The Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy's Fuel Cycle Technologies (FCT) program is preparing to evaluate several proposed nuclear fuel cycle options to help guide and prioritize FCT research and development. Metrics are being developed to assess performance against nine evaluation criteria that will be used to assess relevant impacts resulting from all phases of the fuel cycle. This report addresses the impacts of the front-end of the nuclear fuel cycle (FEFC), including land, water, and energy use; CO2 emissions; occupational, public, and ecological health and safety; and financial cost impacts.

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States nor any agency thereof, nor any of 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. Reference herein to any speafic commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

The United States Department of Energy's (DOE) Center for Risk Excellence has been charged with developing the “Risk Plan” for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation's (Richland, WA) Groundwater/Vadose Zone Integration Project. The goal of the Integration Project is to assure the protection of water resources, the Columbia River environment, river-dependent life, and users of the Columbia River resources. Credible data and predictive analytical tools are needed to assess impacts associated with the remedial options proposed by DOE as the Department engages with regulators, Tribal Nations, and stakeholders in making cleanup decisions. Cultural risk impact assessment can be defined as part of a quality of life assessment--an assessment of the quality of our human health and environmental health. Cultural risk assessments should gauge how human health and environmental risks impact the cultures we live in and that give our lives meaning. We are making strides in the human health and ecological risk assessments that are standard to the current remediation process, but we are less clear on how to assess cultural impacts. However, to comprehensively evaluate and address the risks resulting from past and future DOE operations, we must consider the effects to cultural endpoints. To do less could be an unethical exercise of our responsibilities to assess and manage risk.

No abstract

2-13 3.1 Average 137Csconcentration in surface sediment grabs within each reach ... 3-7 3.2 Average 6°Co concentration in surface sediment grabs within each reach ... 3-9 e 3.3 Average concentrations of arsenic and zinc for cores sampling sites ....... 3-10 3.4 Average concentrations of beryllium and cadmium for cores sampling sites ..