Table V-1.-Statistical Summary of U.S. Nuclear Reactors as of December 31, 1982 'A nuclear power facility designed, constructed, and operated for more than one purpose. Possible purposes include: generation of electricity, production of nuclear materials, and process heat applications including desalting. size. A facility designed, engineered, constructed, and operated to test the technical feasibility of a concept or to provide the technical basis for a similar type nuclear power plant in a large A reactor having (1) a thermal power level exceeding 10,000 kW; (2) test loops or experimental facilities within, or in proximity to, the core; and (3) the use of nuclear radiation for testing the life or performance of reactor components as its major function. "A reactor having a relatively high thermal power level (5000 kW or more) but not classed as a general irradiation test reactor. ⚫ A reactor associated with a nuclear safety research or engineering-scale test program conducted for the purpose of developing basic design information or demonstrating safety characteristics. "A reactor -excluding that located at a university--whose nuclear radiations are used primarily as a research tool for basic or applied research, and whose thermal power level is less than 5000 kW. It may include facilities for testing reactor materials. A reactor located at a university and usually operated for the primary purpose of training in the operation and utilization of reactors and for instruction in reactor theory and performance. Source: U.S. Department of Energy. 1983. Nuclear Reactors Built, Being Built, or Planned in the United States as of December 31, 1982. DOE/TIC-8200-R47, U.S. DOE Technical Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, p. 3. References and Footnotes 'As this report was being prepared for publication, the U.S. Department of the Navy published the "Final Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants," dated May 1984. The abstract of the report is: This statement describes two methods for permanent disposal of decommissioned, defueled reactor plants: land disposal by burial at exisiting Federal sites and deep sea diposal. The "no action" alternative of long-term protective storage prior to permanent disposal at some time in the future is also discussed. Based upon the research work performed in support of this effort, and review of the public comments received, the Navy considers that permanent disposal can be conducted in an environmentally safe manner. Largely as a result of the highly uncertain regulatory status of sea disposal, the Navy considers land burial at existing Federal sites to be the preferred alternative. The "no action" alternative would only delay the decision for permanent disposal and would result in increased costs without significantly changing the environmental impact. 2 U.S. Department of the Navy. 1982. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Washington D.C., p. S-1—S-16, 1-7. A naval vessel that no longer has sufficient military value to justify its maintenance can be placed in temporary protective storage until such time as its permanent disposition is determined. Should that vessel be a nuclear submarine, defueling occurs in which the nuclear fuel is removed from the submarine's reactor pressure vessel. Although this process removes most of the submarine's radioactivity, the irradiated reactor pressure vessel and metal structure remain. Four submarines have been decommissioned and await disposal in naval shipyards: TRITON, HALIBUT, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, and THEODORE ROOSEVELT. A fifth, the NAUTILUS, has been decommissioned and designated an historic ship. These ships may remain in protective storage for an indefinite time without hazard to personnel or the environment. The Navy predicts that the total maximum release from all significant radionuclides from one submarine would be 0.65 curies per year, and that this would occur after 100 years. The total amount released would be 183.9 curies, as indicated in Table 4-4 of the DEIS. Ibid., p. S-12, 1-6—1-7. Of the radioactive material that remains in the submarine, 99.9 percent is an integral part of the corrosion-resistant alloy forming the plant components. The predominant nuclide present is cobalt60, whose half life is 5.26 years. In 52.6 years cobalt-60 activity is reduced by a factor of 1024. In all, there are 16 significant radionuclides present with an initial total radioactivity of 62,000 curies. This radioactivity would be contained within the reactor pressure vessel, a steel container several inches thick and which is sealed. Because of the delay effect, most of the radioactive nuclides within the metal matrix would decay to stable atoms before corrosion release occurred. Those nuclides with long half-lives-nickel59 (80,000 years) and nickel-63 (92 years)-represent the principal threat of release into the marine environment. A table of comparable radiation exposure for conservative estimates of the Navy's options shows: According to the Navy's DEIS, the annual radiation level due to the disposal of all submarines to the most exposed individual would be 3 x 103 mrem per year. In an extreme occurrence, in which the reactor compartment and reactor vessel provided no containment, the maximum annual exposure would be 6 x 102 mrem per year. The DEIS states that minimal effects on sea life would be anticipated since very low external radiation is anticipated and there is limited potential for internal exposure—mainly ingestion of sediment. 15 Ibid., p. 2-14. 16 U.S. General Accounting Office. 1981. Hazards of Past LowLevel Radioactive Waste Ocean Dumping Have Been Over-Emphasized. Report EMD-8209, Washington, D.C. (As quoted in U.S. Department of the Navy's DEIS, p. 2-14.) 17 Ibid., p. 2-15. A yearly cost of $90,000 per year per ship is required to maintain nuclear submarines at inactive ship facilities. After 20 years of waterborne storage, the ship would require dry-docking for inspection and maintenance, which adds additional costs. 18 Center for Law and Social Policy and the Oceanic Society. 1983. Joint Comments of Environmental And Other Citizen Organizations in Response to the Department of Navy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants, hereafter referred to as Joint Comments, Washington D.C., p. i. The coalition is composed of the following organizations: American Cetacean Society, Ban Ocean Nuclear Dumping, CAN-Disarm, Center for Environmental Education, Clean Water Action Project, Committee to Bridge the Gap, Critical Mass Energy Project, Environmental Defense Fund, Farallon Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater Inc., National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Free Pacific, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Ocean Education Project, Oceanic Society, Palmetto Alliance Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Sierra Club, Southwest Research and Information Center, Union of Concerned Scientists, United Methodist Church Joint Law of the Sea Project, United Methodist General Board of Church and Society, and the Wilderness Society. The Coalition concludes with the following observations (p. 15-50): 1. The consequences of delay are not significant in light of the two year moratorium recently placed on radioactive waste ocean dumping by Congress in the amendments to the Ocean Dumping Act. 2. The present state of information regarding ocean disposal is not well developed. 3. The U.S. needs to conduct research and studies to determine the effects of ocean disposal of radioactive waste. 4. To correct the deficiencies in the DEIS a supplemental draft EIS must be prepared with its preparation awaiting the accumulation of relevant data. A final concern by the Coalition is that without a delay to undertake needed research, the Navy's EIS will run the very likely risk of illegally serving "as a pro forma ritual preceding a predetermined result." " Alberico, Pasquale A. 1983. Cover letter of June 29, 1983, accompanying the "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments Pertaining to U.S. Navy Draft Environmental Impact Statement On the Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Naval Submarine Reactor Plants." 20 FUSRAP is one of four programs initiated by the Department of Energy to assess national sites that might require remedial action to restore the site to its original condition, or nearly so. The radioactive wastes from these sites normally will have very low activity level from residues of natural radionuclides. The FUSRAP sites are located primarily in the Eastern U.S., and at the time of their use were active industrial areas convenient for the storage and processing of imported ores and other radioactive materials. From: U.S. Department of Energy. 1983. Spent Fuel and Radioactive Waste Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics. DOE/NE0017/2, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy and Assistant Secretary for Defense Programs, Washington, D.C., p. 190-218. 21 Kupferman, S.L., D.R. Anderson, L.H. Brush, L.S. Gomez, J.C. Laul, and L.E. Shephard. 1982. Ocean FUSRAP: Feasibility of Ocean Disposal of Materials from the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). Paper delivered at Waste Management '82, Tucson, Arizona. 22 Dobies, Ronald S. 1983. Remarks to the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere on Middlesex Borough LowLevel Radioactive Waste. Presentation (April 13) before the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Washington, D.C. Mr. Dobies is Mayor of Middlesex Borough, New Jersey. Middlesex Borough, about 4 square miles in area, is situated in the northeastern corner of Middlesex County, New Jersey; about 33 miles from New York City and 60 miles from Philadelphia. At its southern tip, adjacent to Piscataway Township, lies the Middlesex Sampling Plant. 23 Kupferman, op. cit., p. 3-4. 24 Baublitz, Jack. 1984. Personal Communication. Director, Division of Remedial Action Projects, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. 25 Cohen, Ronald. 1984. Personal Communication. Health Officer, Middle Brook Regional Health Commission, Middlesex, New Jersey. 26 Baublitz, op. cit. 27 Kupferman, op. cit., p. 9. 28 Ibid., p. 10-11. 29 Ibid., p.12. The price difference is due mainly to the cost of the surplus ship hulls. 30 Kupferman, S.L., D.R. Anderson, L.H. Brush, L.S. Gomez, and L.E. Shephard. 1982. FODOCS Annual Report, March 1-September 30, 1981. SAND 82-0292, Albuquerque, New Mexico. "Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Subseabed Disposal Program Plan, Vol. I, Overview, Document SAND 80-0007/I, Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 11. The Program is divided into four phases: (1) development of historical data, (2) determination of technical and environmental feasibility based on oceanographic and effects data, (3) determination of engineering feasibility, and (4) demonstration of capability. The Program is based on four assumptions: 1. A definable system of natural barriers exists which will provide the required containment of waste constituents. 2. A system of manmade barriers can be constructed such that the integrity of the waste form can be ensured for the duration of the credible heat life of the canister. 3. The total time of containment by both the above systems will at least be of magnitude greater than the half-lives of the radionuclides of interest. 4. Since the required isolation period is so long, the attributes of each component of the barrier system must be adequately known. From: Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Subseabed Disposal Program Annual Report January to December 1978. Vol. 1, Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 1. 32 Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Subseabed Disposal Program Annual Report, January to December 1980. Volume 1. Summary. SAND-1095, Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 11. "Sandia National Laboratory. 1980. Subseabed Disposal Program Plan. Volume 1. Overview. SAND 80-0007/11, Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 12. 34 Ibid., p. 8-9. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid., p. 9 37 Sandia National Laboratories, SAND-1095, p. 10. 38 Sandia National Laboratories. 1980. Subseabed Disposal Program Annual Report, January to December 1980. Vol. 1. Summary. Albuquerque, New Mexico, p. 13. The total area of the ocean is 361 million km2, or 70 percent of the Earth's surface. 39 Sandia National Laboratories. 1982. Seventh International NEA/Seabed Working Group Meeting, La Jolla, California, March 15-19, 1982. SAND 82-0460, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NEA Seabed/Working Group has divided its efforts into several tasks: system analysis, site selection, biology, physical oceanography, sediment and rock studies, waste form and canister, and engineering studies. These are handled through Task Groups supervised by an Executive Committee. 40 A summary of the potential for disposal of nuclear reactors is contained in "A Long-Term Problem for the Nuclear Industry," 22 January 1982, Science 215:376-379. |