ML19312D448

Environ Rept for Facility

ML19312D448
Person / Time
Site:	Plum Brook File:National Aeronautics and Space Administration icon.png
Issue date:	02/29/1980
From:	NATIONAL AERONAUTICS & SPACE ADMINISTRATION
To:
Shared Package
ML19312D438	List: ML19312D437 ML19312D444 ML19312D448
References
ENVR-800229, NUDOCS 8003240419
Download: ML19312D448 (100)

Text

IO Copy Na.

2-I I

NASA-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center I

I I

f l

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT g

Plum Brook Mock-Up Reactor l

Dismantling VI FEBRUARY 1980 I

I ai" goL i

I g'

I c;D

I 2

Environmental Report PBRF Mock-Up Reactor Dismantilng TABLE OF CONTENTS

'l.

SUMMARY

7 II.-

BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

11 A.

Facility History B.

MUR and PBR Status.

13 C.

Description of the MUR 15

[

D.

Description of PBRF 17 E.

Description of Plum Brook-Station.

20 F.

Description of PBS Environs.

22 G.

Calculated Radioactivity Inventory for the MUR 26 i

Ill. DISMANTLING OPERATIONS.

29 j

A.

Responsibilities 29 B.

Description of Dismantling Activities 32 4

C.

Safety Aspects of Dismantling Activities 38 Ig

!g D.

JSite Conditions upon Completion of the i

Dismantling Operations 45 E.

Radioactive Limits After Dismantling.

45 IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 51

.A.

Radiological Impact 51 l

B.

Non-radiological Impact 57 C.

Environmental Control Program 66 I

D.

Environmental Surveillance Program.

67 E.

Summary of Envi ronmental Impact 70

- I V.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 72 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO DISMANTLING 74 I

i Vll. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND

~

LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 76 Vill.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES 78 IX.

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

79 I

1 LI I

I I

I

,I 1'

l I

I

I 4

I-REFERENCES l.

Dismantling Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility, i

-2.

An Evaluation of the Options for Furtt er Decommissioning of the Plum Brook Reactor Facility, July, 1978. Teledyne-Isotopes, Inc.

.I 3

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Of fice of Standards Development, Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes, NUREG-0170, Vol. I; December, 1977 4.

Environmental Report for the Plum Brook Recctor Facility.

I_

5 Internal Memorandum to NASA LeRC huclear Support Branch f rom Reactor Physics Section. Subj ect: Activity of PflR and MUR in Standby Condition, April 3,~1973 6.

Comprehensive Development Plan for the Erie Region, August, 1970 -- Erie Regional Planning Office.

I I

I LI lI u

~

I

LI I

5 LIST OF TABLES I

1.

Acronyms Used in.This Document 10 2

. Habitats of Plum Brook Station.

22A 3.- Operating Systems or Capabilities that May Be Established.

'39 4

Contamination Limits for Reuseable items and Structures Remaining in Place 48 5.

Contamination Limits for Rubble or Scrap 48

g I

I I

LI I

i 1I

!; I

- I i

I I

D

!I l-L1ST OF FIGURES I

1.

Aerial View of the Plum Brook Reactor Facility.

IIA

-2.

Plot Plan of Plum Brook Reactor Facility.

IIB

-3.

Plot Plan of Plum Brook Station.

IIC 4.

Underwater Transport Paths -- Reactor and Hot Laboratory Buildings.

ISA S.

Plan View of MUR Facility.

ISB 6.

Vertical Section of MUR Facility 15C

7. -Vertical Section of MUR Facility ISD 8.

Plan View of MUR Core Location 15E I

9.

Vertical Section of MUR 15F 10.

Horizontal Section of MUR Core 16A

11. ' Vertical Section of MUR Core.

16B 12.

Map Showing Location of PBRF Relative to Cleveland and Sandusky 20A 13 Plum Brook Station and Surrounding Area 208 14.

Generalized Map of PBS Biotic Resources 22B

'15.

Location of Station Sampling Stations.

69A 16.

Location of Environmental Sampling Stations.

70A I

I I

I I

I I

7 E.

l.

SUMMARY

I This environmental report addresses the potential environmental impact of the dismantlement'of the Plum Brook Reactor Facility's (PBRF) Hock-Up Reactor (MUR) at NASA's Plum Brook Station, SanJusky, Ohio. The MUR is a low power (100 KW Th.)

swimming pool type reactor.

It was used as an experimental tool to assist in the operation of the PBRF 60 MW-Th materials test reactor (PBR). The purpose of the MUR was.to supply information necessary to properly design the experiments and the core loadings proposed for the PBR and to evaluate the radiation ef fects on experiments subjected to the high radiation fluxes of the PBR.

I.

The PBRF Includes not only the MUR and PBR but also a Radiochemistry Laboratory, a seven-cell Hot Laboratory Complex, the Primary Pump House, Fan House, Vaste Handling Building, the Hot Retention Area and the Emergency Retention Basin -- all with varying degrees of radiological involvement. The PBRF operated from 1961 to 1973 The MUR operated f rom 1963 to 1973 In.1973 NASA management made the decision to cease operations and to decomnission the entire PBRF, including the MUR, by placing it in a protective safe storage condition with the capability to re-institute operations at a later date with a minimum of start-up effort. This decommissioning effort represented a six month period of intensive activity to remove all radioactive waste and to decontaminate the facility to the lowest practicable levels commensurate with the time limita-tions imposed. The facility has been maintained in an environmentally safe 1

standby status since then.

In 1977 NASA made the decision to forego any future plans for. operating the facility. Af ter evaluations of a number of options open

'to NASA, e.g.~:

to continue the mothball condition indefinitely; to entomb the reactor. and a portion of the primary cooling system; or to completely dismantle I

I

I the entire facility, (and a variety of intermediate options) NASA elected to dismantle and dispose of only the radioactive portions of PBRF. The dismantling operations for the PBRF are detailed in a dismantling plan (Ref. 1) which, when

.I Implemented, will result in removal f rom the PBRF site of all detectable Facility-originated radioactivity above specified limits. A radioactive inven-tory of PBRF Indicates about 167,000 curles of activation products in the PBR and 65,000 curies in storage in the Hot Laboratory. The inventory of radioactiv-ity in the HUR totals 447 millicuries.

I The dismantling of the HUR will not be a separate ef fort f rom that of the PBRF, The MUR will be scheduled for dismantling within the time table for the entire PBRF project on a schedule designed to ensure e safe and ef ficient ef fort. Thus the MUR dismantling task will benefit f rom the manpower and equipment resources brought to bear on the PBRF dismantling program.

Reference 1, Dismantling Plan for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility, and Reference 4, Environmental Report for the Plum Brook Reactor Facili ty, set forth descriptions and ef fects of this ef-fort in more detall.

I All radioactive materials will be handled in a manner that the dismantling oper-ation will not pose any significant adverse ef fect on the environment or undue risk to the workers or to the public health and safety. All solid radioactive wastes will be packaged, shipped, and disposed by burial in compliance with NRC, DOT and appropriate state and local regulations. Other radioactive or contamina-ted equipment and materials which are salvageable wil f be decontaminated and/or transferred to licensed facilities for f urther use. All liquid and airborne radioactive releases to the environs will be maintained as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) and within NRC and EPA regulations.

Radioactively clean rubble I

I

I 9

. I generated in the dismantling will be used as fill at the PBRF site and/or Plum Brook Station complex (PBS) within'which PBRF is situated, or be disposed of as normal waste at local community land-fill sites.

I Upon completion of the dismantling and decontamination effort, a final, compre-hensive radiation and contamination survey will be made to assure that all radio-activity in excess of the limits-specified for this dismantling program has been removed. This will eliminate the need for further restrictions due to the presence of MUR radioactivity. The HUR license may then be terminated. The dis-mantling operations will be typical of activities commonly found at most construc-tion sites, involving some heavy equipment operations and increased vehicular traffic. No additional off-site roads will need to be developed. All such oper-

l 3

ations will comply with OSHA, EPA and applicable state and local regulations and will not pose any significant additional impact on the environment, pa rt icula rly since the PBRF site is located within a 5400 acre fenced government facility.

In fact, the proposed action is deemed to be beneficial since it will remove con-ditIons and 1 imitations of use now imposed on the fact 11ty and surrounding land due to the presence of radioactivity, and will permit alternative beneficial uses of the site by NASA or others.

Af ter assessing the benefits of the proposed action against anticipated costs, and af ter considering the alternatives and their cost and environmental impact, j

i the NASA has concluded that the dismantling of PBRF should be accomplished promptly.

j I

NOTE: Table 1 sets forth a list of acronyms found in this document.

Only com-monly used acronyms, or ones f requently appearing in this document are used.

I I

.I 10 I

. TABLE i ACRONYMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT AEC

' Atomic Energy Commission I

)

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable j

EPA Environmental Protection Agency (Federa l)

LeRC

' NASA Lewis Research Center

- g-5 MUR Mock-Up Reactor NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration lI j

NRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t

OSHA

' Occupational Safety and Health Administration PBR Plum Brook Reactor PBRF Plum Brook Reactor-Facility l

PBS Plum Brook Station I

l I

I l'!

iI t.

)

\\ -.

I

' I

11.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

' I A.

Facili ty History

- The Plum Brook Reactor' Facility (figure 1) is a complex of buildings within a 30 acre fenced area which includes:

the MUR; the PBR, a 60 megawatt mate-rials test reactor; the Reactor Building housing the MUR and PBR (with their respective control rooms) and the Containment Vessel; the Hot Labora-tory Build!ng with seven hot cells; the Primary Pump House; the Office and Laboratory Building; the. Fan House; the Hot Retention Area; and the Waste Handling Building (figure 2).*

PBRF is located in a 500 acre buffer zone in the northern-most area of the 5400 acre fenced portion of the Plum Brook Station (figure 3). The minimum distance to public land is 3000 feet. This buf fer zone is thus only part of an 8000 acre Plum Brook' Station. The PBS is located three miles south of Sandusky, Ohio, about midway between Cleveland and Toledo, south of Lake Erie and Just north of the Ohio Turnpike.

Part of this acreage (approxi-mately 2200 acres of the 8000' acres) will be disposed of in the near future.

This excess land is located in the south and west sectors and is more than 3000 feet from PBRF.

Construction of the PBRF began in 1956 and of the MUR in 1961.

P re-ope ra -

tional testing of the MUR was performed during 1963 and full-power operations began in January,1964. The MUR was operated by NASA under NRC (then AEC) l l

• NOTE: The PBRF fenceline may be changed in order to isolate structures 1142, 1121 and 1156 from PBRF. This would be accomplished by moving the -fence line and making certain structural changes as authorized by amendment 6~of the NRC License TR-3,' Issued ~ December 17, 1976.

I I

l ll l

1 l

I i

3

%h s

em m

n.

s m

m m

,=g m%

ur u t ai c*

=

=w *0

,ey n 'J u.f.-

w'i s.

~3 g

l eI

~

m".

y

.e t

e i

i

=

c v+

F a

a4 or t

y c

e Oy a

e M

s (y rv u

R M

h k

o eS h

o sT w

r

=

g4' n;

sE B

m w9

.R u

m%

l pM

.rNI.

P w}%

s%

7 e

h t

f s

o b

r w

7 e

~

e w

i V

gc...

n m

t l

s a

w

~

i e:

b m

r e

wW c4 A

hw$

?

c N.h tw 1

c} =

m s3 h

e J

!]

r sK u

F@

g i

i m:

F

)S g

m" y

d

,J j,

l

,i l

l

? gig!T

,l

'l 8

un *E?iT:4 111' %T7 r3 LAter3Tm n21 'IEU3 Af5 3;;;;:T; r* * ~ "O Se * *

}

n:. MxTx sEtv. ta:P. ax.

un stu?x su ma:4 n:5 Murce, art eenx u.

-l g

j

-s DemG BA5mS f,-]

1134 ECT PtTAW PrJP so,sf j

un M c s st: a N:tsgun.

~

11% MAC72 CY1"C;t0e n

• 1 n41 EC? CTFICf 1 UJxA*FY f

[

j IA st!* cmq p u:x n v.,,, o, '

n51 TET7 ' ATEE TMt <!)

7' J;

g

"/,,,,

)

533 r

l y' un M c:acxt Y n o i

\\\\ ;

e un wc::: sum ac: s

<A s

~

'H nw u12 cu efits:m ttm un I

5.

- - ~ - - - - ' " '

]-

.4 tca er uT:nm pris

,f, (-lN, r:1 )

nw utot ars uTt styrt fra f

g(

nu wtx mciplina p

T SECCNTY E!W%

,,, wo a,

n dM uT m3 (

i,_ ).

[,

J u

F lI 11'S EACT3 EM" rETER5 sia.

'"3 i n*3 4EC211A30 im m;sg

[

b 7

g g

uw wcy starm Tan us uc:a craf:nc ne w ant,

. L"88

-ma -= = :* n r.e.::..d!

d s

TT

. m j;

l s

f U

ll i

j' C

h c

f GNk b Wiifl% i, 'f, l!

I.

Q M

4' d:gr., 1 il

..jin

• l y;

n i

h

%yGBMk 'AflJ J

ll

. ;;l

?

auencency gjg C)) merention3i ll c:r'"

os

..c h

eas.=

.I t :.rdWT;c v;

p:

p p.;< G.~

n

,, s 7t ce n p; l,

q 3;

=

v.jJ y ?"O ;E.,

SHADED AREAS REQUIRE y*

ll

(( 2 !!

-hyg;:A 4 i!

DECONTAMINATION ACTIVlilES.

F j'

4 ll a

~

u

~:: * &r ':e s

s<-..................1.=:1=.===w.y,.=======:n.1 n

%, n.i, u

e d

A J

PE ns TOLITE ROAD Figure 2. - Plot Plan of Plum Brook Reactor Facility 4

I IIC I

• • \\s

....,/,

\\ / *88

=>

F

$[

0'2Nif*I$

""x p.,:,

'S

[wn,,,,

[

mE

• i E

~ TA--

f.k Y L*"

5 Y

f.

=

""ish8F M,,,

i l

/DM,l

~

G

.md

-i<:t (

0

"1 aa

=

v a

..re, REACTOR FACluTY

.; nw,

,,.ui.

g,

[.'.".,.n.

• w s

g3 I

a W

s e#

i 9'",.

3

/J

..sm

• -u._-...

.. n...cs so.

~ " f.

r=a = h"

"/ %=g ","

[

s.g[

.j= L

,q"% -

I

_ i

=>

...m

~.,,N

.n, b

'/"9" *L },'.,(~,m,[ g "

..... L.... &

. Y#

• l-Q

.,,, j,

4

=m,::

.. Lt :==A... #

".. :. a..

x

'g I.

Yqfj$,F%i j"" fj,h y

,g ; -

.k ; u, w:::

., ',5

/

k

~~

~.G

+=

=...,

.c...

,s.,

==

I "su.w*"w*.

u

'5

~~

3

.n j

g g

~ =.,,,.

g

, fg

• 4..

.'t.

}

.m g,

'"y

.dg j T "". ",

LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER lI PLUM BROOK STATION k

l

..u 5

LI t

lI l

Figure 3. - Plot Plan of Plum Brook Station

'I

I I

1Icense R-93 on an essenttally-uninterrupted basis unti1 January, 1973 when it was shut down af ter accumulating 4743 kilowatt-hours of operation. The license was amended to " possess, but not operate" on August 1, 1973. -The MUR and the PBR were defueled and the entire PBRF was decommissioned to a l

state of protective safe storage over the six month period f rom January to July,1973.

During this time considerable effort' was made in decontaminat-ing accessible areas of the facility to as low a level as practicable, and in disposing of all radioactive wastes at an AEC-licensed burial site.

The function of PBRF was to perform nuclear irradiation testing of fueled and unfueled experiments for space program applications.

An AEC (now NRC) Broad Byproduct Materials License (SNM 605) covered opera-tion of the Hot Laboratory and remainder of the facility except for the MUR (R-93) and PBR (TR-3). The SNM 605 license was converted to the broad by-product material license 34-06706-03 on August 7,1973 to permit only I-possession and storage of the licensed material. All MUR and PBRF systems and support facilities not required for safe ' storage standby were maintained in mothball for possible future facility operations.

In April, 1978 NASA made the decision that the PBRF and MUR should be further decommissioned by dismantling and decontaminating all radiologically-involved structures and I:

disposing of all radioactive materials so that all NRC licenses may be terminated.

Buildings and structures not having radioactive. involvement will remain except the cooling tower wlii be razed. AlI resultIng cavitles gen-erated due to the dismantlement of the PBRF that could represent a hazard to personnel will be filled with clean' rubble and earth or otherwise made safe.

I L

I.

[

The site will be_ f ree of all Facility-originated radioactivity in excess of the direct radiation and surface contamination limits specified in section til E.

I I

It Is possible the entire MUR core, control rods, and control room may be transferred to another licensee, rather than be disposed of as radioactive l

nste.

i I

B.

MUR and PBRF Status The PBRF is currently in standby (protective safe storage) and contained l'.

within a locked fence. All building entries, including the Reactor Building l.

housing the MUR, are locked and/or chained. All process lines are drained, 1

flushed, and isolated (bl a nk-f langed).

The MUR and PBR fuel element as-l semblies, all special nuclear material, source material and all radioactive

~

wastes have been removed; the fuel element assemblies have been transferred and reprocessed off-site and the radioactive wastes disposed of by burial 1

off-site at licensed connercial sites.

Radiological control areas including th'e MUR fenced area encompassing. Canal H and G are posted, locked and in-accessible to personnel except under strict administrative control. All water supply has been shut off except~ to the fire hydrants and Service Equip-ment Building boilers. All equipment which would normally be used for i

operation except that which is piesently required for standby is stored and mothballed, and all radioactive equipment i: stored either within the Containment Vessel, the Hot Laboratory, or the R& actor Building. Within the 6 month time limitations of the initial decommissioning period, the facility, including the MUR, was decontaminated as much as practicable and -

I all.readily accessible areas of the facility are radioactively clean.

l

!I t

I.

l.

I

\\

l 14 j-The MUR pool, Canal H, has been cleaned, drained, and lef t dry. The recir-i l

culating system delonizer resins were removed and disposed of as waste. The l

The delonizer water line supply-I.

system was. flushed, drained, and closed.

Ing Canal H was isolated. The Canal H drain was covered and the drain valve 1

closed. The top of the reactor core box was covered with heavy plastic sheeting.

Some MUR components were stored in the Canal G fuel storage bas-ket which is locked.' Access to_ the MUR is restricted by a fence around the Canal H area, in which the gate is locked. The installed radiation moni-E toring system is deactivated. Radiation levels at contact with the reactor core components are less than 100 mr/hr, and the general radiation field lI.

within Canal H is two (2) mr/hr.

The PBRF waste disposal systems, essential electrical systems, domestic and process deionized water systems, ventilation systems, contaminated clothing laundry facility, lavoratories and restrooms, and heating and air con-ditioning systems are available for MUR and PBR dismantling services as need-ed.

Other facility equipment and structures necessary for dismantling the HUR are available and on standby.

The following facility systems are presently operating as part of the re-quirement for maintaining the PBRF and MUR in a protective safe storage

" possess but not operate" mode:

connercial electric power; limited heating; b'ullding sumps and deep-well pumps; minimal telephone service; emergency lights; and certain alarm systems.

NASA, using dn on-site contractor, con-tinues to:

perform quarterly radiological monitoring of the PBRF and MUR and the environs; perform routine inspections and PBRF operating systems I

I

I 15 l

Integrity checks; and provide a communications, security, and plant protec-tion service around the clock.

In. addition NASA maintains an administrative

~

f staff including the part-time services of a reactor manager and a radiation protection officer-, and provides safety cognizance for the facility under one of the area safety committees within the Lewis safety organization.

C. ' Description of the MUR The_ MUR is a heterogenous light water-cooled and moderated research reactor located in Canal H of the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility (figure 4).

Cana l H is a pool approximately 21 x 21 x 25 feet deep located just outside the PBR containment vessel, in the southeast corner of the Reactor Building.

The pool is constructed of reinforced concrete and is backed by earth to I

grade level. With the exception of Canal G, there are no facilities below

. grade in the immediate vicinity of the MUR. The MUR control room is located above the pool on a mezzanine along the north edge of the pool (figures 5-9).

The MUR is a low power, 100 KW (Th.) at full power, swimming pool type re-

actor, it was designed and built to NASA specifications by Lockheed Nuclear Corporation as an experimental tool to assist in the operation of the PBR.

The PBR was constructed by NASA for testing materials to be used in space

-flight applications. The purpose of the MUR was:

to supply information necessary to properly design the experiments and determine their effects on PBR operation; check the core loadings proposed for the PBR; to calibrate control rods; and to accurately evaluate the radiation effects af ter the experiments were subjected to the high radiation fluxes of the PBR. The data'thus supplied by the MUR was used by the PBR experiment designers, operations personnel and safety personnel to assist in assuring that the reR was ope,atee,n a safe ane ef,icient manne,.

g is

y ;-- g-g --y-y q

, 4 ; y y

g y-g y

y y-y y-

. UNDERWATER TRANSPORT PATHS PUMP HOUSE

~

s.

'll'888' H

lilllill h

[

S' 160 ' MW '

J

/

/ ^;

7

~

K' 4=

k gg.:-

L.F +

ef..J 1

I I

gl F

\\ -.e.

s f.-

/" ~ '

l[

g u

u nus

\\

HOT LAB M mung l

A si REACTOR BLOG l

' H ""

r ".

i i

6 i,

,l l

ld J

l w

~

Figure 4. - Underwater Transport Paths -- Reactor and Hot Laboratory Buildings i

15B I

I l

E

.i e la s

y

\\

n

.l 8T"," ?

n __

n

.y t

nri I-

[

.._ $hn-l o

I

~-

1:

o u u.

I

._ca m

t i

\\

I

'-====

~

~sw g

i y

-7=14;._.

i

.g

'I a!

J l

'i II

,r id

..on.

v2.m..y r

k m

. 5"

/ WWW5 m.

i I"L$k)$@!$

^

[N at[A*

f wa.w l

I mzmu

'sc Z

c I

Figure 5. - Plan View of MUR Facility

I 15c

-3 Jl I

L_._.

'I 20 TON CRANE

===:

C s---a l

r.9 G.

s 1.___..

-.. ~... ~..

. ~...

ek

..]

ej i

I.

CONTROL ROOM

,)

~ *!

k e

i i

I'7

'~

g( ACTIVE LATT!CE I

t 5

i j

e-.

I.

j l...._J) j I

.p

._a k.

r l

1 +e i

. ](o I

/-mir r

I a

i y

li n i x

I m.

l 1 7-l

\\

FA

/

4

\\}/

,/

I

:=

v r=, '

I EL. 00.0

~~ '

M

~ ~

g

. Ml'7 7?

• m"y'F, nW.y y _ n _. R ___

4

=4 I

=

2R-

.e

O n_i n,~ ~

'1

--~~

la 6" x

l I

Q.:

~

n C,Dn E

r b-lj,(

l j m!

=== ( REACTOR

, Q,':,s.'

1 I.h g

.$. f,y.,3 I

{J; *,'

Q'j.

L r-f O~ ~

3,;,lg L

r m

n y T:A

.r,

T-r I

f

.,:" P w

ig ;;,:,_

u,.

a

4. s.

p

.:__ --d I

f:s

[y[gg[p,fg/{j gjeg. g. j.lj)lY% [?gg;pcfg!lj;.l; 1

h y l

Figure 6.. - Vertical Section of MUR Facility i

l I

I

150 I

J I

I s

.I I

i e

I H

0 E

I F-B I O ll 11 I i

PERSch4EL BRIDGE

'O f'

W!TH MOVEABLE l

FLOOR UP nl l r}

r** I

~~

/

.e.

=

e-

.. =, '.. -

.:*-l

\\:..

..l I

,o-n W

s s

I

.e CHANNEL G 21'.4" a

e s-e-

I EXPERIMENT g,

Q h Q WATER TIGHT L

000R b

b I

7 m / n r1

/

WATER TIGHT d

ACCESS 000R I

2 k

'g..

1

=

. s

-. i.. w

-a..

- e

... :a..n.a a.

- s.

n..

- ~

. I.

Figure 7. - Vertical Section of MUR Facility l

1

.I j!-

15E EL. O'-o*

1' n

A n

~

I

} REACTOR I'(CONTROLBRIDGE-SHOWN REMOVED)

.9 i

5 5

s 9

Ld-e

.s

_=

o o

l v

0 3

h

~

M

~

l I

J-a 5

O O

g r

I m

a l

\\

Od e

e i

..G,,

1 I

W C-"3

. c i

Y E a

i V

i

~

V f:

Jb I.

. O'-0*

r POSITION f

f

~

i f

I

\\f

~

15F I

CCtfBOL 900 D8tt! Utif 5 I

C0ste0L Bar0gg i

i

//

\\

l.

r 1

,,. 0. 0

=

.=

4

' f,.,,

'\\

L....i t..i c,,,,

..T.

I.

. +

t wm

.Cv88t t.STOP...D LOCaltS f tp tlle l

i i..c u.

.l F Vf 8 TIC.L TE5? N0tt

.$ E. c0.c....ss..<,

l 1

i';;;;;y;;;.;gi i -:

c.i.c. eca.

+

f g ou... u.. r t.,

s

... ' ;;;'y:;n

)

'8

<-s asn-

, T.

t

.a i

)o

,,,,w. / ~

f ' '

• c

-,e ire :.t

.at 3,...u

.=

,.,.m.,

.I

==0.i Y

. [. I,'.

I r,,..,,...

. c

+:

-o..-

~

n.

I I

t i

fl l

Figure 9. - Vertical Section of MUR

y 4

. (-

• I

I 1

/*

The data from these teste also enabled one to estimate the possib'le conse-

~

quence of various types of failures' of the proposed experiments for the PBR.

~

s' The above Information was'used by the PBR experiment designer to help as-i.

[sure that.his experiment was safe and compatible with the expected nuclear E

environment.

l To; conduct these experiments in the PBR would have required that the PBR, designed, for high power radiation experiments, be essentially inoperative a +

for a subs'ta'ntial amount of time. The exc'essive cost, experimental difft-culty, and general undesirability of using the PBR as a low power experimental tool led to the' conclusion that a separate facility, the MUR, be built to perform the desired experimerits and calibrations. This facility was operated as a critical experiraent to evaluate each significantly different core con-figurat!on and/or. experimental cycle contemplated for the PBR.

As mentioned before, the MUR is. located in-canal H of the PBR Reactor Build-ing, Just outside.the Containment Vessel. The two reactors and Hot Laboratory are connected.via a system of canals to facilitate the transfer of irradiated experiments or specimens (flgure 4). The cores of the reactors are similar in the nuclear sense when the same ' fuel and controi rod elements are used in each (figures 10 and II)..The beam add test holes are located in the same relative positlons but provision is made to load all the MUR test holes by manipulating the experiments from the surface of the pool; The control rods for the MUR drive f rom overhead rather than f rom telowf as; is the case for the PB",,

8,

[

I g

w a

I 16A e, h' I

I g;...

p-i...

I I

i I

f l

-Beryllium -

l l

l

.I.

j l

t v.'1. -

l 8' I.D.

I I

if1 I

4~.

i U

I

' :< M.:

I

~.

R RIB B

,o

, c

%1 RB.1 RC.1 51 i

s.

u.,

42 RB.?

BC 2 D2

- ;l N

h' x

mj

.E F

F I

i N

i.o

a.,...

= ~ * ~ ^ ~ :.fN n*

sY

. l. i.', J...'.

• • n'

'=-' n' I

m a

r r

,.r.

73,4 p p,4 77,4 pp,4

_,,,,,J

.)

I

- ~ -

j- -

6...

....a.. _. :r-. "J.__ g u.

tr e

r 1 i

i r_

i m.:

u

.,i ;.,

u.s j a:...

r t

u.s 32..

g.,

e

1. J.... '..'

m-c Th<j n-e l msne t ;

- 48 i 17, s, r

r

. . t...

is.. t c..

i r.. :

pf,7 pg pe,.7 p

>.4 (, y l

c 1., 1,, L u

.c., _.

.y _.

v

...,., m...m...

g I

J g

\\

k j

,i c

i

v. 1.r.-

z Aluminum j

I I

I i

l I-N&

i 1ck 12 h.

i i

i I

I Figure 10. - Horizontal Section of MUR Core LI I

!I

B 16B I

I I

i I

i I

l Y1 I

i i e I.e.,

f.I

{t.a.nts of fuel i

9 p Aluminum J

j f

/ f rH R1 6 Ri t1 N

l I

Y

/

1 r;

/

q q

1 Y

1s;.A' w

ei I

i j.:

t!jfreiitorcore

~

6"I.D.,

l l

I, f'

D-2

'l l

t s

g

~

M I

$l l

E. ol

. e.1-. %L

/

_ r l.3._

t

r__p_q i

1

'l I

9" I.L.

I E

r.:

,i I

I, e

- - ____h i'

- Beryllium d N

Berylliua

{

I l >:

s n'

l 1

l 3

,h w

l f ']

I

/,'

l h

I C

C l

J N NN p

/

G j

l Aluminumb Stainless st'l I.

O O

{ Control rods i

O Q

f O

O l

i s

I.

y-,.

ll-Figure 11. - Vertical Section of MUR Core I

I

I 17 I

The HUR core accomodates fuel elements of the MTR type and when fully loaded contained 27 fuel element assemblies and 17 reflector assemblies.

Five of the fuel element assemblies and three of the reflector assemblies were used as shim-safety rods. Two of the reflector assemblies were used as regulating rods. The shim-safety rods were of the top entry, magnet held, gravity drop type. All elements were cooled by the natural convection of light water which also served as a moderator. The reactor core has a primary reflector of beryllium (and had a secon'dary reflector of light water).

Figures 10 and 11 show the layout of the core reflector reg?ons and test holes.

The core is a 4 by 11 lattice of reflector and HTR type fuel elements.

This lattice is enclosed in a box which extends the full height of the ele-ments. The longer sides of the lattice are beryllium and the ends are aluminum. Adjacent to the 4 by 11 lattice is a 4 by 8 grid of beryllium blocks which acts as a reflector and surrounds one of the horizontal test holes. The grid is enclosed on three sides by aluminum and by beryllium on the fourth side which separates it f rom the 4 by 11 lattice.

D.

Description of PBRF The Reactor Building which surrounds the Containme-Vessel f rom an eleva-tion of 27' above grade to varying depths below grace down to -27' houses the HUR and associated facilities, it is a flat-roofed, mill ty;> building 150 by 160 feet in dimension. The Reactor Buildihg also houses work space for setting up experiment assemb!!es, restrooms, a personnel decontamination facility, a tool and small parts decontamination facility, change room, PBR I

I

t 18 control room and separate control room for remote operation of experiment rigs. The PBR control room and of fices are on a mezzanine extending along the north and west walls.

Basement areas are accessible by stairways and provide access to the Reactor Office and Laboratory Building, and also to the Assembly and Test Building,* Hot Laboratory, and Service Equipment Building by means of tunnels. Most of these facilities lend themselves to

~

use during the dismantling operations.

The Reactor Office and Laboratory Building attaches to the Reactor Building to the west and houses of fices, electronics repair shops, health physics offices and a dispensary (first ald) facility, and low-level radiochemistry la bo ra tor i es.

I The shielded Primary Pump House attaches to the east side of the Reactor Building and contains the pumps, heat exchangers, and ion exchangers for the PBR main cooling system.

The Hot Laboratory Building attaches to the south side of the Reactor Bulld-Ing. A canal to the PBR and to Canal H passes through to the Hot Lab. The Hot Lab houses seven hot cells, a shop area, storage canal, hot dry storage area, and decontamination facility.

The Fan House is located to the southeast, and contains the ventilating fans, both fe'ed and discharge, for PBRF. During operation, air f rom PBRF poten-tially contaminated areas was discharged at rater up to 13000 c f m, af ter filtration, to a 100-foot ~ stack east of the Fan House.

• NOTE: The tunnel to the Assembly and Test Building would be blocked off I

if this facility 'Is isolated f rom PBRF as permitted by Amendment 6 of the TR-3 license.

I I

\\

I 19 I

The Service Equipment Building, east of the Primary Pump House, ccntains the water processing equipment, air compressors, electrical control equipment, and diesel-generators for emergency electrical power, it also i

1 houses the health physics radiochemistry / analytical laboratory. There is no radiological involvement of any significance in this building.

The Hot Retention Area is south of the Fan House.

It contains eight 64,000

' gallon underground tanks previously used for retention of contaminated water prior to reprocessing or disposal by release to Plum Brook stream which

.I ultimately flows to Lake Erie.

.I 1

The Waste Handling Building, south of the Fan House, contains the Liquid Waste Evaporator System with associated boiler, condenser, sumps, pumps and filters, and laundry equipment, gantry room and waste packaging equipment, and waste storage facilities.

The Emergency Retention Basin is a 10,000,000 gallon above-ground earthen diked basin at the southeast corner of PBRF. During operation it provided for emergency storage of water for the PBRF. Very low radioactivity levels may be found in this area. This will be decontaminated by soll removal.

,I The Effluent Control Station, located in the extreme southeast corner of t.e F

PBRF, monitored all liquid effluents from PBRF to the Plum Brook stream for radioactivity during Facility operations. All surface and waste water from PBRF collected by a series of.open ditches and covered culverts, flowed through a' series of fiumes at this station. This facility is radioactively clean.

.l:

I 20 I

The Cold Retention Area contains two underground 500,000 gallon tanks south cf the Service Equipment Building.

It was used for storage of low level radioactive water f rom the canals and quadrants. The tanks are radioactive-ly clean and.open to ground water.

Also within the fenced PBRF site are:

two overhead water tanks which con-tained radioactively clean delonized water and process water; a cooling tower with secondary water pumps; an Assembly and Test Building *; Reactor Office Building *; E!ectrical Substation; Guard House; and several lesser

~

structures. None of these structures are radioactively contaminated, nor will they be dismantled, except the cooling tower will be razed.

The PBRF site is located in the north central region of Plum Brook Station.

About 5400 acres of the Station are enclosed within a fence and under con-tinuous armed guard surveillance for personnel access control.

Figure 2 provides a site plot plan of PBRF facilities and structures and an idesti-fication key to building and struc*.ure numbers.

E.

Description of Plum Brook Station The NASA Plum Brook Station (PBS) is located approximately 60 miles west of Cleveland and the Lewis Research Center, parent f acility for PBS.

Lewis Research Center is adjacent to the Cleveland Hopkins International Airpo t.

PBS is three mile; south of the Lake Erie port city of Sandusky, Ohio. As shown in figures 12 and-13, Plum Brook Station is easily accessible via the Ohio Turnpike-Sandusky interchange with U. S. Highway 250-North.

The Station is serviced by-excellent major highways and roads.

• ' See NOTE on page 11.

I:

I

I

^%

3.; g;t; A, g;~

n. gi tyysygf 2

_ %.y a,,

'is

.,:.g)i.d Y-*** hAL.

( M ' M t yIt

_ O.!!fg$, $F M j @v.xnM8 R ;f[ hf; yp:.,.xy nn-

~e n.,,,

"z;;., t Mi&W

,a >'r. $, N:$@d@NV4 ggs,.

MQL V i! M W ~

$W m

'^

hsait

>q$lll&j

.=.

l ggg :

J,,,

y c=g) l~.,

.w u.

Qf,iirq$h?k%g.jk$.._g"e..

~'

'$j ? L2"@

.m.

C3%

C CT4 Yh

.aY' Tk,i

,,d 3h l

b=Yl dM:

Mf;,ze ,$~Af ~es*, g '# 3G;p' m-filiE,j471*d rFAs px 4:

m.. g 56Ih#Q leg 4."[+a$d h:

E fgy u

'th s ;.s g=e

- =

l e,

$./I.b7;i;-

==

'\\

..' / dl pa;.a

=x L,

?,g y

C}=p

_. w f. 4._ r.

,v n

u ts.

l

&,. e &

. ~Qc '

~

n c=a=

29 Figure 12. - Map Showing location of PBRF Relat'ive to Cleveland & SanduskY I

~

O M

i i

i

'I i

I 20B I

LAKE

\\

ERIE

{~~

g

.$7:(SANDUSKY

(

J

\\?

i,3

,,,..&*BhMqr) e

-_4

/

,; / ' %

I',[

1, g

y-

.is.q

./

/

i -,.,

. y..

^

f g

CASTlu A

[

~

E *y l

,. (

.h)9.q o...,

l

_7) _

y+.-

E P UM BROOK STATION f f

c

- - _ 7..

- __, l

\\

l s

e i

'T

• [,,,...Ni u,t.r 7

4 aa rc ~

o f

q

,/ ;

a m

k

~

4, T_

E':

M10n

(

l

,___ wed.....ss" j

\\ )

t h

C o u n t,Te

' a 1____.-

'5__.

/

Powcon I

I O

M I

Figure 13. - Plum Brook Station and Surrounding Area

II 21 Plum Brook Station is located in central Erie County, primarily in Perkins Township and small areas along the southern and eastern boundary extending into Huron, Milan and Oxford Townships. The Station consists of approximate-

~

ly 8000 contiguous acres, of which 2600 acres outside the Station fence were used as a buffer zone for hazard-exclusion areas during operation of test facilities.

In general, the Station is surrounded by lightly populated farmlands and low density housing. Approximately 5400 acres of the Station are enclosed within a 7-f t high security fence; an additional secondary security fence surrounds PBRF.

There are approximately 125 permanent structures at Plum Brook Station ranging in size f rom small pump houses to larga research facilities.

I Because of NASA programmatic decislo'ns made in the 1973-71. period, nearly all of the test facilities at Plum Brook Station have been placed in standby condition. A 100 kW wind-genera tor unit is presently in operation and e

another large kW, unit is planned for construction in the north-central section of the Station.

In addition, the AIResearch Manufacturing Company of California, a Division of the Garrett Corporation, has a lease with NASA for use of. the Plum Brook Station Space Power Facility and 95 acres of land surrounding and including the area upon which the complex is located (figure 3) at South Magazine and Columbus Avenue. This lease is for a five year term with three additional one year options. The term.of the base period is f rom November I,1979 through October 31, 1984. The Garrett Cor-poration will utilize the Space Power Facility for manufacturing, assembling, and ' testing commercial gas centrifuges un' der contract to the US Department

.of' Energy. These gas centrifuges are to be used by the US Department of I

I

I 22 1

Energy for the enrichment of uranium in the fabrication of fuel elements for electrical power reactors. The Garrett /USDOE gas centrifuge program is assigned a "0" in support of "CPDF" security classification. The Garrett

- Corporation is responsible for preparing the environmental assessment to meet Environmental Protection Agency requirements covering their operations at 1

= the Space Power Facility. The lessor's operations must comply with all fed-eral, state, and local laws and regulations including, but not limited to, health, safety, and environmental. They are also responsible for all ef fort and costs required for maintenance and operation of the facility, modifica-tions and associated restoration, and utilities consumed during the term of their occupancy.

The employment complement will initially total 50 persons and should peak to 300 within about one year.

The logistics and history of Plum Brook Station, plus the fact that there are a number of large open land areas available within the Station, make it an attractive site for future research and development.

I See Table 2 for habitats of Plum Brook Station and Figure 14 for a general-Ized map of blotic resources.

F.

Description'of Pe Q n Mrons Erie County comprises 17 governmental units, nine townships, and eight in-

~

_ corporated municipa il tles.

Based on population projection data compiled by the Erle Regional Planning Commission, the current estimated populatio'n of Erie County ~ is nearly 90,000 people (Ref. 6). This reflects a growth in_ population of more than 30 percent since 1960. The greatest concentra-tion of this population is in the city of Sandusky, having a current I_

I

l 9

TABLE 2 I

HABITATS OF PLUM BROOK STATION j

Category Fenced Area Percentage (Ac res)

I S t ructura l 227 04.2 Open Water 12 00.2 Wetlands 86 ol.6 Gras s lands 2.315 42.9 Old-Field /Brushland 1,960 36.3 Woodla nd 800 14.8 Totals 5.400 100.0 I

SOURCE: NASA Lewis Research Center; Annual Report of Wildlife Management, 1975 I

I I

I I

I

l I

g 22B Nd}&th

}o TM hhbk cef

• Ak 0

=

I 3

y i

7 ;1 k

b.

l l

f.s

\\

'f a

J:

/5

/

\\

\\-

\\. w[

i X*

' ]; -l,

\\, <.-

fr-R; I O]

y y,;

i; m

']

'Xi,. \\,

' Y,/ :

{

- N' - J{e w.ff i ! 5 j g y,;;V C ',[ f. fyj e p i

I{fif~ Q;[y

\\

t[

\\

\\ -h)g 3

3

(.

3 i

,G i t !

r tT*)* gy,

e* -\\

G-

.V.

s t

Qx,.-}-g/'i~'cp*; ' 4Q

%'d' R['

y

//

• i.;y-q4 i 1,

'a

M W~l#=1 A

3

\\

g

'h 4

~

4

-.5

\\

haa' 4

l

'3-ky y g

,/,Q y

t

M y, p;_.. a

,pg\\

L

p yy Me 9 cg 2

.g

(;l Kl w$ f d b l $ W

& z '

S s

yn h

w.;

h>

yO u.e

',,l,';Tj

~p

~

t ye Y

I

/ h\\f f(r~~',+;[';~.

t

. ; + y;,q$ym _y^i'~ +

1 T

g is 4

g b y.

(

h Q

'7.,--

a zg

~,

i,,

!. NfJ h ?T q e y w, 4g 8/

Y.. g' d. w c

t 5h f

t q

""O j: q.j fx.

j/'tf (j.

)

s 3 ~.

, r, 4 f1j/

tyt V-2,.. LX 1

l

~~

^?

sL

[,, i.El J J V EIS M l h ( f G~.? W ~3j:$0 M.

n ':

(,,

T4 M,

!g

j[i [n.]

- h d,,hq r,.

D ~ 7 I_ % rx.Q

}b; t.

n : 3 u

3,

. _ _ _ _ ' v m,

%. x 1

g

@ struciurad ^

V/eiland

}

lGrossland gy/oodland

%Old Field / Brushland e

!I

. Figure 14. - Generalized Map of PBS Biotic Resources

I I

23 l

estimated population of nearly 40,000.

Perkins Township has a population of about 12,000 people with the majority of this population concentrated north of Plum. Brook Station in the area bounded approxl.nately by Perkins Avenue on the nor'th, U. S. Highway 250 on the east, Scheid Road on the l

south, and State Route 4 on the west.

Other communities in the near vicinity of Plum Brook Station are Huron, Milan, and Castalia with estimated populations of 7,500, 1,400 a nd 1,400, respectively. Figure 13 is a map showing the location of Plum Brook Station 1I within the area.

I Sandusky, being the most populocs city in the Erie County, has the greatest influence on the area and thus serves as the center for regional development.

Traditionally, the development character of Erie County has been rural in nature with Sandusky serving as the juncture for rail and water "novements in the area, and as the center for industrialization. New trencs, however, partly due to the opening of new transportation corridors and partly due to decentralization of industrial expansion, have begun to change the character of the region. As a consequence of the new development trends which have emerged, the Erie Regional Planning Commission has recently engaged in a detailed analysis of the region (which includes all of Erie County and Town-send Township in Sandusky County), and has begun to establish a f ramework to guide future regional development. Within this f ramework, Plum Brook Station is recognized as possessing a major compIex of test facilities with potential for future expansion.

E:

I I

I 24 Inasmuch as Plum Brook Station encompasses a significant land area near the center of the region, development patterns at the Station could have a major influence on future regional development.

Dismantling of PBRF and MUR could impact future development of the reglen by providing more flex-Ibility in NASA's ability to dispose of excess land and thus making the land available for unrestricted use.

The City of Sandusky, as presently constituted, has a very limited area available for new commercial or housing construction.

Since waterfront areas are already built up, new manufacturing plants and shopping facili-ties are being located south of the city. The largest of such expansion has been:

General Motors New Departure Bearing Division Plant; the Ford Motor Company, Hardware and Accessories Plant; and the Sandusky Mall. As new industries are established, additional commercial and housing construc-

=I tion will be required to serve the people drawn to the area.

Such construction being, in effect, an enlargement of Sandusky, would be uniformly distributed in an arc to the south of the city and lying north of the NASA Plum Brook Station.

Based on recent studies by the Erie Regional Planning Commission, a total of 24,340 acres, or 12.7 percent of the region surrounding PBS is con-sidered developed, of which 7,700 acres are residential, 1,860 acres

~commercial, 9,500 acres (including Plum Brook Station) are industrial, and 5,280 acres are devoted to publIc and semi-public' uses. The remaining acreage is agricultural and unused land.

I I

.g -

l 25 While some growth has occurred in almost all parts of the Erie Region, it has been most predominant in the area between Sandusky and Huron, with Huron being one of the fastest growing communities in the area.

Perkins and Huron Townships, north and east of Plum Brook Station are also experi-encing rapid suburbanization. On the other hand, areas south and west of Plum Brook Station remain rural in character and are only sparsely populated.

The economy of the region is diverse in nature and cannot be identifled with any specific industry or employment. Manufacturing, construction, agricul-tural, and service industries, as well as institutional activities, all employ a significant portion of the labor force. Development trends, how-ever, Indicate a general deciine in agricultural activity as urbanization continues to expand, and manufacturing of diverse types is becoming a greater factor in the economy, in general, the region is adequately provided with basic community facili-ties such as churches, schools and hospitals.

But the region, being traditionally rural in nature, and Sandusky, being a relatively small city, has only recently begun to develop cultural facilities.

I Housing availability in the Erie County area, in general, s adequate.

Growth patterns within the region and the general increase in per capita income, however, have caused a considerable increase in demand for quality housing in suburban areas. This, in part, is due to an influx of new families into the region, some of which commute to work in cities and areas outside the region.

I I

I

I 26 Prior to June 1973, Plum Brook Station was a significant factor within the

region, in terms of employment, the Station generated, during peak period, more than 700 jobs, including regular staf f and contractor personnel.

I The current employment at Plum Brook Station, including regular staf f, tenant agencies and contractor personnel is only approximately 65.

In addition, educational programs and public information programs conducted at Plum Brook Station in the past have done much to stimulate interest in scientific and aerospace activities among high school students and residents of the area. These functions have been curtailed since the downscaling of lI operaticas at the Station.

G.

Calculated Radioactivity Inventory for the MUR Throughout MUR operations, no apparent failure of fuel cladding or fueled experiments ever occurred.

Fission products were never observed in signifi-cant quantities in the MUR Canal H pool water. All reactor fuel element assemblies and fueled experiment components and other special nuclear mate-rial and source material were shipped f rom the site during the period March through May, of 1973 as a pre-requisite to obtaining the present possession I

only license.

The primary radionuclides of concern during dismantling of the MUR are those arising f rom neutron irradiation of reactor core components at neutron i

11 12 2

fluxes ranging f rom 10 to 10 n/cm /sec. - Reac' tor core components are f

constructed of Type 304 stainless steel, Type 356-T aluminum, Type 6061-T6 a l umi num or be ry l l i urr, Approximately seven years have passed since the last i rradiation occurred. This delay has allowed for the decay of shorter lived radionuclides.

I 27 A calculation of the inventory of radioactive materials in the MUR core was performed in 1973 (Ref. 5) and has been corrected for decay to June 30, 1978.

I Following is the summary of the corrected 1978 inventory:

I AMOUNT OF ISOTOPE NUCLIDE HALF-LIFE PRESENT (CURI ES)

I-Mn-54

-3.4 days Cr-51 27.8 days Fe-59 45 days Co-60 5.26 yr.

6.2E-2 I

Co-58 71 days Zn-65 245 days 1.8E-4 Fe-55 2.7 6.2E-2 Ni-59 8x10zr.

I yr.

2.8E-5 Ni-63 92 yr.

6.2E-3 Total 1.30E-1

• Decayed to insignificant quantitles I

in addition to the above MUR Inventory listing, the beryllium reflector com-ponents, e.g. the core side plates, contain a significant amount of tritium activation products due to neutron irradiation interactions. This activity was not included in the calculated inventory of reference 5 However the reference 2 calculations for the PBR Inventory for tritium (at 98,000 MW-days) scaled down for the MUR (.198 MW-days) indicate the MUR core components contain.317 curies of tritium as of June 30, 1978.

Thus the total inventory for the MUR, including tritium, is about 0.45 curies. The presence of radioactive materials in the form of contamination -

on core and canal surfaces is insignificant, being in trace amounts.

I I

l

E 28 As Indicated above, tritium was produced by the neutron irradiation of beryllium in the core. Stainless steel components in the beryllium l.

pieces contain Co-60 and Fe-55.

I rradiation of stainless steel components in the core produced co-60, Fe-55, Ni-59 and NI-63.

Irradiation of the aluminum alloys produced Fe-55, zn-65 and Al-26.

Based on Inventories and characteristics of the isotopes, Cd-il3m and Al-26 are of minimal signifi-cance in dismantling considerations.

Zn-65, Mn-54, Cr-51, Fe-59, Co-58 and NI-59 are also of minor concern.

Co-60. Fe-55, NI-63 and tritium are the only isotopes significantly contributing to the inventory.

The tritium is contained and confined within the metal matrix of beryllium pieces.

Both operational sampling and experiments conducted during PBR operations showed that no tritium was released even during underwater electrical discharge machining (EDM) cutting, f racturing and replacement of bowed and f ractured beryllium core side plates. This lends support to I

' " ' " ' ' " ' " ' " " ~ ' '

HUR core.

I I

I I

I

!I lI I

\\

8 1

29 I~

lit. DISMANTLING OPERATIONS The first phase of decommissioning the MUR was accomplished in 1973 with the removal of all new and used fuel element assemblies, other special nuclear material and sou:;a material, and radioactive waste and byproduct noterial sealed sources.

The description of the MUR dismantling operations below must of necessity over-lap and include some of the broader PBRF dismantling activities. The fact that the entire PBRF will be dismantled imposes safety requirements that would not be necessary for MUR dismantling alone. This results in an exceptional degree of safety provided to the MUR dismantling effort, and this is reflected not only in the description set forth below, but throughout this document.

A.

Responsibilities for Dismantling the PBRF, including the MUR 1.

The NASA Lewis Research Center:

NASA is responsible for planning and directing the total dismantling effort. This includes but is not limited to the following:

I a.

Form a Dismantling Task Team, b.

Provide technical and desis, development.

c.

Perform facility assessment of support systems, radioactivity, and structures, d.

Prepare environmental assessment, dismantling plan, and safety analysis of the dismantling task.

.e.

Obtain license revision and dismantling orders f rom NRC.

f.

Perform preliminary engineering review of task.

g.

Prepare management plan.

I I

lI

l B

l 30 h.

Prepare engineering and activity specifications, design limits, safety standards, system operating Ilmits and sequence of removal i

ope ra t i ons.

(

I.

Prepare support systems reactivation criteria.

J.

Prepare dismantling requirements for access to contaminated equipment.

k.

Develop funding profile and schedule.

I 1

Determine disposition of equipment.

m.

Administer health and safety and health physics programs; implement l.

the policy to maintain radiation exposures as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) in the health physics program.

n.

Administer quality assurance including an effective measurement system to determine the degree of success achieved with regard to program goals, o.

Specify design and draf ting tasks for support systems, e.g. water, I

fire protection, electrical power, lighting, heating and venti-lating, decontamination and waste handl*

t -

p.

Provide safety review of all aspects of d smantling by the PBRF Dismantling Safety Committee, the Radiatica Safety Officer, and ma nagemen t.

I q.

Implement the dismantling effort by letting one or more contracts to fulfill the functions listed in lil A 2.

r.

Review quality assurance measurement results on a periodic basis I

and take appropriate corrective actions.

s.

Stop work whenever radiological or industrial safety considerations require corrective action to safeguard personnel or the environment.

t.

Ensure that the resources needed to achieve successful completion of the program, including ALARA, are available.

2.

The Contractor (s) will:

a.

Operate and maintain the support systems.*

b.

Prepare detailed procedures of the dismantling tasks to ensure safe

-accomplishment of the work.

c.

Perform the facility decontamination and dismantling operations.

I 3

I 31 d.

Provide safety and health physics training to all workers to en-sure safe operations, e.

Provide staffing for all contract functions.

f.

Provide equipment and suppiles necessary to implement the program.

g.

Perform all other decontamination ef forts.

h.

Perform all waste disposal functions.

i.

.orovide radioactive laundry services.

J.

Provide personnel monitoring and facility, station, and environ-mental monitoring.

k.

Provide Janitorial services.

1.

Provide security visitor control, plant protection, and damage control services.

m.

Provide industrial safety, first aid, industrial hygiene and health physics services.

.I n.

Provide periodic reports of progress to NASA.

o.

Administer a safe work permit program.

p.

Provide a final radiological survey and report following dismanti-Ing.

NASA will select the contractor (s) through established procurement procedures and standards requiring a rigorous source evaluation and review process.

The review and evaluation specifications will define scope and method of selection and criteria for contractor qualifications, experience and

]

reputation.

When the dismantling has been accomplished, and its efficacy confirmed by a final NRC compliance inspection, the Federal Government will be responsi-ble for the final disposition of the released facility site.

I I

s

lI 32 Responsib".llty and authority for implementing the dismantilng program and to maintain occupational radiation exposures and exposures to the ganeral public as low as reasonably achievable rests with the NASA PBRF Project Manage r.

To accomplish this, the Project Manager will coordinate the ef-forts of the functional groups, e.g., the dismantilng, maintenance, tech-l nical support, engineering, safety, and health physics units, and will represent the NASA management interests in accomplishing this. The safety aspects of this program are under the review and approval of both the PBRF Radiation Safety Officer and the PBRF Dismantling Safety Committee.

It is the responsibility of the Project Manager and these other organizational elements to enaure that the dismantling program incorporates and implements the ALARA policy and provides compliance with all regulatory and license requirements.

I B.

Description of Dismantling Activities The plan to be followed in dismantling the MUR is discussed below, in general, the same careful, safety-conscious approach will be collowed in dismantling as was used to shutdown the facility and place it in standby condition. This approach resulted in a safe conversion f rom an operating I.

to a protective safe storage mode and provided a good documentation of the activities as they were accomplished.

One of the first steps in the plan was to establish a Dismantling Task Team

~

to oversee the plan from implementation to completion. This team is headed by the PBRF Project Manager and includes the present standby Reactor Manager, the Chief of Plum Brook Management Of fice, the PBRF Radiation Safety Officer, the Lewis Safety Officer and engineering personnel f rom the Lewis t

I

I 33 in addition, the PBRF Dismantling Safety Committee will perform continuing safety reviews and approvals as required by 1. CRC safety organization policies, procedures, and license requirements.

I Prior to receipt of the Dismantling Order f rom the NRC, no modifications or changes to the existing Reactor Building, the HUR, or associated struc-tures will be made except within the provisions and limitations of the existing standby NRC licenses.

The dismantling plan will require that a variety of procedures be prepared for the dismantling tasks in sufficient detail to describe how to achieve the desired end condition in a safe manner, in addition, all procedures having safety implications shall be reviewed and approved by the PBRF Dis-mantiIng Safety Comm1ttee.

I implementation of the procedures will be conducted under the supervision of the contractor and of health physics service (Health-Safety Office) person-nel, and under the cognizance and authority of the NASA PBRF Project Of fice and the PBRF Radiation Safety Officer. All completed work will be inspected by a NASA Inspector designated by management.

NASA will make every reasonable effort to maintain exposures to radiation as far below the limits specified in 10 CFR Part 20 as is reasonably achiev-able. This goal includes not only minimizing the dose to the individual worker but also the collective dose to the entire dismantling staf f.

This l

I

lI l

l 34 E-upon good, sound applied health physics principles and using supporting I

equipment, facilities, and instrumentation where applicable. This concern l

for radiation safety is reflected in the dismantling plan, the written procedures for accomplishing the dismantlement, and the enforcement of local, Federal and facilities standards and specifications.

l l

NASA management is committed to the policy of ALARA and to practices that maintain assurance that departures f rom this policy and f rom good radiation l

control procedures do not occur. NASA management will assign an audit team which will. periodically perform a formal audit to determine among other things how exposures might be reduced and, based on this audit, take neces-sary steps to reduce exposures.

I Decommissioning activities will normally be performed on a Monday through Friday day-shift basis. While the actual dismantling ef forts for PBRF are expected to continue for four to five years, the dismantling of the MUR, which will be performed concurrently with other canal and Reactor Building dismantling tasks, is not expected to require more than one year to ac-complish. No unusual radiation problems are anticipated.

It will consist of the following steps in approximate chronological order:

(Since the dis-mantling of the MUR represents only a portion of the' entire PBRF dismanti-Ing effort, some items listed below involve this larger PBRF effort.)

3 S.l em,on of a p,,me _,amo, to,,1._,he e,s_,, ng of the 1.

facility and fulfill other responsibilities described in ill A 2.

f 2.

Institute a Station and environmental monitoring program at least one ll year prior to beginning dismantiing.

l t

I I

I 35 I

3.

Prime contractor to prepare for the dismantling by:

hiring a staff; setting up services and equipment required for the dismantling; determining disposition of clean and contaminated MUR facility equip-ment in accordance with established NASA guidelines; preparing detailed implementing procedures and schedules; and training his staff for safely working with radioactive materials.

4 Continue facility, station and environmental monitoring program through-out decommissioning activities.

5 Remove Reactor Building contaminated materials and equipment located outside the Containment Vessel (CV) and decontaminate the Reactor Building.

I 6.

Remove MUR core structure and all other equipment in Canal H and decon-taminate Canal H.

7 Remove MUR cleanup system at -15' level.

8.

Remove contained piping, canal floor drains and pioing up to the Process Piping Pump Room.

E.

NOTE: This is a generalized approach to dismantling the MUR and is subject to change.

l a.

Because of the bolted construction, most of the reactor core can be 1 I disassembled using mechanical devices. The various horizontal and vertical test ports and horizontal beam ports are constre' of aluminum and can be sectioned and removed mechanically.

I I

I

36 b.

Wherever possible, mechanical means will be used to disassemble tritium-bearing components.

If electrical discharge machining (EDM),

I cutting, or fracturing is necessary it will be done underwater as in the past in the PBR.

c, Following removal of the reactor core, dismantling proceeds to the rod drive housing.

By use of proper pre-planning, detailed written procedures, safe work permit systems, and health physics monitoring, it is possible to perform prompt dismantling activities in the MUR with occupa-tional radiation exposures consistent with the ALARA principle.

All items which contain radioactivity in excess of limits will be de-contaminated if practicable, or disposed of by transfer to licensed fa-cilities if salvageable, or disposed of by burial at licensed disposal facilities in acfordance with the requirements of Title 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70. For financial reasons the nearest available licensed burial facility will be used whenever possible. At the present time this is the Barnwell, S. C. facility. Although Title 10, under certain specific conditions, permits the discharge of small quantities of radio-active waste to sanitary sewage systems or by burial on licensee-owned land, no such disposal is planned in this dismantling program. All radioactive materials will be packaged and transferred to a licensed disposal facility.

Following decontamination and dismantling, all other potentially hazard-ous conditions not under strict lock and key control will be rendered in a safe condition before the dismantling action is considered to be completed. The safety of the condition will'be a determiration of the Project Manager and will Ec' reviewed and approved by the PBRF Dismanti-Ing Safeti Comm1ttee.

3

I 37 I

Af ter program completion a thorough comprehensive radiological survey of the HUR site will be performed to verify that all radioactivity in excess of the specified limits (Ill E) has been removed f rom the site.

This will include direct radiation, fixed contamination and smear sur-veys. A sunrnary survey report will be written and submitted to NRC Identifying the areas surveyed, the types or monitoring, and the find-ings expressed in units of measurement specified in the limits.

Preparatory work will be required prior to the dismantling and may in-clude modifications to some of the existing facilities.

Since many of the facility air handling and liquid ef fluent handling systems have already been extensively decontaminated and are complex systems to oper-ate. It will be more practicable to Install simple temporary portable systems for airborne and waterborne waste handling on a localized work-site basis to supply services necessary to protect the worker and the public during the dismantling activities.

For example, mobile or semi-portable air handling systems to provide enveloped containment and high efficiency filtered local exhaust ventilation. A number of fans, pumps, and other equipment are already available at PBRF to provide these services. Substantial use of portable air containment envelopes is planned during any cutting, grinding, and other dismantling and decon-tamination techniques that could generate airborne radioactivity and toxic dusts and f umes.

High efficiency particulate filtration will be required, as well as substantial use of respiratory protective equip-ment for work within the envelopes.

I g

a

swa' y "N T

p 38 I

~

8:

Facilitles and services are alreadyL available to provide:

security-servicVs (the entire facility -is fenced and provided with a guard house entryK; working building and office space for the dismantling staff; change rooms; lockers; sanitary facilities; and a personnel decontami-na ti$b a rea. The Waste Handt ing Building, Hot Laboratory'and Fan House areasiphovide waste packaging and storage capabilit.les, Contamina ted 5

protective clothing laundering,. respiratory protection equipment de-r, cocitamina tion and se icing, and tool and small parts decontamination capabilities can be readily reinstituted on-site. During dismantling operations various plant systems'will be required. The systems that may be placed into operation-areToted in Table 3.

~

'1ke removal sequence of equl'pment and systems will give priority to

~

).'

removal ~ of material hav?,1g high radiation and/or high contamination levels in order to minimize exposure to the personnel by attaining low background levels as soon as : pract'icable.

C.

Safety (spects of Dismantling Operations

~-<

l.

General in developing the plans for dismantling PBRF and the MUR, priority con -

. sideration was glven to the potential effects it wou have on the en-

+

vironment and the general public/. '

[

It is the r,olicy of the Lewis Research Center to manage and conduct its optcetions in such a manner as to minimize all potential hazards, c

j tc. property and inj ury t a personnel. The Lewis Research Center.

k j s recognized ' safety codes, regulations, and standards in 11 its

-Piartivities, The review, approval and surveillance functions ofi the

,j l' 11 E

.).

'?

.r.

+

c?>

2

o 39 TABLE 3 I

OPERATING SYSTEMS OR CAPABILITIES THAT MAY BE ESTABLISHED 1.

Certain mobile radiation protection systems, e.g., constant air monitors.

2.. Electrical power.

I 3.

Liquid radioactive waste disposal capabilities.

4.

Gaseous waste disposal.

5.

Contaminated protective clothing laundry facilities.

ha 6.

Ventilation.

7 Air conditioning and heating.

8.

Service water.

9 Telephone and Intercom connunications.

10.

Emergency electrical power.

I.

11., Service and control air.

12.

Fire Protection System.

e 8

t I

1 I

E I

e l

E Lewis Safety Organization were established to insure compliance with sound safety practices. The P8RF and MUR were operated In a safe man-ner for over 10 years under established procedural safeguards.

I-Appilcable radiological control and Industrial safety procedures and i

standards will be reinstituted during the dismantling operations and s

augmented where needed. All dismantling operations will be performed j

under procedures and controls approved wholly or in part by management, the Radiation Safety Officer, and the PBRF Dismantling Safety Committee to assure employee and public safety. Any task involving a potential safety hazard wlil be reviewed in advance for adequacy of controls.

.I Where safety is a consideration, detailed procedures will be required which provide radiation and Industrial safety requirements and limita-tions.

Safe Work Permits will be required where safety of personnel and-facility is dependent upon observance of controls to perform work safely under potentially hazardous conditions.

I 2.

Contractor Dismantling Staff The contractor dismantling staf f will include:

project administration personnel; project engineers; scheduling and field supervisors; health I:

physicists, radiation technicians, safety engineers, and laboratory technicians; electronics technician; decontamination and waste pro-cessing technicians; and support service personnel including property custodians, maintenance electricians and mechanics, Janitors and secur-Ity guards. A total complement of up to 30 to 40 persons will provide I

on-site trained manpower resource capabilities to cope with a variety of potential problems which can occur on an unplanned basis, ~ including emergency s i tua t ions.

I I

I 41 3.; Possibility of Accidents Safeguards against the occurrence of accidents include detailed plan-ning, documentation of procedures, continu!ng close supervision of all operations and the use of trained and skilled personnel. The probabil-Ity of an accident occurring is considered less likely than that of I

most construction activities because of the detailed careful advanced preparations, the strict procedural controis associated with work invol-ving radioactivity, and the close supervision.

In the event of an acci-dent, the radiation safety personnel will have been trained to provide first-aid services and prompt response to an accident situation. Contain-ment and confinement of radioactivity will be procedurally assured.

4.

Emergency Procedures Presently emergency. procedures are in effect at Plum Brook Station to direct the Station plant protection personnel in the event of an emer-gency involving PBRF. The Plant Protection Office at the PBS Is manned on a 24-hour basis seven days a week. The Radiation Protection Officer and the PBRF Manager are immediately notified of all abnormal conditions at PBRF,-such as fire or storm damage. Trained back-up health physics personnel are available at PBS and also at the LeRC, Cleveland, Ohio.

The PBS emergency procedures describe the Station's normal and emer-gency organization and define the 1Ine of authority, responsibl11tles and functions.

Emergency communication networks can be established in dealing with the emergency and will function under adverse conditions of weather and environment.

E I

E

I The Lewis Research Center is associated with the NRC Interagency Radiological Assistance Plan and the resources of IRAP are available when needed.

With the increased operations at PBRF dealing with the dismantling

' activities, the more detailed emergency procedures that were in effect at PBRF during'its operating period will be reinstituted and/or I

augmented as appropriate to personnel staf fing and to the degree of potential hazard present during the dismantling period.

An emergency organization with an emergency coordinator, control staf f, II fire brigade and security personnel will be defined and assigned specif-

~

ic duties and responsibilities. Trained fire fighting personnel are on duty at PBS at all times.

In addition, if.necessary, the nearest comunity fire department will respond to any request for assistance.

The procedures will prescribe appropriate measures to be taken by all E

personnel at the site. Arrangements for medical treatment and handling of contaminated persons will be made.

Emergency training and drills

-will be provided.

5 5..

Industrial Safety Title 29, CFR' 1910. " Occupational Safety and Health Standards", which establishes the requirements for employers to provide a safe place to g.

g work, will be observed.

Extensive' decommiss,loning activities involving dismantling at PBRF will employ the use of a -professional safety engineer for assistance in developing. standard operating and working procedures

_to assure compliance with 29 CFR 1910. Also, decontamination and dis-

~

mantling work performed within work site containment envelopes may create i

I

I 43

.I-a toxic atmosphere which requires the wearing of bresthing air supply equipment. The Airborne Radiation Protection Standards of 10 CFR 20 are Invoked by 29 CFR 1910. The non-radioactive protection standards in-cluded in 29 CFR 1910.1000, Air Contaminants, which defines the airborne limits for the gases, vapors, fumes, dusts and mist which could be gen-

.I erated in decounissioning will be observed.

The Plum Brook Reactor Facility is owned by an agency of the United States Government and is located on property owned by the Federal Government with exclusive federal Jurisdiction. As such, local and state laws generally are not applicable to activities conducted within the confines of Plum Brook Station. NASA, however, has maintained a policy of complying with the intent of state and local laws wherever possible including, but not limited, to such items as construction standards, elevator, boiler, and crane inspection, health and safety standards, and ef fluent control limitations. The majority of regulations pertaining to PBRF and MUR decommissioning activities, however, are those controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the Department of Transportation; the Labor Department; Occupational Safety and Health Administration; and the Environmental Protection Agency. These regula-tions will be observed.

6.

Radiation Safety A health physics radiation protection progrum will be provided under the

. cognizance of the PBRF Radiation Safety Officer and the PBRF Dismantling Safety Committee. This program will be implemented under contract by trained and experienced supervisory, technical, and service contractor

t 3:

I 44' personnel. Health physics personnel will be present at the site when (dismantling activities are in progress to provide' complete support and health physics supervision. These services inclede but are not Ilmited to safe work' permits, radiological control zone posting, personnel dosim-etry and bloassay, protective clothing and respiratory protective device 5

service, facility and equipment decontamination, personnel decontamina-tion, handling of contaminated injuries, radiation exposure records, liquid effluent and gaseous effluent monitoring and control, environ-

-mental surveillance, and all the associated industrial hygiene, safety

.and health physics tasks.

I In developing the plans for dismantling PBRF and the MUR, priority con-sideration was given to the potential effects it would have on the envi ronment and the general public. This

.ose attention will continue throughout the dismantling cperations to ensure that discharges of gas-

~

_ eous and liquid wastes to the environs are minimized and that all re-leases of radioactivity will be not only lower than the limitations proposed for this program,. but as low as reasonably achievable.

The radiation protection goal Is to minimize occupational doses whenever reasonably achievable. All activities where the worker must enter.

.h.

m radiation zones will be planned ahead of time to minimize exposures.

When tasks. result in significant radiation exposures, a post-operation review of the job will be made with the workers to identify how proce-dures can be changed to' reduce subsequent exposures when performing similar tasks _in the future. Training will reinforce the principles of radiation protection on the worker. The ALARA program will be an in-tegral part of the written radiation protection procedures and guides, Iy E

45 Personnel will be instructed in. management's commitment to implement ALARA, what ALARA means, why it is recommended, and how they implement

~lt on their jobs. As part of the training programs the individual will be tested annually to insure the person knows how radiation protection relates to the job.

Solid radioactive wastes will be packaged and shipped in accordance with

- 5 applicable NRC, DOT and state and local regulations. Containers await-Ing shipment.will meet radiation and contamination limits and will be stored on-site in specified, secure, posted areas. All radioactive waste shipments will be by common carrier or contract carrier and sole use of vehicle. Burial will be at NRC-licensed berial sites.

Records will be maintained of the content and disposition of every waste con *.:Iner leaving PBRF.

Entry to the fenced area surrounding the PBRF site will be controlled by securlty personnel during operating hours.

During non-operating hours the fenced site will be locked and continuing around-the-clock-security surveillance of the Plum Brook Station will be provided. The PBRF and MUR will be inspected by the security guard at least once each eight-hour shif t during non-operating shif ts.

All personnel entering 1

PBRF will be admitted under security survelliance through the PBRF guard house and a radiation dosimetry Identity badge issued by the guard must be worn at all times when within the facility. Heavy equipment and vehicle entries and exits will be controlled at the guard house vehicle gate. Strict visitor controls will be maintained. No equipment or materials may be removed f rom the site without health physics clearance.

All of the above security controls will remain in effect until all j

reactor originated radioactivity has been removed f rom the f acili ty.

D.

Site Conditions upon Completion of the Dismantling Operations

-Upon completion of the _MUR decontamination and dismantling operation, there will be no radioactive materials, structures or contaminants in excess of the stipulated limits. Upon acceptance of the final radiological survey report and termination of the license by the NRC, no restrictions will be imposed upon the site due to its prior use as a nuclear research reactor f a ci li ty..At PBRF numerous non-radioactive structures including the Reactor Building will remain standing for an undefined period of time. The facility, aiong with a number of other facilities at Plum Brook Station are, and will be, owned by the Federal government, and may be excessed for disposal at NASA's discretion with no limitations due to former use. The P8RF site appearance will be consistent with other PBS sites.

NASA will make a final comprer.?nsive radiation and contamination survey to establish that the radioactivity levels are within the limits specified (Ill E). A detailed report will be prepared and sent to appropriate NRC offices. The report will identify the premises, show that a reasonable ef-fort has been made to eliminate residual contamination, describe the scope of the survey and the general procedures followed, and state the findings of the surveys in units of measurement specified in the limits.

I E.

Radioactive Limits Acceptable Af ter Dismantling in all dismantling and decontamination efforts, NASA will make a reasonable ef fort to eliminate or reduce radioactive residual contamination to the maximum practicable extent technically and economically feasible, i

I; 46.

Radioactivity on any surface will not be covered by paint, plating or other covering unless the level'of contamination is less than the applicable limits specifle'd below prior to applying the covering. The measured levels will be documented in detall. A reasonable effort will be made to minimize the contamination prior to covering and when required to postpone the cover-Ing untti af ter the NRC periodic or final inspection and review of the final PBRF survey report.

in any event thorough documentation of radioactivity levels will be maintained.

I

-The radioactivity on the Interior surfaces of pipes, drain lines, or duct-work shall be determined by making measurements of all traps, and other appropriate access points, provided that contamination at these locations is likely to be representative of contamination on the Interior of the pipes, drain lines, or ductwork. Surf aces of premises, equipment, er scrap which are likely to be contaminated but are of such size, construction, or location-as to make the surface inaccessible for purposes of measurement

..shall be presumed to be contaminated in excess of the limits.

1 I

All equipment, materials, structures,' and surf aces will be decontaminated to the levels of radioactivity.specified below before the site is considered

~

to be qualified for release f rom the NRC licenses and controls.

.I.

~ 1.

' Residual Surface Contamination There are two sets of limits established for residual surface contami-nation at PBRF subsequent' to decontamination efforts. These are based

,upon two considerations:

(1) some equipment and structures have value for_ re-use in their present form at some time.in the future or other-wise subject to transfer to the public domain (Table 4) while (2) other i

47 materials and structures will be left standing pending final ~ disposition by dismantling and scrapping or are immediately disposed of as waste material either at a PBS fill site or a public landfill (or in the' case

.g 5

of scrap metal by recycling).

(Table 5) i Where the material may be removea from the site and placed into use by f

anyone, whether a government agency or the general public, for unre-

- stricted, unlic.ensed use, the more restrictive fixed and transferable 1

level of contamination specified in Table 4 below must be met.

2.

Direct Radiation

.I External direct radiation levels at and within Canal If will not exceed an overall average of 0.05 mr/hr nor a maximum of 0.1 mr/hr at three feet from the surface of concern. These 1 els are exclusive of natural background levels.

.I I:

I 1

-I LI

i..

48 TABLE 4 Contamination Limits for Reuseable items and Structures Remaining in Place Condition Average Maximum Removable alpha 10 d/m/100cm 30 d/m/100cm 2

2 Total non-removable 425 d/m/100cm 1275 d/m/100cm (fixed) alpha

.(250 d/m/ probe area)

(750 d/m/ probe area) 2 1800 d/m/100cm Removable beta-gamma 600 d/m/100 cm 2

2 Total non-removable 500 c/m/100cm 1500 c/m/100cm

.Il (fixed) beta-gamma (300 c/m/ probe area)

(900 c/m/ probe area)

I I-Where.the material is to be placed into a landfill, whether public or at PBS, or otherwise disposed of as fill or waste, the limits specified in l

Table-5 app Y.

Contamination Limits for Rubble or Scrap Condition Ave ra ge Max 1 mum 2

2 Removable alpha 100 d/m/100cm 300 d/m/100cm 2

2 Total non-removable 850 d/m/100cm 2550 d/m/100cm l

(fixed) alpha (500 d/m/ probe area)

(1500 d/m/ probe area) 2 2

Removable beta-gamma 1000 d/m/100cm 3000 d/m/100cm L

2 2

Total non-removable 2500 c/m/100cm 7500 c/m/100cm (fixed) beta-gamma (1500 c/m/ probe area)

(4500 c/m/ probe area)

Notes for Tab)es 4 no 5:

Where surfeca antamination by both alpha and beta-gamma emitting

.(1)_

nuclides exist, the limits established for alpha and beta-gamma emitters apply independently.

il

49

.(2) Disintegrations per minute -(d/m) means the rate of emission by radioactive material as determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background, ef ficiency, and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.

(3) The limits in Table 4 and 5 refer to those.>aiucs obtained af ter subtracting background levels indicated by the appropriate Instrument used in making the measurement, in the same units of measurement.

I (4) Measurement of average concentration will not be. averaged over more than one (1) square meter. For objects of less surface area, the average will be derived for each such object.

I (5) The maximum contamination level applies to an area of not more than 100 square centimeters.

-(6) The amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm of surface area will be determined by wiping the area with dry filter raper applying moderate pressure and assessing the amount of radioactive material transferred to the filter paper with an appr rlate Instrument of known efficiency. When wipes of ob-2 jects of surface area less than 100 cm are made, the partinent limits will be reduced proportionall'y and the entire surface of the object will be wiped.

(7) Fixed contamination will be determined using appropriate port-able radiation survey instruments with sensitivities comparable l

I-50-I-

to the Eberline Model PAC-3G for alpha and the NMC Hodel GS-3W for beta gamma.

t lg (8)

Beta radiation must be measured with an instrument capable of

!5 passing 95% of alI beta particles with an energy greater L

2 than 0.1 Hev (7 mg/cm window).

g I

I I-I I

I I

I

!I

'I LI

I:

I

'IV.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I.

~

A.

Radiological Impact All reactor fuel and other SNM were shipped f rom the MUR and PBRF prior to the issuance of the standby, possession only Itcenses. The remaining reactor-originated radioactive material is contained in structural members such as the reactor core and experiment _ components, or as low-level surface

' contamination within zoned, posted areas. The extent of this radioactivity is shown in item Il G and as of June, 1978, is calculated to be less than

.one curie within Canal H (0.12 C1 excluding the contained tritium isotope).

I The potentially adverse effects are:

(i) exposure to the personnel participating in the dismantilng operations to the direct external radiation levels associated with the facility, and to airborne concentrations of radioactive materials released to the work environment during dismantling and (2) exposure to the public to direct external radiation during the transport of packaged radioactive wastes and to airborne and waterborne radioactivity due to releases beyond the confines of PBRF during dismanti-Ing activities.

1 Employee Exposure Control I

Prevention of. excessive employee exposure and minimization of exposure will be accomplished.by detailed procedural controls, training, and sound health physics practices. Health physics will identify and con-trol all radiological control areas. Work involving potentially

'significant radiation exposure within these areas will require safe work permits. The work permits will. define the scope of the work activity, I

I

s2 a

'G the potential hazards, and the protective measures and conditions which must be met to perform the job.

During performance of the task, indus-trial and radiological safety controls will be monitored by health E

physics, and the work.will be performed by persons trained in the safety controls and the use of protective equipment. The principles of "as low as -reasonably ach8 evable" of NRC Regulatory Guide 8.8 wi1I be im-posed on the decommissioning processes wherever practical.

Occupational man-rems radiation exposure estimates were made for task personnel who will be involved in the dismantling. The estimates were based upon calculated and measured surface dose rates at the facility for times estimated to complete the various tasks. The total dose to dismantle the MUR was calculated to be approximately 10 man-rems to the dismantling staff and negligible exposure to staff and support personnel.

The waste disposal truck drivers are calculated to receive about 18 man-rems as the result of transporting the total PBRF wastes in the shipping containers to the burial facilities. The MUR portion of this exposure Is negligible. All the above occupational exposures are assumed to occur through direct external radiation exposure.

Inhalation of airborne contaminants should be held to less than 1% of the concentration stan-dards by means of: a) continuous air monitoring of all activities where airborne activity could be generated, b) by a respiratory protection program (Involving fitting, testing, inspection and training In use of approved respiratory protection), c) by proper pre-planning of tasks

.I using containment envelopes where appropriate, and d) by administration of health physics controls through use of safe work permit procedures, og 11

!I.

In the use of containment envelopes, e.g. during tasks involving mechanical cutting of radioactive components where alrborne contami-nants could be generated, ventilation will be provided, with the ex-

.haust passing through a high-efficiency particulate (" absolute") fil ter

'before release to the area outside the containment envelope. The need for such envelopes will be determined by the health physics group.

~

The discharge f rom the envelope will not be to an outdoor area, but to an_ area within the confines of the Reactor Building. Thus, pre-filtering and then redundant confinement of the ventilated air will be assured whenever there is a potential of release of contaminants.

In removing contaminated materials f rom the dismantling work area into or through clean areas, no removable contamination will be permitted on outside surfaces of the object t ra ns f e r red. This will be accomplished either by decontamination or by appropriate containment and wrapping.

I in addition, respiratory protection will be required and worn by the worker when levels to toxic contaminants could exceed the threshold limit values specified by OSHA. Supplied-air respi ratory protection will be specified when deemed advisable by health physics, er*

For airborne particulate radioactive contamination the following limits on occupational exposure concentration will apply in determining respiratory protection requirements:

(these limits are based on ex-

, posure to 40 MPC-hours in any work week; "MPC" refers to the values of I-Title 10, CFR, Part 20 Table 1, Column 1, Appendix B)

I I

I

I 54 Less than two (2) HPC-hours in any one day or ten (10)

.l.

MPC-hours in any one week for beta-gamma; no respiratory protection required.

2.

In excess of item 1 above but less than 10 HPC:

full face respirators with high ef ficiency filters or self-contained I~

breathing apparatus, demand type, required.

3 Greater than 10 MPC:

full-face self-contained breathing 1I ~.

apparatus with pressure demand; supplied air respiratory protection with continuous flow; or hood with continuous flow.

Operating procedures will-detall the implementation of these standards.

Supplied-air respiratory protection will be provided when gaseous radioactive contamination is present above permissible levels.

Every effort will be made to maintain airborne contaminant concentrations in work areas as low as is reasonably achievable.

2 General.Public Exposure Control Limits on releases of radioactive liquids and gases to the environs will be in effect during decommissioning activities. These limits will I

be commensurate with meeting the as low as reasonably achievable policy and_10 CFR 20 section 20.106.

Liquid effluent radioactivity 'will be minimized through a combination I.

of such methods as controlling the volumes of water used, by the use of holding systems,' filtration, and ion exchange cleanup, and by close monitoring and control. Liquid wastes will be collected in the hold

-g 5

tank (s), sampled, analyzed for radioactivity, and released on a batch basis only af ter it_ is demonstrated that further filtration, treatment

-and -dilution' will not appreciably reduce the radioactivity levels and the effluent specification ilmits have been' met both for radioactivity I

and for toxic chemical characteristics. The water is then released to Plum-Brook via the PBRF effluent ditch system.

I

55 I-

' Contaminated water will be generated primarily during cutting opera-

. tions, during' decontamination, and in protective clothing laundering.

~

Methods will be developed and applied to ensure that all ilquid wastes so generated are collected-and processed before release.

Contaminated solid waste will be collected and packaged for shipment to licensed burial sites, in accordance with applicable NRC and DOT regulations. -The types of containers will be dictated by physical size of material, radioactivity levels, and degree of surface contamination.

I.

Shipments are governed by the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the l

DOT (Title 49 CFR 170-189). Additional packaging standards are imposed i

j by the NRC 'in its regulations (Title 10 CFR 71). These regulations will

~be strictly followed.

The principle. radionuclides to be packaged and shipped f rom the MUR will be cobalt 60, iron 55, and tritium. Very little if any of this radio-active material is likely to require Type 8 or large quantity shipments.

Nearly everything will qualify as low specific activity material.

I Additional regulations pertaining to the transport.lon of radioactive waste are based on the various weight and size limitations imposed by the respective state highway departments. No ' oversize shipments are f

~

anticipated.

l-In' shipping hazardous materials, the common carrier is required to file his intended route with the appropriate state highway department. The routes and scheduling of'each shipment will be determined by the cir-cumstances existing at the time of the shipment.

In the event of an

I

ft 56 accident.enroute, notification will be made promptly to the appropriate

- NRC Regional Office in accordance wita the provisions of the interagency Radiological Assistance Plan. This will provide expeditious assistance

.I.

at the accident site. The PBS would also be promptly notified. The pre-ponderance of the more highly radioactive material shipped will be fixed in solid metal components.

In the event of an accident involving these components, the material would remain intact even in the event of a ship-ping container. breach, and would not result in the spread of rsdioactive contamination. Since no fissionable material is present, a criticality accident is impossible. The maximum hazard therefore would be that re-sulting f rom direct gamma radiation.

None of the MUR components will exceed a contact dose rate of 100 mr/hr unshielded.

The low specific activity materials comprise a small portion of the to-tal radioactive inventory but a large portion of the total volume of waste material to be shipped. Such material will be placed in sealed, leak-tight shipping containers designed to remain intact in the event of I

an accident. Thus these materials are not expected to present an airborne or surface contaminant problem, or to be subject to dispersion due to an accident.

Because of the small quantity of radioactive material relative to the bulk of each shipment, no single shipment should pose any hazard to the health and safety of the pubilc even if it is assumed to be dis-persed at the accident scene.

Thus, -for the radioactive shipments f rom the MUR, there appears to be no situation where, even in the event of an accident, the public would I'-

likely be exposed to radiation doses in excess of those permitted under l-I I

57

.l e

normal shipment criteria. The non-occupational radiation exposure to the general public f rom transportation of all the radioactive waste generated over the MUR dismantling period is negligible.

The radioactive waste will be disposed of by burial at a NRC-licensed commercial burial-ground.

It is estimated that one or two truck-ship-ments will be required to dispose of all wastes generated in the MUR dismantlement. All containers and casks received at PBRF will be moni-tored for radiation prior to use.

The exposure to the general public f rom direct radiation is not expected

.g 5

to be measureably above background levels at the exclusion area bound-artes during dismantling.

Implementation of the ALARA principle to minimize occupational exposures will also result in virtually non-detectable levels of radiation at the exclusion area boundary.

B.

Non-radiological Impact 1.

Direct Effects a.

Gene ra l Other than the radioactivity aspects, the nature of the dismantling operations is similar to that of a construction project. The im-pact of these' operations, however, is not expected to be significant since the PBRF site is isolated from public access by virtue of its location within the 5400 acre PBS fenced area, and the MUR within the' Reactor Building.

Existing PBS roads are available for vehicular i

5 traffic. ' Local noise levels during the dismantling operation may l

be increased at times as a result of equipment operation, but again, remoteness of the' site will minimize impact on the public.

In-I g

I 58 creased vehicular. traf fic can also be expected both from the work force transportation and f rom the of fsite shipment of wastes and scrap but again will have little impact on the public.

E The. dismantling operations are not expected to involve extensive i

chemical wastes except perhaps in some decontamination operations, and wastes f rom these operations will usually be disposed of as radioactive waste, or if nonradioactive can be accomodated in large measure by existing contracted disposal services.

If however, additional facilities are required, they will be installed and operated so as to comply with the applicable Federal, State and local s ta nda rds.

Existing sanitary services will be put back into ser-vice and utilized and supplemented as necessary by temporary facil-Ities, whose wastes can be collected and disposed of offsite in an approved manner.

There are no endangered' species 'that will be af fected by the dis-mantling operation.

Neither are there any known features, structures I-or objects of a historic, archaeological or unique cultural nature which would be affected by the dismantling. No streams or other bodies of water will be dredged, filled, impounded, diverted or channelled. Various non-radiological effects due to decommissioning 1

were considered with respect to their ef fect on the public and the

)

.E environs. Although considered to be minar in overall ef fect, the only significant factor was noise f rom demolition activities and local truck deliveries and waste transportation.

I g

I 59 b.

Water. Supply Domestic water will be supplied through the existing PBS domestic water.-system f rom Erie County.

Relatively small quantitles of domestic water will be required:

for drinking and sanitary facil-Itles; for decontaminatton efforts; and for possible iIquid ef fIuent dilution. The average consumption of domestic water during peri-ods of full operation of the PBS was 100,000 gallons-per day. The usage with PBS in standby is 30,000. gallons per day. The increase in usage due to MUR dismantling activities will be minimal.

c.

Waste Water Discharge f rom the sanitary faci 1itles wI11 flow into the sanitary drain system serving the facility and will be treated as sanitary waste at the existing Station secondary treatment facility.

The Plum Brook Station operates a biological waste treatment plant lo-cated on Taylor Road outside the main fence. This plant treats the domestic wastes generated f rom the northern portion of the Plum Brook Station', as well as about 40' residences located on Columbus Avenue and Taylor Road. Flows f rom these areas range f rom 10,000 to 15,000 gallons.per day. The treatment plant consists of a primary settling tank for settleable' solids removal, followed by a trick-ling filter for removal of blodegradable material. The increase associated with an additional 30 to 40 persons involved in the PBRF-dismantling task does not impose a significant impact on public

-I health.

NASA maintains a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit which regulates the release of all liquid wastes I-

I

.I--

60 from Plum Brook Station. This Permit No. OH0001392 was obtained through the EPA,' Region 5, Chicago. When decommissioning activi-ties commence at the PBRF the EPA will be advised of the change in the status as it relates to current NPDES requirements. All NPDES limitations will be complied with.

d.-

Utilities I

The average annual consumption of electric power at the Plum Brook 6

Station is presently 3 x 10 Kwh, representing 0.4% of the annual 6

supply of 720 x'10 Kwh provided by the Ohio Edison Co. to its service area in Erie County. _ Host of the facilities at PBS are inactive but are-held in abeyance for any future reactivation if needed.

It is not expected that the level of electrical power use for the, dismantling program would create any significant impact on the total electricity consumption.

I Natural gas was used at Plum Brook Station in many of the NASA research and test facilities.

(Presently most of these facili-ties are inactive.)

Natural gas is also the primary fuel used I

for heating the Station buildings. Natural gas is purchased from Columbia Gas of Ohio, Inc. which supplies the Plum Brook Station as well as the Sandusky area.

Gas utilization at the Station in 1976 was 27 million cubic feet. This is a very small percentage of the more than 6.8 billion cubic feet distributed in 1976 by the Columbia Gas Company in Erie County.

Gas usage g

fo,eism.ntling acti.it,.s wil, be inconse,uentiai.

I I.

~

61 e.

Utillty Services All utility distribution systems are operated and maintained by NASA personnel or NASA on-site contractor personnal.

I f.

Solid Waste The solid non-radioactive waste from the Plum Brook Station is disposed of by contract. There is approximately 6-10 cubic yards of solid waste generated per week at the Station presently, which Is disposed of in the county sanitary landfill. The percentage of solid waste that will be generated by the dismantling activities

~

should be minimal compared to the total county's waste.

Virtu-ally no additional solid wastes will be generated in the MUR

-I dismantling task.

I g.

Public Services The Plum Brook Station imposes little demand on the public services of fered by the communi ty e.g. securi ty, ambulance, and fire pro-tection, because these are provided on-site by the service con-t ra c to r.

Thus dismantling activities will not impact public services.

h.

Aesthetics The Plum Brook Station is not visually incongruous with its immed-late environment. The wooded landscape and other vegetation on the Station hide most of the structures from outside view. To the viewer on U. S. Route 250 the Plum Brook Station appears as a densely wooded area surrounded by farmland.

Only a few of the I

I

I 62 taller structures such as the 100 KW WTG, the test stands, and' the Space Power Facility are visible ' f rom the highway. The only-structure at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility that is visible I'

from the highway is the water tower.

Dismantlement of the MUR

~

will not change the aesthetics so far as the pubile is concern-ed.

!I-1.

. T_opog ra phy Dismantilng of the MUR will not affect the present existing diked drainage system within the PBRF. No major new structures will be erected.

Excavated cavities will be backfilled to

.I..

ground level.

J.

Wildlife Most of Plum Brook Station consists of second growth hardwood and shrubs with substantial open fleid areas.

Ponds and poorly drained areas provide a wide diversity in habitat types.

Associated with these habitats are a variety of, mammal species and an even greater assortment of migrant and resident bird species. The most noticeable mammal on Station is the white-tall deer, numbering approximately 600. Wood chucks and fox squirrels are also present in large numbers.

Less numerous but still quite plentif ul are raccoon and opossum. There are also a sizeable number of red and grey fox, cottontall rabbit, I-chipmunks, muskrats, striped skunks and several species of mink, shrews, moles,. mice, rats, and bats.

I

, I I

.I 63 The_' spring and fall periods are marked by a wide variety of ml-

'l grant bird ' species which utilize the Station. Among these migrant species are the American woodcock, Virginia rail, American robin,. bluejay, turkey vulture, mourning dove, kilI -

deer, upland sandpiper, meadowlark, eastern bluebird, barn swallow, crow, r everal species of ducks, and Canadian geese.

I A large number of bird ' species including red-tailed hawks,

_ great horned owls, bobwhi te qua i l, ringnecked pheasants, star-lings, pigeons, and house sparrows are year-round residents of the Station.

Currently, the Department of Interior, Bureau of I nterior, Bu-reau of. Sport Fisheries and Wildlife manages and controls the wildlife at the " ration under an interagency agreement with NASA.

Af ter September 30, 1980 this function will be assumed by on-site r.ontractor personnel in coopera.;n with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

The immediate area surrounding PBRF consists of grassy flatiands marked with an assortment of trees and underbrush.

This fringe area will-.be undisturbed and provides a buffer zone between the dismantling activities and wildlife. Wildlife typically avoids areas of construction activity and will relocate into the avall-able surrounding area.

The dismantling of the MUR being entirely within the PBRF fenced perimeter will have little impact upon the

~

wildlife.

I JI.

k.

Tra f f ic Only the small fenced area of approximately 30 acres, plus several paved road corridors leading to PBRF and nearby existing utilities and services will be disturbed during dismantling.

The use of in-ternal combustion engines will disc.harge small amounts of em'ssions

~

'into the ambient air, but these are considered minor effects.

.I.

Social and Economic No adverse social or economic ef fects are expected f rom the MUR dismantling activities, a) The relatively small number of employees required for several years are substantially less than the staf fing during ths reactor operating mode and constitutes an approximate doubling of the present NASA and contract support staff for PBS.

b)

Road and_ highway access to PBS is excellent. There are no major residential areas on the routes f rom PBS to the State highways.

c) Most of the expense of dIsmantIing wi11 be committed lo-cally and so will benefit the area econony, d) Ultimate restoration of substantial. acerage (500 acres) for possible productive use by elimination of PBRF restrictive conditions will also be of benefit.

2.

Indirect Effects-a.

Land Use The PBRF site with its buffer zo' e of approximately 500 acres is presently conynitting land which could be put to more beneficial I

E

/

/

65 use in the future. Until the radioactivity is eliminated, no other use of the land other than for isolation purposes is possible.

b.

Social and Economic Factors I

it is expected tN t the dismantlement of PBRF and the MUR will result in temporary em[loyment of approximately 30 to 40 persons over a 4 to 5 ye(r period. The present employed population at PBS

[ Including resibent federal agencies is about 65 persons, a quarter th'at of five yearv ago, and' one eighth that for a number of years prior to PBRF/POS shutdown in t 973 /1974. The increase of employment I

due to dismant!Ing lil provide income to the area and create addi-tional commerce required to provide materials and services during the distra.l ing per' lod.

~ i:..., Populat ion and Growth Dismantling operations will not impact. population or growth patterns in the area significantly due to the relatIvely few people involved.

Pdst employment history at PBS Indicates employees tend to disperse throughout the region, thus spreading the increase in population m

I over a rather large area. The growth in goods and services to sup-qiort he needs oh new%mployees and their families will not signi-

.g I

.fy, ficantly impact economic and social patterns.

. s>

o d.

Public, ervices and Uti1i t 'es I

With most of the test facilities at PBS in a standby mode, the re-quirement for public services and utilities is now minimal.

Based

-c'il current allotments for PBS, adequate supplies of natural gas, I

electricity, domestic water and telephones will be avallable to meet

. ! r, t.

i d ismanti Isi requirements.

7

'Y...

v

}?

I e.

Effective Use of Government Funds in order to' maintain PBRF and HUR in a safe standby condition, in-creasing amounts of funds must now be expended as buildings and equipment deteriorate with age.

Dismantling the facility will elim-Inate the need for such maintenance funds and provide an overall cost benefit to the government.

.f.

The elimination of a non-productive research reactor facility would allay any pub 11c concern for the presence of the associated multi-curies of radioactivity.

I C.

Environmental Cont rol Program The Environmental Pollu'.lon Control Program at Lewis Research Center provides for environmental control at Plum Brook Station.

The program involves the activities of a significant number of employees and cuts across all organizational elements at Cleveland and Plum Brook Station.

The basic objectives of the program have been to employ a systematic approach to all facilities and operations encompassing considerations I.

that in any way relate to the health and safety of NASA personnel ed residents of surrounding communities.

In essence, Lewis Research Center has assumed a, policy of leadership in protecting and enhancing the qual-Ity of the environment.

It is the Lewis Research Centur policy on matters of environment qual-Ity protection and enhancement to:

(1) monitor, evaluate, and control on a continuing basis all Lewis Research Center activities which have been identified as having potential of affecting the quality of the environ-

~

-ment; (2) review by the Health /Safet '/Envirnnmental Pollution Control I

I

I organizations all new proposed operations and programs for their env!ronmental impact; (3) review by the Lewis Research Center Environ-mental Pollution Control Board (EPCB) existing or potential environmen-tal or control prr~ bms and make appropriate recommendations to the Director, Lewis Research Center; (4) insure that 'information regarding existing or potential environmental problems and control methods develop-ed as part of research, development, or test activities is made avail-able to Federal agencies, states, and local government, as appropriate:

and, (5) conform in a timely manner to new environmental quality stan-dards as they are issued by local, state and Federal agencies responsible I

for environmental regulation, and to establish meaningful Internal standards based on environmental health criteria where regulations or standards do not exist.

I It is intended that the environmental considerations for the dismantle-ment of the MUR will be in accord with policies adopted by Lewis Research Center for protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment.

I D.

Envi ronmental Surveil lance Program Both the PBRF (including the MUR) and the PBS cre presently monitored by health physics personnel on a quarterly f requency to determine the levels of direct radiation, transferable radioactive contamination, and waterborne and airborne radioactivity present in the environment during the PBRF 's tandby condition. This is done to-verify that radioact ive material's within PBRF are adequately contained. This program will' be expanded commensurate with the increase in work activities when dismantl-ing and decontamination operations begin.

Both the number of sampling

I 68 stations and f requency of collection of samples will be increased

Is monitoring program presently includes but is not Ilmited to the follow-Ing:

I 1.

Facility Monitoring a.

Surveys of direct beta-gamma radiation levels in mrem /hr using portable survey instruments are performed at trans itions between radiological control zones.

Surveys of general area direct radiation levels using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD 's) are made at numerous locations throughout PBRF. A packet con-talning two TLD discs is positioned at each location. Average dose rates, in mr/hr are computed f rom time of installation to time of readout. One disc is exchanged quarterly and the other on an annual basis, b.

The degree of transferable contamination is monitored by taking representative wipe samples of surfaces at the transitions be-tween radiological control zones. The filter paper wipes are counted for gross alpha activity and bete-gamma activity in 2

d/m/cm,

c.

General air samples are collected by drawing air through an HV70 filter paper or equivalent.

Samples are obtained over a 24-hour period at a flow rate of approximately two c f m.

The filter paper is counted for alpha and beta-gamma. _ Breathing zone samples

~

representative of the air actually breathed by the worker during I

I I-

II 69 I

operations close to the source of the airborne activity, e.g.

grinding.or chipping operations, will be taken in conformance with sound health practices.

I 2.

Plum Brook Station Monitoring Within the PBS, but external to the PBRF fence, environmental moni-toring presently includes: direct radiation measurement using TLD packets; representative samples of airborne activity measured on a quarterly f requency within PBS at four locations at a distance of approximately 1000 yards f rom PBRF (See figure 15 for location of the PBS sampling stations.); stream silt; and water samples col-lected from Plum Brook and the PBRF effluent ditch external to PBRF.

This program is done to verify that there have been no significant radiological changes in the PBRF environs due to the standby condl-tions. A grab sample of water f rom Pipe Creek which does not re-ceive PBRF effluent is also obtained for comparison purposes.

Tne Station monitoring program during dismantlement will be pattern-ed af ter the program presently in ef fect, but increased in f requency, scope and quantity.

Precipitation (fallout) samples will be collect-ed_ weekly at the air sample station locations. All samples, except TLD's, will be obtained on a weekly f requency to show any general trend in activity levels as a function of time.

TLD's will be pro-cessed monthly.

Direct radiation background levels and precipitation samples will be obtained at the Station air sampling fixed locations.

I:

69A

I LI l.

/

\\'.......

/ \\

f h

q g....

l.,,,oa,,...

a

-g r

Og

.=-

MA IN,E N ANCI

.o s g

.s -

g

,e....

I r/

f\\

)

t

/ :..... /

i

,1 I

e

{

'N 1

x I

I K

.l N

l P

-l sompi..-

Air Somples

.e

-.. woe.r.

I

I Figure 15. - Location of Station Sampling Station L..

70 3

Environmental Monitoring An off-Station environmental monitoring program also will be instituted as an extension of the present on-Station program, out to a nine-mile radius f rom PBRF. This progr im will be instituted at least one year prior to beginning the dismantling effo'rt.

(See figure 16 for location of sampling stations.)

Samples of air, soII, vegetation, water and precipitation will be collected near major population areas; measurement of direct radiation levels using TLD's will also be ob-tained. The air and precipitation ',amples will be collected on a con-tinuous basis; the other samples wi11 be grab samples. The water samples will be obtained from representative rivers, streams and domes-tic water..Soll, precipitation, and vegetation samples and TLD I

measurements will be obtained at the air sample stations. All sam-pling will be on a weekly frequency except vegetation and sr'l which will be collected quarterly.

The TLD devices will be :

ussed month-ly.

This monitoring program will be patterned af ter

.. environmental program in effect at PBRF during facility operations.

All phases of the facility, station, and environmental surveillance pro-gram will be continued, and revised as appropriate to the dismantling conditions, until all Facility-originated radioactivity in excess of the specified limits has been removed from the site.

Results of the survell-lance program will be reported to NASA monthly by the service contractor.

E.

Summa ry of Environmental Impact Although extremely minute amounts of radioactive and nonradioactive.contami-nants potentially could be introduced to the-environment as the result of 1

70A l

l

\\

J

~'

?i A

in ua illW"

.l g

m r= m,

)

~

'amadEns#As 9lM w

')

l 9

l i

~.

/

I i

<w.

s 6

/ /..

w

.l

. ::a nu --A

'N l

Sin, A

= =;

~

1

=y

/

7

l yy;,-

a

/

N 1 ~,.

1

/

y

/}h

l

/

,,/

?

A fi c-

/

/

[k l

ll xi, a wo.., so s..

l

l l

Figpre 16. - Location of Environmental Sampling Station

!I

I 71

~

the dismantling of the MUR, preventive measures as described in Section lit will be employed to assure that-there will be no releases in excess of applicable limits and that the quality of the air and water resources will

-not be impaired..These measures will prevent short-or long-term adverse consequences for plant, animal,' or human Ilfe on or near the site.

The dismantling and removal operations for the MUR are expected to be com-pleted.in about one year; for the entire PBRF, four to five years. An average of about 30 to 40 workers are expected to be on the job at the site during the dismantling and removal operations. The impact on transportation should not be significant when the limited number of offsite shipments and transportation needs of the work force are considered.

I increased noise levels of fsite are not expected to be significant in light of the distance to the general public. No other environmental impacts of potential adverse consequence are expected.

I:

I

[.

i j

72 V.

UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPA*T The scope of the environmental impact was discussed in Section IV.

The dismanti-Ing ef forts will produce 'only mir.or adverse ef fects to' the local environment, and are essentially'those of a construction (i.e. d ismant ling na ture. All activities will be performed in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local standards and regulations.

The unavoidable adverse envi ronmental impacts include Increased traf fic, in-creased noise levels at the site, generation of minimal airborne and waterborne contaminants, the industrial bazards normally accompanying construction projects, and the disposal of the materials and wastes resulting f rom the dismantling.

Dismantling operations for the NUR for the most part will take place within the Reactor Building en losure, rather than out in the open, and with the remoteness of' PBRF f rom the general public constitutes minimal to vanishingly small impact to the public and the environs, increases in transportation of people, materials, and wastes can be accomodated without undue burden on the existing roads and highways.

Sanitary and industrial wastes can be accomodated by existing facilities or alternative facilities.provided, so that the disposal will be in compliance with applicable standards and regulations.

Limited quantities of low level liquid radioactive wa,stes will be generated, primarily f rom the decontamination ef forts, and these will be processed in a safe manner by the. facility waste disposal systems.

If the waterborne concen-trations are wIthin the NPDES permlt 1imits and NRC and EPA 1imits, the 1Iquid

73 will be released to Plum Brook.

If waterborne concentrations are still in excess of these limits, the water will be processed for disposal as solid waste by approved burial.

In light of the nature of the dismantling operation and the detailed procedural controls for its implementation, there appears to be no significant unavoid-able adverse environmental impact associated with the dismantling action.

I I

l I

S

I.

74 VI. ALTERNATIVES TO DISMANTLING The alternative to dismantling the MUR is to maintain it in a state of protec-tive saf e storage. However, this would not permit the removal of the presence of all radioactivity f rom the PBRF.

It Is the limitations of NRC licenses con-ditions that impose restrictions on the use and/or disposal of the committed 500 acres by NASA. Thus this alternative to MUR dismantling is unacceptable.

I-The alternatives to dismantling the PBRF are discussed in reference 4.

I in 1978, NASA, as a result of much concern with the high cost of maintaining PBRF in a protective storage safe condition and the rising costs due to the inflationary trend and due to increasing maintenance which will be required in the future, contracted a study of alternatives open to NASA for further decom-missioning PBRF. This study (reference 2) was performed by a contractor who has had previous experience in decommissioning nuclear facilities and has detailed knowledge of PBRF, by having provided the radiation protection services at PBRF since inception of operations in 1961 to the present time.

The purposes of the study were:

to define what options are open to NASA in further decommissioning PBRF in order to reduce annual costs; to perform a cost evaluation of each of these options; and to recommend the most cost ef fective option at a minimum of j

env1ronmentaI impact.

Five options or alternatives were evaluated in detail: Mode 1, to maintain the I

> resent protective storage state for what is commonly accepted in the nuclear in-dustry.to be an optimum period, i.e. 100 years, and tnen dismantle; Mode 2, to consolidate and reduce the physical. area under mothball (to 71 acres), dismantle the mock-up. reactor, eliminate outlying radioactive facilities and hold the remain-der of the facility for 100' years and then dismantle the test reactor: Mode 3, build I

-.-6

1 I

l 75 I

" temporary" (IOC year) entombments around the test reactor and a portion of the primary pump system and dismantle everything else; Mode 4, dismantle all structures, both radioactive and nonradioactive to ground level promptly; and i

Mode 5 dismar tie only radioactive structures and eliminate all radioactive i

1 1

materials promp ly and leave the nonradioactive structures standing.

The factors considered in the study were:

cost; time; radiation exposure re-ceived, both by the occupationally exposed worker and the general public; and the environmental effects of the decommissioning efforts and of the end condition I

for each option.

NASA, after evaluating not only cost effectiveness but also.'adiation exposures

)

and environmental considerations, decided prompt dismantlement of all rad i o-logical structures, was the optimum decommissioning mode to pursue. To leave the MUR in its present state of safe protective storage mode would negate the dismantlement objectives for PBRF.

I I

1 I

I I-I

76 Vll. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The dismantlement of PBRF will remove the presence of all radioactivity that imposes restrictions on the use of the facilities and the surrounding buf fer zone of 500 acres. Upon completion of the dismantiIng operations, the future use of PBRF will be unrestricted by NRC license conditions. Thus the short-term use following the dismantling and the long-term productivity should be enhanced and be less restr ained by the dismantling action.

The short-term effect is for the duration of the dismantling efforts, i.e., a period of four or five years beginning some time in 1981.

The long-term effect is taken to mean that period of time beyond the completion of the dismantling effort, that is, from 1986 on.

I The major short-term ef fects caused by the proposed action will be the disrup-tion of wildlife during dismantling and the generation cf noise, air and water contaminants, and increased vehicular traf fic.

Short-term compensating effects will be derived f rom increased employment and economic benefi ts generated by the dismantling efforts both locally and wide-spread, and the benefit of in-creased knowledge, dismantling experience and learning derived theref rom.

This is of considerable value to the nuclear industry since reactor facility dis-mantling is still uncommon.

Past experience, e.g.

the dismantling of the Elk River Reactor Power Station at I

Elk River, Minnesota Indicates that the technology is* readily available to per-mit. the dismantling to be performed within prescribed standards and regulations and with a minimum impact on the environment.

I I

I

I 77 The long-term effect is the restoration of substantial acreage for productive use by NASA and others. The continued presence of PBRF and HUR complicates future use of not only the fenced site but the larger open controlled land in close proximi ty to the facility which ~now serv is as a non-productive buffer zone.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

' I

I VIII.

IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITHENTS OF RESOURCES l

I NASA intends to remove all detectable radioactive materials in excess of the 1

specified limits throughout the PBRF. The remaining facilities, structures, and equipment will be lef t in such a condition that it does not constitute a hazard to either employees or the public health and safety.

Equipment and materials usef ul to NASA may be removed at any time subsequent to the dismantling action and the buildings and structures may be used or excessed at NASA's discretion.

-The dismantling and removal operations will not involve an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources, since these operations will leave the PBRF available for alternate uses. Quite to the contrary, it will free up the PBRF and its surrounding buffer zone of restrictions which prevent the use of l

l that land and facilities at the present time.

I The only commitment of resources is the quantity of fuel, electricity, water, natural gas and similar utilities required to provide the energy and services necessary to accomplish the decommissioning task. This must be balanced by the savings in utilities and services that will not be required in f uture years to maintain the facility in its present mothball state. The annual materials and

.I services cost for maintaining the PBRF in its standby, mothballed condition total $230,000, including $17,000 in utilities.

1 I

I

.I

I IX. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS I

The proposed action is somewhat different f rom act'ons normally considered in envi ronmental analyses in that a manmade facility is not being constructed but is to be reduced and partially dismantled.

This will restore the facility to conditions approaching those of other faci 1itles located at Plum Brook Statlon.

The more usual cases are those where construction of facilitles or I

structures are evaluated for adverse ef fect on the environs.

Since PBRF and MUR will never be placed into operation again, various options for f urther decommissioning the facility were evaluated. These options ranged f rom maintaining the facility in its present mothballed condition for an extended period of time to the other extreme of complete removal of all structures to just below grade and restoring the area to its priscine state. These alterna-tives were discussed in reference 4 At one extreme, the leaving of PBRF and MUR in its present state would result in a continuing obligation to maintain integrity of the structures in a condi-tion not inimical to the health and safety of the public for a long period of time and would deny NASA and others the use of the site land and facilities and its buffer zone. At the other extreme, complete removal of all structures to

'below grade level would involve the most extensive effort compared to the other alternatives. The proposed course of action will remove all radioactivity of consequence f rom the site and make it prom 2tly available for alternate uses at an optimum cost. By leaving the major portions of structures and foundatior.s

-I

'in place, less waste to be disposed will be created.

The benefits of this approach will be essentially the same as for complete removal but at much less cost, both environmentally and economically.

I I

I 80 There are a number of Intangible factors that can influence costs substantially in the future.

I 1.

The practice of land burial of radioactive wastes is the subject of I

considerable controversy. The number of available burial sites is becoming fewer with time, new sites are not being developed, and shipping and burial costs are escalating.

I 2.

There is an increasing probability that the permissible radiation ex-posure level to the occupational work force and the general public will be reduced. This could af fect shielding and packaging costs for waste disposal and increase task times for in-house labor, 3

Various equipment at PBRF has substantial salvage value.

Prompt dis-mantling can produce some cost benefits by making available this equip-ment for salvage before time renders it unuseable due io deterioration or obsolescence.

I 4

With the deterioration of equipment, additional costs would be incurred in the future to replace, repair, or update this equipment for use in the later dismantlement of the facility.

I 5.

The 500 acre buf fer zone is not now available to unrestricted use as long as PBRF has radiological involvement along with its associated l

license limitations. As time goes on, the value of this land for alternate use will increase.

6.

Costs to ;erform delayed. dismantling in the future will increase due to lack of availability of personnel who are knowledgeable of the facility. This could affect not only efficiency and hence costs, but also the degree of safety of the operation.

I I

I 81 7

The regulations governing nuclear activities become increasingly restrictive with' time, it is generally recognized that more restric-tive regulations result 1..

Increased costs to comply with these regulations, in summary, the proposed dismantling action is believed to be an approach which will result in the desired beneficial results with minimal economic and environ-mental cost. The benefits of making the site available for alternate uses without the continuing presence of radioactivity is deemed to be a benefit which will outweigh the additional economic and environmental costs of the dismantling effort. NASA has assessed the benefits and costs of the proposed action and considered the available alternatives and their impact, it has con-cluded that the proposed action should be implemented and that it will be in the best interest of NASA and the general public.

I I

I I

i

,