ML19296A755
| ML19296A755 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1980 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19296A753 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002190007 | |
| Download: ML19296A755 (30) | |
Text
4 DOCKET NO:
70-1257 LICENSEE:
Exxon Nuclear Company FACILITY:
Uranium Oxide Fuel Plant, Richland, Washington
SUBJECT:
' RADIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RESULTING FROM ROUTINE OPERATION - DEMONSTRATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH 40 CFR 190 I.
Background
The EPA uranium fuel cycle standard specified in 40 CFR 190 limits the total dose to an individual in the general public from radiation and radioactivity (radon and its daughters excepted) associated with routine operation of the nuclear fuel cycle facilities to 25 mrem /yr to the total body or any organ and 75 mrem /yr to the thyroid.
The standard became effective on December 1, 1979, for all the uranium fuel fabrication plants used for production of LWR fuel.
The Exxon Nuclear Company (the licensee) plant is an existing uranium oxide fuel facility subject to the EPA standard.
Using current plant operation, emission and monitoring data, the NRC staff, has carried out a radiological assessment to determine if the Exxon plant is meeting the EPA standard for fuel cycle facilities.
As a part of this assessment, an action level will be established on the rate of effluent release from routine operation of the facility to provide assurance that the licensee will comply with the standard during future plant operation.
2 II.
Discussion A.
Description of the Facility 1.
Plant Ooeration - General Exxon Nuclear Company owns and operates a plant for the production of light water reactor fuel assemblies which is located in the City of Richland in Benton County, Washington.
The plant has a nominal capacity of about 300 MTU per year.
2.
Chemical Process The raw material to the plant is uranium enriched up to 5 percent U-235 in the form of uranium hexafluoride (UF ) in 2.5 ton cyl-6 inders.
The UF is vaporized from the cylinders by electric 6
(air) heating in closed chambers and hydrolyzed to uranyl fluor-ide (UO F ) and hydrofluoric acid (HF) by piping the UF into 22 6
water. Ammonium diuranate (ADU) is precipitated from the UO F 22 by the addition of ammonium hydroxide.
Following precipitation, the AOU is pumped to a continuous centrifuge for liquid solids separation.
The separated ADU is conveyed to a closed dryer and then to a reduction furnace where it is converted to uranium dioxide (00 ).
The liquid effluent from the ADU centrifuge is 2
collected and pumped to a polishing centrifuge.
O '
3 3.
Mechanical Processing The UO2 p wder is blended, milled, mechanically treated and pressed into pellets.
The pellets are sintered in a reducing atmosphere, ground to desired diameter and welded into Zircaloy tubes.
The loaded fuel rods are assembled into bundles, tested and packaged for shipment.
B.
Waste. nfinement and Effluent Controls 1.
Gaseous Effluents With one exception, all building air and process off gases are passed through two stages of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters in series before release through stacks.
The single gaseous effluent exception is the burner exhaust from the calciner furnace.
Calciner burner off gas consisting of propane combustion products is discharged directly to the atmosphere because it is in a closed system isolated from the process with no potential for release of radionuclides.
The HEPA filters are certified by the manufacturer to be at least 99.97% efficient for the removal of 0.3 micron particles.
Also, Exxon Nuclear requires that each HEPA filter to be used in Exxon Nuclear faci-ities be inspected and tested locally; HEPA filters are tested with " hot" 0.0.P. (0.3 micron particles) and certified.to be at
t 4
least 99.97% efficient for the removal of such particles.
Further, all final HEPA filter installations are in place tested with " cold" 0.0.P. (0.8 micron particles) and certified to be at least 99.95% efficient for the removal of such particles prior to routine use.
Liquid scrubber systems followed by dryers are used to remove the corrosive off gases from the UF conversion process and the 6
acid etch tank ventilation exhaust and to protect the HEPA fil-ters.
In-line air samplers are used to sample exhaust air between the first and second filters as a continuing monitor of the integrity of the initial filter units.
Stack exhaust is sampled continuously and anlyzed weekly for uranium.
There are three exhaust ventilation systems:
(a) UF - UO conversion process area ventilation system:
6 2
Effluent ammonium fluoride and the potential for UF C "~
6 tamination requires that the system be constantly exhausted and filtered in alosed system.
Calciner exhaust is liquid scrubbed to remove fluoride and ammonia, combined with other conversion system exhaust and passed through a second liquid scrubber, then to a dryer and on through two stages of HEPA filters before being discharged from a stack extend-ing about 20 feet above the roof (50 feet cbove ground).
5 The exhaust s entilation stream is continuously sampled for both uranium and fluoride emission control and analyzed weekly.
(b) Etch Tank and Room Exhaust Ventilation System:
Corrosive fumes from the ruel rod etch tank and stop bath tank are passed through a liquid caustic scrubber to remove the acid fumes.
The air is then passed through two stages of HEPA filters where it is continuously sampled before being released via a stack separate from the conversion system stack but common tn the system described below.
(c) Exhaust ventilation from general process areas:
All remaining process area ventilation is exhausted through at least two stages of HEPA filters.
Stack exhaust air is continuously sampled for weekly uranium analysis.
2.
Liquid Effluents Liquid wastes are released from the plant in accordance with the physical and procedural controls described !n the following sec-tions.
All released liquid wastes discharge to the EN-city Lift Station, where the total combined liquid effluent from the plant is collected and pumped to the Richland Municipal Sewerage.
System.
The combined liquid effluent is continuously sampled as
6 it is pumped to the municipal sewerage system, and the composited samples are analyzed for pertinent radioactive materials and chemicals at least daily (Monday through Friday).
Any increase in the radioactive material content of the composited samples statistically above background is cause to cease operations, to investigate and to take appropriate corrective action.
Samples of site supply water are analyzed at least weekly to provide background values.
(a) Sanitary Wastes Sanitary wastes, including drains from showers in the change rooms, discharge to a sanitary sewer system leading directly to the EN-City Li f t Station.
(b) Process Cooling Waste Water Process cooling waters are isolated from the actual process atmospheres by double physical barriers.
Process cooling water is discharged from the U0 building g
via a building sewer system separate from both sanitary and process chemical waste sewers.
These process cooling waste waters may be disposed of by any one of the following methods:
7 (1) Discharged to the municipal sewerage system; (ii) Used to irrigate Exxon Nuclear property; or (iii) discharged to the Exxon Nuclear Process Chemical Waste Storage Lagoon System to maintain a minimum liquid level.
(c) Process Liquid Wastes All uranium-contaminated liquid wastes (including personnel and equipment decontamination solutions) and high level chemical liquid wastes are discharged to the onsite Process Chemical Waste Storage Lagoon System.
The Lagoon System has been sized to contain all such wastes produced, allowing for solar evaporation.
Exxon Nuclear is investigating methods of possible uranium recovery from the contents of these lagoons.
In any event, the ultimate disposition of sludges and solids removed from these lagoons will be as solid radioactive waste buried at an appropriately licensed facility.
The Washington State Department of Ecology has approved Exxon Nuclear's waste management program.
8 Liquid waste streams known or suspected to contain uranium in significant quantities (i.e., > 100 ppm) are treated to reclaim uranium and reduce the residual uranium content to the lowest practical level.
The following treatment methods may be employed individually or in combination:
high effi-ciency centrifugation, filtration, and ion exchange.
Following treatment, these liquid wastes are quarantined, sampled, and samples analyzed prior to disposition.
In each instance, the volume of process chemical waste water sus-pected or known to contain uranium is determined prior to release, such that when combined with the measured uranium content, the quantities of uranium released to the Lagoon System are calculable at the point of release.
(d) Process Chemical Waste Storage Lagoon System Liner The lagoons are sealed on the bottom and all sides with an impervious liner to prevent leakage of the lagoon contents to the groundwater.
The liner consists of a double layer of impervious material separated by a layer of sand.
A system of sampling tubes is installed in the intermediate sand layer to provide sampling capability between the liner layers to permit detection of leaks in-the first barrier.
Test wells are provided around the Lagoon System to provide the capability to detect leaks penetrating both liner layers.
9 3.
Solid Wastes Solids. contaminated with radioactive materials are stored on site awaiting treatment and/or shipment.
Uranium-contaminated materials are stored in NRC-approved containers within the exclusion area.
Uranium-contaminated solid wastes which contain amounts of uranium larger than desirable to discard, are held for uranium recovery.
Solid wastes held for reprocessing are sealed and labeled.
Radioactive solid wastes are disposed of by a private waste disposal contractor who is licensed and equipped to manage such wastes.
C.
Semi-Annual Effluents Emission Data Section 40.65 of 10 CFR Part 40 requires that the licensee submit effluent monitoring reports on a semi-annual basis.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the results on the radioactivity measured in air and liquid i
effluent discharged to the environment for the past few years (1976-1979).
10 Table 1 Semi-Annual Radiological Air Effluent Releases Period Uranium Plutonium (uCi)
(uCi)
July-Dec. 1976 7.99 0.28 Jan.-June 1977 3.91 0.04 July-Dec. 1977 10.64 0.17 Jan.-June 1978 12.78 0.09 July-Dec. 1978 112.38 0.06 Jan.-June 1979 20.68 0.03
11 Table 2 Semi-Annual Radiological Liquid Effluent Releases to the Public Sewer Period Ura~nium (mci)
July-Dec. 1976 1.64 Jan.-June 1977 0.61 July-Dec. 1977 2.05 Jan.-June 1978 1.87 July-Dec. 1978 0.88 Jan.-June 1979 2.66
12 0.
Descriotion of the Site Environment Related to Assessment of the Maximum Radiological Imoact to a Nearby Residcnt The following description of the site environment provides specific information that will be used to assess the radiological impact to an individual at the nearby residence resulting from radiological efflu-ents released during normal plant operation.
General information concerning the site environment is provided in Environmental Impact l
Statements,2 issued by the Commission on March 1974 and June 1974.
1.
Site Location The Exxon Nuclear site lies just inside the northern boundary of the City of Richland in the southeastern portion of the State of Washington, and is approximately 110 miles west of the Idaho-Washington border, 180 miles south of the Canadian border, and 225 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
As shown in Figure 1, it is bordered on the north by the 559 square mile Hanford Reserva-tion. The site consists of the entire southwest quarter of Sec-tion 15, Township 10 North, Range 28 East, Willamette Meridian in Benton County.
The site coordinates are 46 22' north latitude and 119 16' west longitude.
The 160 acre site is square shaped.
The facility lies in the northwest corner of the site, and the center of the plant lies
'i --
~M O dhe-
'" w= m....--,, _,.
h_
Y f
.a, 7 k
4p
' '4
.,. i CANADA
(
\\
^^
.r MT. BAKER w t
?
.~ J VANCOUVER s
ISLAND A
SouNo
-k A^
^
+
'AI PucET p
d
'l
(
^["wa.
g fA
"~
~
i A
, h ""'
OLYMPtC MTS.
^M,3 s
y c t,,
SPOKANE w A sidU4o T O N
- f
',o o
A 4,
1 3
'h
^
[ 5E^"'E
'4 E
t.,
- 4 A
4 g.
N a
3 2
o a
Mr i a
A s
4
,3
^
^
- EPHR ATA 3
TACOMA a
o STElbCOOM k
PASCO BASIN 3
8
^
ELLENSOURG g
s.
MT. RANIE R ^
1 Q^
- OTHELLO
{
- M A
\\f EXXON e
^
9
)
YAKtMA
, E,Cd
. NUCLEAR 3
s
^
'I R ESE R VE.
SITE
/
J it
(,, /
A
^ ^^
+.
n
\\ ? ttlCW.9NO s
s, N
35CO M T. 57. HE LEN S a
,A A
MT. ADAMS PROSSER KfNr ICK WALLA WALLA HORSE HEAVEN O
i 3
"i _ yw#
^
e f
i.
(
^
3
^
MsLTON I
^
UMATILLA
{
FREEWATER ANCOUVER n,
,gte 3
A a
(
(b' \\
A i
A A
g f
3 WALLOWA ^
PORTLANo
^
OREGON 9
3
)I 3
^ MTS
^
MT. 8 4000 g
3 PLANT LOCATION IN STATE FIGURE I e<-
.s
..s.
,. ro e
14 approximately 930 feet south of Horn Rapids Road, which forms the northern boundary of the site.
The remaining site boundaries lie 410 feet to the west, 1,700 feet to the south, and 2,200 feet to the east.
The Columbia River flows southward at a point approximately 1-3/4 miles east of the facility and the Yakima River flows toward the southeast roughly 2-1/2 miles southwest of the plant.
Table 3 gives the distance from the facility to a number of offsite developments.
2.
Land and Water Uses The land use in Benton County within a five-mile radius of the Exxon Nuclear site comprises rural residential southwest of the plant, high density residential southeast of the plant, and unoccupied desert northeast of the plant.
Approximately 180 acres of land are being farmed for alfalfa east-southeast of the plant, and an additional alfalfa field of about 65 acres lies southeast of the plant.
Because the soil is salty, land close to the Exxon Nuclear plant is not well-suited for cash crops.
flowever, a number of acres of irrigated pasture supports horses, beef cattle, and a few sheep and milk cows.
It is estimated that there are a few hundred head of cattle within five miles of the plant in Benton County.
The closest herd of about 50 beef cattle is located about three miles southwest of the plant.
15 Table 3 Distances from the Plant to Offsite Developments DEVELOPMENTS DISTANCE DIRECTION Horn Rapids Rd.
930 ft.
N Stevens Drive 4600 ft.
E Industrial Plant 1 mi.
E (Battelle-Northwest)
State Route 240 2 mi.
SW Closest Farm 1 mi.
SE (Alfalfa Field)
Closest School 2-1/10 mi.
SE (Hanford School)
Closest Residence 2-1/10 mi.
SE (Sprout Rd. and Harris Ave.)
Closest Airport 3 mi.
S (Port of Benton)
Closest Hospital 4-3/4 mi.
S (Kadlec Hospital)
16 That portion of Franklin County which lies within a five-mile radius of the facility is primarily an agriculture area.
The principal crops are alfalfa, hay and potatos.
There are two commercial dairy herds in this area comprising roughly 150 cows.
There are, perhaps, an equal number of beef cattle.
The Exxon Nuclear site lies betwe m the Yakima and Columbia Rivers.
The Columbia, one of the three largest rivers in North America, is fed by snowmelt in mountains far to the north and by groundwater along its path.
The water is of good chemical and bacteriological quality and the river is used for irrigation, power generation, municipal water supplies, transportation, fishing and water sports.
3.
Diffusion Climatoloay The prevailing wind at the Exxon Nuclear site is from the southwest along the Yakima River corridor, which enters the Colum-bia Basin near the site.
Secondary direction frequency maximum are from the northwest and the southeast along the axis of the Columbia River Valley, and the lowest frequencies are from the east and northeast.
(See wind roses for Exxon Nuclear site and vicinity in Figure 2.)
c cv... u -;5r=06 9.523g.06 S.371F=ng 3 192ta66 9.749t=47 0.elet=07 3.251r=37 0.297t 4 13*
3.%%78**%
3,12et.n5 0 6tst=06 a.3'2t=06 1,279t=06 3.188t=in i.596t=07 0.318 tad 7 1.211t=e7 0.136t=0l.
la 3.23st*e5 3,935t=og m.at1E=46 9.26tt*56 3.196t=96 1.9%97-07 9.34FE=07 0.2ndt=47 0.tett=07 0.19st=0 5*
0.23*t=05
!,992!=46 f.atat=0h 3.266t=16 3.10gt=06 3.978t=07 3.a05f=af 0.216t=0F 0.taat=07 0.13 6 t =01;;
3.2aer=05 q?tt.c6 a.aler.04 9.272t=06 1,19st=at 3.800E=nt
- 3. stat =0F 0.42tf=47 S.left 07
. 130t=0 3.d41s.oS 3,155g=0g 3.7%gr=36 A.e01F=06 3,3ast.06 3.lf8t=06 0.71st=0F 0.392E*37 3.26et=4 7 0.192t=0 i
4.621F=05 9,223!=8?
n.tess.04 m.642t=06 3,se g=06 3.255t=ot 3.196F=36 3.563E 07 0.37at=v7 0.276E.0 n
3.u4ar=05 1.175 tang s.astgeen a.539 ten 6 9.lAet=06 3.198t=n6 n.st9f*07 0.s37t**7
- 0. dear =47 0.21st=0 l*01F=tS staat*'s (tut /1 a.ftaaro =tta daLutS r63a Nt!386081w3 stC=r*73)
S!5=tN7 53u"Sas!!S != *tLES
)!#!:'f0*
.5=1 t=2 tot 3=4 s.g 5=to 13 28 20-30 So==0 e4*10 187= 3!tt
- .38s6=45 3 t3Pt=0s 3.67%f=0*
9.a23F.06 S.30tE*06 1.1%7t=06 9.6s4t*e7 3.ls5t=47 0.228ter?
0.169t=0 g
- E 1.36e8=a5 a,12*t=0s e.63st=96 6.ssit.06 3,2est=06 3.ts7t=at 1.669t=07 0.328t=07 9.dtit-w?
0.tz6t=0f1
.t 3.ts7Fa05
,125t=e5 c.6ttt.06 s.3577=o6 3.27qt=06 3.te2t=06 3.5922-07 3.306t=07 0.20=t=07 3.tSOE.0
!*f 2.2Aar=05
- t33t=as 6 592t=06 n.317E*06 3.225t=06 3.186t=66 3.s75t.07 0.258t=07 0.166t=07 0.122F 0 g
t 0.2 3 t F =0 5 9,P35t=0$
e.409t=46 e.257t=06 3.163t=0n 3.9 set-e7 3.336t=07 0.20st=07 0.11 E 97 4.995t=0
!3C 3.29at=05 3,492t=86 3.astt=46 P.275t.04 0.19at.06 3.102t=96 e.at7t=07 0.220t=07
- 0. lait =d7 0.106t*0 St 0.3tta=05 S glit=0g a.5aat=06 0.3aff=06 1.246t=0h 3 127t=at 0.5215 07 0.276t=47 0.182tev7 6.134t.0 g
ISE C.1868=05 1,159t.e5 f.6A9F=0h c.s3tt.06 S. le g t -c) 3.158t=06 3.651t=67 0.346t=0F S.22et=07 6.16et=0 1
3.eter.05 s t%nt=0%
e.737F=an 0.867F=ct e.33tr.06 0 172t=at 0.799t.07 0.379t=07 0.25ttaw?
0.tS5t=0 g
IS=
0.392t=05 3,126t=0g 0 6 tat =0h a.392F=06 1.2?et=06
- 1. test *S6 1.596F=07 3.518t=07 0.211t=07 0.lb6t=0 58 2.26e'*05 3,ea5t=06 0.a6tE.06 a.2'5t.86
- g2 tat =04 0.108t=66 n.seet.of 0.2391 07 0.154t=v7 0.lt7t=0
- Sa 0.23*t=05 3,453t=en e.esat as n.266t=n6
- s. leet.06 3.97'E=07 4.s05t=r7 0.216t=of 0.lest=47 0.106t=0
,L 3.2498 05 3,tnat=0%
- .509t=on 9.323E=86 9,23at=4h 3.Ittt=06 S.692t*07 0.263t=47 3.17.t.07 0.124t*0 0.e13t=35 1,1%5t.0g 9.7gsr=0g a.893t*06 3,lasF.66 S.178t*06 S.735t=07 9.392t=07 0 26at.47 8.192t=0 3.5stt=05 3.193t.05 a.89tt*86 0.602t.46 3.etot-ot 3.27tt=06 3.9tte=67 0.se9t=07 3.32.g.07 g.23st.0
- a
- 0. nest =0s 3:173t.05 a.ssar.a6 a.5 3r.06 3.' 3 a S t = 0 6 3.toet=06 3.82ar=0F
- 0. 37t=ar 9.2.at=47 0.2:st=0 m
A.
Figure 3 Exxon Plant and the Richland Area hu3N R?J':DS T R;A P.GLE t
N TO VERNITA
~
70 WEST Bril DG E RICHLAND I
JERSEY NUCLEAR CO.
RICHtAND FUELS PLANT A.E.C.
R.R.
pggpong
[ CITY
.BY-PASS HIGHW AY p ------
n
/
A 4
FIRE d
R
/
GTA.
y F
l EJ a
[
CI WRicHT sV E.
b g
6 2
0 4
q$>
l
. - - ' - - - - - c A. E. C.
180 0 REA A.E.C. RESEriVED LAND M
r HOSPITAL l
I
-'JE [OT l
l 3 MQtil g j' '
^~
- [gj" [._
,1-u*
CT.
3.r.T.
D j
J. A. J oP;E FaREv i ((
3
_ ' U 'i' 0
[ [
~
apO
/
WES TE ft N N
03NIENING 7
h lCRTEC J n.
51 A.
al AT TE LLE-NORTHWEST
_C f. O.
WASH.WAY
(-
g-- mm
~O
/
L ADO N AT CR W i
I i
',[
\\
t f,
r,z s.
N ' * S
'^u RESERV AT IO N l[,g
^"E^
e ar OF y
H t.f?D 65 l AVE.
' 0
' ~ ~ ~ - - - -
d
- C&TY t/ATER y
ff TRE ATL".iN T FL ANT a
8
/
4 vE R
O i
2 3
4 5
6
{.,
1._-,...-_o..,-m 8-
---~..---.--~q 1-
..m.-.
.q I/4 1/2 3/4 RICHLAND A sCA<E in o,t E.
A.N D JERSEY NUCL FU ELS PL;
21 other existing residents who are much farther away from the plant, the staff concluded that at the present time the nearest resident will encounter the maximum impact from the Exxon plant releases.
E.
Environmental Imoact from Routine Plant Ooeration 1.
Methodolooy for Radiolooical Assessment The general approach for the demonstration of compliance with the dose limits of the standard is as follows:
(i) Monitoring of effluents released from plant operation to determine the quantities of radionuclides discharged into the environment.
(ii) Utilizing environmental dose models developed by NRC to estimate dose commitment rates from all significant pathways.
It is only when there is a potential of noncompliance with the EPA standard that a detailed environmental monitoring program is required to supplement such effluent monitoring.
The above approactes to deponstrate compliance are in conformity with the recommendations given by EPA in their Final Environmental Statement (FES) for Environmental Radiation Protection Require-ments for Normal Operations of Activiti.es in the Uranium Fuel Cycle.6
22 The source terms (radioactivity release rates) from Exxon plant operations are actual measured values.
The atmospheric disper-sion model is based on Reg. Guide 1.111.4 Other environmental pathways and models are based on Reg. Guide 1.109 with the exception that for inhalation the dose conversion factors for various organs are generated using the ICRP Task Group Lung Model.0 I The dose conversion factors from the Task Group Lung Model depend on particle size and solubility of radioactive compounds released.
If this information is not available from the licensee, a reasonable and conservative approach is applied for the radiological impact assessment.
For example, the particle size is assumed to have an average diameter (AMAD) of 0.3 um for effluents passing through HEPA filters and 1.0 um AMAD for particles realeased without HEPA filtration; the particles released are conservativeiy assumed to be entirely in the insoluble form to evaluate the maximum lung dose in the inhalation calculation and 100% in the soluble form to evaluate the maximum bone dose for the ingestion calculation.
It is only when such conservative assumptions are critical to the standards (i.e., calculated doses approach or exceed 25 mrem /yr) that the licer.see is required to conduct studies to obtain such data on particle characteristics to allow a more realistic assessment.
23 2.
Maximum Individual Dose The radiological impacts are assessed by calculating the maximum individual dose to the closest resident, who is living about two miles southeast of the Exxon plant.
Except where specified, the term " dose" as referred to in this assessment is actually a 50 year dose commitment, that is, the total dose from one year of intake of radionuclides to the reference organ that will accrue during the remaining lifetime (50 years) of the individual.
Table 1 summarizes the semi-annual release rates of radiological air effluents which can be used as the source term for the radiological assessment.
The release rates are measured values.
The staff used the most current release rates, i.e., 133.06 uc of U/yr and 0.09 uc Pu/yr from July 1978 to June 1979 as the annual source terms for calculation.
It is also conservatively asssumed, as noted above that the uranium and plutonium compounds 21 eased are in the insoluble form for the inhalation calculation and in the soluble form for the ingestion calculation.
The nuclides are conservatively assumed to be U-234 and Pu-238, which have the higher dose conversion factors.
For liquid e#*1uents discharged into the public sewer, it is conservatively assumed that the uranium is in soluble form and after treatment in the sewage plant the soluble uranium, a total of 3.54 mC/yr, will eventually be released into the Columbia River.
24 For air effluents released into the environment, the pathways considered in the individual dose estimation include (a) direct irradiation, (b) direct inhalation, (c) inhalation from resuspen-sian and (d) ingestion pathways (vegetation, meat, milk) due to airborne deposit.
For liquid effluent releases, the pathways include (a) potable water, (b) aquatic food (fish), (c) shoreline deposit, and (d) ingestion of food product due to land irrigated by contaminated water.
The models and various assumptions involved in the foregoing environmental pathways are described in detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Table 5 summarizes the results of the estimated maximum annual doses to the nearest resident from airborne and liquid effluents.
As shown in Table 5, the critical pathway is that from inhalation, which results in a calculated maximum dose to the lung of 0.0123 mrem /yr.
The tabulated calculations ceume a normal adul t.
The staff also considered individuals of other ages.
The critical individual would be an infant (0-1 age) in the inhalation pathway, the lung dose to the infant would be increased by a factor of about 1.8, compared to the adults, i.e., 0.022 mrem /yr,I2 which represents 0.09% of the environ-mental standard.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the maximum annual lung dose is well below the 25 mrem annual limit specified in 40 CFR Part 190 and there is no adverse effect due to the release of effluents from the normal operation of the Exxon plant.
e
25 Table 5 Estimated Maximum Jose to the Nearest Resident from Airborne and Liquid Effluents Pathways Oraan Dose (millirems)
Total-Body Lung Bone A.
Air Effluents 1.
Direct Irradiation 2.5x10 9
-4
-2 2.
Direct Inhalation **
6.4x10 1.2x10 1.0x10 3.
Inhalation due to
-7
-6 Resuspension***
1.3x10 2.5x10'4 2.1x10 4.
Ingestion due to Airborne Deposit a.
Vegetation
- 5.8x10[l 9.0x10 5 b.
Meat 2.7x10 4.4x10
-8
-6 c.
Milk 8.5x10 1.4x10 B.
Liouid Effluents 6
1.
Potable Water 1.1x107 1.8x10 6 2.
Aquatic Food (Fish) 6.2x10 j4 1.0x10 3.
Shoreline Deposit 5.8x10 4.
Ingestion of Food Product due to Land Irrigated by
-4
-3 Contaminated Water 1.4x10 2.2x10 Total (millirem /yr) 1.4x10'4 1.23x10 2.3x10
-2
-3 Include non-leafy and leafy vegetables; since site specific information is not available, the staff assumed 76% food product consumed by nearest resident as recommended in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
- Assume 80% residence time.
- Resuspension factor used = 10'9 m'I
26 The staff also considered the cumulative impact of the activi-ties at the Exxon Nuclear site.
There is a centrifuge uranium enrichment R&D facility at the Exxon site and Exxon is proposing to construct a laser uranium enrichment R&D facility (Experimental Testing Facility) at the Exxon Nuclear site.13 In the Environ-mental Impact Appraisal (EIA) prepared by NRC,13 it was estimated that the air effluent release due to operation of the proposed facility would not be greater than 100 uc/yr.
This will increase the lung dose for the critical individual to about 0.044 mrem /yr, however, this is still well below the 25 mrem limit specified in 40 CFR 190.
F.
Conclusion and Recommendation The normal operation of the Exxon fuel fabrication plant results in the release of a minute quantity of radioactivity into the environ-ment.
Based on current operation, the annual release of radioactivity includes 133.06 uC of U and 0.09 uC of Pu in air effluents and 3.54 mC of U in liquid effluents.
The nearest resident is located about two miles southeast of the plant site.
The annual lung dose to the critical individual at the nearest residence is estimated under conservative assumptions to be 0.022 mrem /yr, which represents only 0.09% of the 25 mrem limit of the EPA standard as specified in 40 CFR 190. The staff therefore concludes there is no adverse impact from the release of radioactivity due to routine operation of Exxon's fuel fabrication plant.
a 27 The staff recognized that the nearest actual resident located at two miles southeast of the plant does not represent the point of maximum impact from the Exxon plant operation.
The staff estimated that the maximum impact in the unrestricted area would be to an individual who is about 126 meters north-northwest of the site.
The
~4 x/Q at this location is 2.1x10 sec/m.
If a critical individual were to live at this location in the future, the annual lung dose would be estimated to be 6.4 mrem /yr based on the current release rates from the Exxon operation.
This dose is still well below the 25 mrem limit.
The staff estimated that the release rate for airborne effluents would have to be increased to about 520 uC/yr in order to exceed the 25 mrem limit for an individual living near the area of maximum impact.
Since the liquid effluent is not the major pathway in individual dose calculation, and the pluto-nium facility is not in operation, the staff therefore proposes an action level on the release of airborne effluents at 50 uC of U per quarter release, which is equivalent to an annual lung dose of about 9.5 mrem /yr to a hypothetical individual living at the fenceline.
This action level will assure that the licensee shall comply with the standards as specified in 40 CFR 190.
28 Accordingly, in order to assure compliance with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 190 and pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70, Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1227 is hereby amended to add the following conditions:
1.
If the radioactivity in plant gaseous effluents exceeds 50 pCi per calendar quarter, the licensee shall, within 30 days, prepare anu submit to the Commission a report which identifies the cause for exceeding the limit and the corrective actions to be taken by the licensee to reduce release rates.I If the parameters important to a dose assessment change, a report shall be submitted within 30 days which describes the changes in parameters and includes an estima'te of the resultant change in dose commitment.
2.
In the event that the calculated dose to any member of the public in any consecutive 12-month period is about to exceed the limits specified in 40 CFR 190.10, the licensee shall take immediate steps to reduce emissions so as to comply with 40 CFR 190.10. As provided in.40 CFR 190.11, the licensee may petition the Nuclear Regulatory Commissi' n for a variance from the requirements of 40 CFR 190.10.
o If a petition for a variance is anticipated, the licensee shall submit the request at least 90 days prior to exceeding the limits specified in 40 CFR 190.10.
I The report or petition should be submitted to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards with a copy to the Director of the Regional Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
29 REFERENCES 1.
Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Uranium 0xide Fuel Plant - Exxon Nuclear Company.
Docket NO. 70-1257, March IS74, USAEC.
Directorate of Licensing, Fuels and Materials.
2.
Final Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Mixed Oxide Fabrication Plant - Exxon Nuclear Company.
Docket No. 70-1257, June 1974, USAEC, Ofrectorate of Licensing, Fuels and Materials.
3.
" Meteorology and Atomic Energy," David H. Slade, Editor, USAEC, Division of Technical Information, pp.97-104, July 1968.
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Reg. Guide 1.111 " Methods for Estimating Atmoshperic Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors." Office of Standard Development, July 1977.
5.
Snyder, W. H., and R. E. Lawson, Jr., " Determination of a Necessary Height for a Stack Close to a Building - A Wind Tunnel Study," Atmosoheric Envir.
Vol. 10, pp. 683-691, Pergamon Press, 1976.
6.
40 CFR 190, Environmental Radiation Protection Reguirements for Normal Operations of Activities in the Uranium Fuel Cycle.
Final Environmental Statement, Vol. 1, pp. 143-146.
USEPA.
November 1976.
7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.
March 1976.
8.
Task Group of Committee 2, ICRP, Task Group on Lung Dynamics for Committee II of the ICRP, Health Physics, Vol. 12, 1966.
9.
Task Group of Committee 2, ICRP, The Metabolism of Comoounds of Plutonium and Other Actinides, ICRP Publication 19, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1972.
--- 10.
J. R. Houston, D. L. Strengh, and E. C. Watson, DACRIN - A Computer Program for Calculating Organ Dose from Acute or Chronic Radionuclides Inhalation, BNWL 389, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 1975.
11.
M. H. Momeni, Y. Yuan and A. J. Zielen, The Uranium Dispersion and Dosimetry (UDAD) Code, NUREG/CR-0553, ANL/ES-72, Version IX, 1979.
12.
NUREG-0712, Age-Specific Radiation Oose Committment Factors for a One-Year Chronic Intake, BNWL, Novamber 1977.
30 13.
Environmental Impact Appraisal Regarding the Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
Experimental Test Facility, Richland, Washington.
Docket No. 70-2219.
USNRC/NR-FM-010, October 4, 1976.
-