concern in coal.

(2) Vanadium. Vanadium is the element of greatest concern in RFO.

(3) Trace metals in the nuclear fuel cycles are treated as radioactive material.

5-44
TABLE 5.23

RADIOACTIVITY RELEASES TO AIR

(Curies per Year)

Coal Oil Gas

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Power Plant Operation 0.02 5X10 4

Totals ~0.02 ~5X10-4

PWR BWR

Mining

50 50 Milling - Fabrication

250,000 250,000 Reprocessing 

Transportation

5,000 250,000 Power Plant Operation

~250,000-500,000 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

5-45
The trace metals comparison merely gives an idea of the relative magnitudes of

emissions, and it is difficult to rank the competing energy systems for this particular class of emission impact. First, only two of the fifty or more relevant

elements have been considered: mercury from coal firing, and vanadium from RFO

firing. Second, mercury is known to be a toxic element, while vanadium is relatively

harmless.

Very crude radioactivity release estimates are given in Table 5.23. These estimates

are presented only to permit rough order-of magnitude comparisons of radiological

sources in the alternative fuel cycles. A valid comparison of radiological impacts

of the various fuel cycles requires that each of a large number of radionuclides be

treated separately. The decay losses, ultimate fates, pathways to man and other

receptors, dose, and dose-effects associated with each radionuclide should be

accounted for in order to make valid comparisons.

5.6.3 Water

Water quality is affected by the various fuel cycles in a number of ways. One is

the release to the environment of water that has acquired undesirable characteristics

through natural processes. In this category are acid mine drainage and brine water

from oil wells. Another type of impact involves direct dumping (accidental or

deliberate) of foreign, and possibly toxicc, material into surface waters. Oil

spills and mine spill dumps are examples. Another category involves the use of

water for various process applications with the result that its quality is degraded

as a direct result of the process. Examples would be the production at coal cleaning

plants of water containing suspended fine coal particles and oily water from refinery

applications. Also, water may be drawn from the environment for some use that does

not affect the chemical characteristics of it, but may produce undesirable changes

in its physical quality. The most important case is the temperature rise experienced

by water used for cooling condensers. Finally, some water may be withdrawn and not

returned to the source body of water, thus reducing the quantity available for other

uses downstream. In some situations this may simply be a case of the plant intake

being located on one body of water and its discharge on another. In other cases

the water evaporates in uses like a wet cooling tower, and while it is no longer

available for use downstream, it is not removed from circulation in the overall

hydrologic cycle. However, there are circumstances where amounts of water are

effectively withdrawn permanently from the environment. Examples include chemical

processes that utilize the hydrogen or oxygen content of the water molecules. This

situation can work in reverse, since the combustion of fossil fuel results in the

5-46
formation of new molecules of H20 at the rate of 1 to 2 lbs. of water vapor per

pound of fuel. Other processes do not chemically dissociate the water, but do remove

it from circulation. For instance coal mine refuse and coal ash slurries have a

residual moisture content acquired during processing. In some oil fields water is

injected into underground strata to increase recovery of petroleum. In light water

reactors, the water in the primary coolant loop becomes radioactive and remains

stored on the plant site. Generally speaking, these permanent withdrawals and additions to the hydrologic cycle are negligible compared to other water flows in the

fuel cycle.

For purposes of comparison the water used in each fuel cycle is classified under one

of four categories.

The first is water used for cooling purposes. For simplicity it is assumed that the

amount of-any chemicals added to this water is negligible. Thus, the impact of this

use consists of the diversion of surface waters and the possible release of heated

water, depending on whether or not closed cycle cooling methods are used. Comparison

of cooling water requirements are presented in Table 5.24.

The second category includes all water that is involved in process operations and

thus undergoes some degradation in quality. The number of different pollutants

involved ranges up in the thousands if organic chemicals and life forms such as

bacteria are counted. The severity of the pollution depends not only on the specific types of pollutants involved but also on the concentrations in the waste water,

the total amount discharged, and on conditions in the receiving body of water.

Lacking the resources to make a sufficiently detailed analysis of the environmental

impact of each discharge, the comparison here uses only the volumes of process

water, thus implicitly assuming that any use that degrades water quality is no

better or worse than any other. This drastic simplication must be kept in mind in

considering the results shown in Table 5.25.

Table 5.26 lists releases of water polluted by natural processes, the third category. The need for a separate table listing these items arises from the fact that

while cooling water and process water needs are directly related to the production

of energy, the impacts included in this category depend upon local conditions and

external factors that may bear no predictable relation to energy production. Acid

mine drainage is determined primarily by local rainfall conditions, geology, and

groundwater flow. Hence, two mines with identical outputs of coal may produce

completely different quantities of acid water. Similarly, major oil spills depend

5-47
TABLE 5.24

COOLING WATER USE

(Millions of Gallons per !)ay)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

S

S

NA

NA

720

720

Oil

S

S

NA

NA

720

720

Gas

S

S

NA

NA

720

720

LWR

S Mining

S Milling

S Conversion

S Enrichment

S Fabrication

S Reprocessing

4A Waste Disposal

VA Transportation

162 Power Plant Operation

N

N

1 

1 162 Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

S = Small

NA = Not applicable

5-48
TABLE 5.25

PROCESS WATER USE

(Millions of Gallons per Day)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Coal

NA

0.2

(1)

NA

3.8

4.0

Oil

2.8

0.8

(1)

NA

1.2

4.8

Gas

S

1.7

(1)

NA

1.2

3.9

LWR

NA

0.12

S

0.14

S

S

S

NA

0

0.26

Mining

Milling

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

Reprocessinq

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

S = Small

NA = Not applicable

(1) Included in Power Plant Operation

5-49
TABLE 5.26

OTHER WATER IMPACTS 0

(Millions of Gallons oer Day)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Coal

14.2(2)

31.9 (3)

Oil

8.5

NA

Gas

NA

NA

LWR

NA

Conversion

Enrichment

Fabrication

Waste Disposal

Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

NA

NA

NA

46.1

NA

13.2

NA

27.7

NA

NA

NA

NA

Reprocessing

Waste Disposal

Transnortati on

Power Plant Operation

NA Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant NA = Not applicable

75% Capacity Factor

(1) Water flows are equivalent volumes needed to dilute the impact to

Federal water Quality standards.

(2) Acid mine drainage.

(3) Water wastes from coal cleaning plants.

(4) Oil spills.

5-50

Mining

Milling
upon the hazards to shipping rather than on factors related to oil consumption.

Generally speaking, the items in this category are environmental impacts that may

be caused by a given cycle, but are not willingly or routinely incurred by production

of that fuel. Again, only volumes of water affected are compared, not severity of

pollution.

The fourth category involves degradation of water quality by emissions of process

wastes into water bodies. This category differs from the second category in that

water is not used in the fundamental process, but rather serves as a receptor of

wastes. Again, the number of potential chemical and radiological pollutants is

great, and ultimate damage-function information is not available for each. Table

5.26A gives crude estimates of radioactivity releases to water. The units are in

quantities released, in this case curies per year, rather than volume of water

involved as in Tables 5.24 - 5.26. The estimates given in Table 5.26A are extremely

crude and are presented only to permit order-of-manitude comparisons of radioloical

sources in the alternate fuel cycles. The reader is admonished against misapplying

the contents of this table. A valid comparison of radiological impacts of the

various fuel cycles requires that each of a large number of radionuclides be treated

separately. The decay losses, ultimate fates, pathways to man and other receptors,

dose, and dose effects, associated with each radionuclide should be described mathematically in order to make valid comparisons. Also, improvements in radwaste system

technology are expected to have a dramatic effect on radionuclide release rates.

Table 5.24 shows that cooling water use is neligible in the other steps of each

fuel cycle compared to the requirement at the power plant. This fact can also be

deduced from the energy efficiency description, Tables 5.8 and 5.9, which indicates

that process heat and electricity consumption are small compared to the output of

energy for each cycle. Since cooling requirements are proportioned to energy use,

barring exothermic and endothermic processes in the fuel cycle, it follows that the

most significant cooling water requirement would occur in that part of the cycle

where the greatest energy consumption takes place, i.e., at the power plant.

Looking across the cycles, the fossil fuel plants all have similar water requirements that are roughly half the nuclear requirements. The similarity among fossil

fuels arises because waste heat rejection and thus cooling water needs are determined by the design of the turbines, boilers, and steam system, which are practically

identical for coal, oil, and gas. The systematic difference between LWR and fossil

power plants is due in part to lower temperatures and thus lower thermal efficiencies

5-51
TABLE 5.26A

RADIOACTIVITY RELEASES TO WATER

(Curies per Year)

Mining/Pumping

Fuel Processing

Poer Plant Operation

Totals

Fossil

Coal Oil Gas

0 0 0

0 0 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Nuclear

P WR

0.1

400

500

-1,000

0.1

400

100

~500

Mining

Millino - Fabrication

Reprocessing & Transportation

Power Plant Operation

Totals

Basis: 1000 MWe Power Plant

75% Capacity Factor

5-52
in LWRs. The fossil fuel plants also have an advantage in waste heat dissipation

due to the fact that exhaust gases carry off heat un the stack.

5.7 ABATEMENT COSTS

Section 5.2 presented estimates of 1980 conventional energy costs for the alternative energy systems. Effort was made to exclude abatement costs, although it is

frequently difficult to delineate clearly abatement measures or devices from the

fundamental process or machine in question.

The purposes of this section are to present estimates of certain abatement costs,

to compare these additional costs to the base conventional costs, and to compare

the abatement costs of the competing energy systems (1980 dollars).

Abatement measures and devices may occur in a supporting fuel cycle as well as at

the power plant. The abatement measures and devices considered here are those for

which technical and economic data was available: cooling towers to dispose of

waste heat at a power plant, SO2 removal from coal-fired power plant stack cases,

near-zero radwaste treatment systems for light water reactors, desulfurization of

residual fuel oil, and reclamation of surface-mined land.

Tables 5.27 and 5.28 summarize the estimates of 1980 abatement costs in millinos of

dollars per year and in mills/kWhe, respectively. In each of the energy systems,

an increase in heat rate (decrease in net thermal efficiency) results from the

installation of a cooling tower. Thus, more fuel is required to produce the same

quantity of electrical energy. The economic effect of this penalty becomes more

severe as fuel prices increase.

SO2 removal from coal-fired plant stack gases incurs the dominant abatement cost

in the coal energy system. Oil desulfurization is the major source of abatement

cost in the RFO energy system. Sulfur is removed from natural gas at the processing

plant, and thus sulfur abatement is already an internalized cost. Near-zero radwaste systems add little to the LWR system energy costs.

Tables 5.27 and 5.28 show that the coal energy system suffers the largest abatement

cost, followed by the RFO energy system and the natural gas system. The light water

reactor systems suffer the lowest abatement costs.

5-53
TABLE 5.27

ANNUALIZED ABATEMENT COSTS FOR 1000-MWe PLANTS

($10 6 /year)

Type of Plant

Abatement Measure Coal R 0 Gas PWR BWR

.Cooling Towers

Additional capital 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.20 1.20

Additional 0&M b 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.45 0.45

Additional fuel 1.28 3.60 4.74 0.78 0.78

Rounded Total .~~ 7 2.4 2-

.SO2 Removala

Additional capital 11.25 - - -

Additional O&M 13.04 - - -

Additional fuelC 1.60 - - -

Rounded Total 2 ~ - - -

Near-zero Radwaste

Additional capital - - - 1.2 1.8

.RFO Desulfurization d

Additional fuel cost - 4.6-9.2 - -

.Surface Mine Reclamation

Additional fuel cost 0.1-1.0 - - -

TOTALS 29.6-30.5 10.5-15.1 7.1 3.6 4.2

a 15% fixed charge rate and 75% plant capacity factor.

bFeat rate increase of 2%.

cHeat rate increase of 2.5%.

d 6 . 3 x 106 BTU/barrel 0 504/barrel and $1/barrel.

e0 .3 acres/l000 tons coal and 50% production from strip mines @ $300/acre and

$3000/acre.

5-54
TABLE 5.28

ABATEMENT COSTS

(mills/kWhe)

Abatement Measure

Cooling Towers

SO2 Removal

Near-Zero Radwaste

RFO Desulfurization

Surface Mine Reclamation

TOTALS

Conventional Cost

Conventional + Abatement

Abatement Fraction

Type of Plant

Type of Plant

Coal RFO Gas PWR BWR

0.55 0.90 1.07 0.37 0.37

3.94 - - -

- - - 0.18 0.27

- 0.7-1.4 - -

0.04-0.4 - - -

4.53-4.89

18.4

23.1

0.2

1.60-2.30

35.2

37.2

0.05

1.07

43.0

44.1

0.02

0.55

18.5

19.1

0.03

0.64

18.5

19.1

0.03

5-55

u