ML19312E477
| ML19312E477 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/01/1980 |
| From: | Pearson W NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Ted Carter Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006040508 | |
| Download: ML19312E477 (41) | |
Text
,
g y
-y
=r-~
n l
DISTRIBUTION
- Central Files SD ALPHA /SD RF APR 017990 FPSSB SUBJ
..g FPSSB RF
)
i(
bec: RBMinogue' CFeldman
- -- RGSmith FPCardile.
GAArlotto-- GDGal kins MEMORANDUM PORr T. Jerrell Carter, Jr'. SE, 60R, NRR RJJones WRPearson j
A yKGSteyer FROM:
W. R. Pearson, FPSSB, DES,3 ; -.50 '
,1 THRU:
G.' D. Calkins, Decomissioning Program Manager FPSSB. DES,$D I
i
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF DRAFT ANS 15.10-1979 STANDARD, "DEC0tHISSIONING 0F RESEARCH REACTOR $"
~
I a
In response to your request, the SD decomissioning staff has reviewed the subject draft ANS Standard. We have the follow'ng gejneral coments:
1.
Section 5.0, " Radiation Criteria," deals with NRC policy matters.
Accordingly, it would probably not be endors ed and should be deleted.
2.
Decomissioning modes and financial assurance are not well presented Further, they do not accurately represent currently available information.
NUREG-0584 and 0590, recently issued in draft form by NRd, provide current staff considerations on the subjects of financial assurance and decommissioning modes. NUREG/CR-0130, issued by Battelle-PNL under contract to NRC, provides detailed considerations of decomissioning modes. Although the PNL document mainly addresses PWR reactors, the inforntion could be adapted to Research Reactors.
Some coments concerning specific sections of the draft standard are contained in Enclosure 1.
Other suggested specific comments are marked on the draft copy.
~
Although the coments may appear extensive, the draft standard is comprehensive and would provide valuable guidance.
~
s.
W. R.- Pearson, Chemical Engineer Fuel Process Systems Standards Branch
. Division of Engineering Standards 000604
.. Office of Standards Development j-
Enclosures:
~ '
~
A J;
1.
Detailed Coments on Draft ANS 15.10-1979 2.
References-to Decomissioning N/A SD 353-90
' /'
~
~
3.
Draft ANS 15y0-1979 iSD TASK,NO.:
OFFICE g( *
@f_ encl B. Dickson NER k
SD:FPSSB, SD; SD:'FPSSB
~'
SURNAME >
WR ppa yd[
,jf gggg 3
E6$tgygf
^
3/3//d0 3/3 (/80 3/3 (/80 a
DATE
o ENCLOSURE 1 DETAILED COMMENTS ON DRAFT ANS 15.10,
" DECOMMISSIONING OF RESEARCH REACTORS" 1.
Page 1, Section 1.1 - The scope should include radioactive waste disposal.
2.
Page 1, line 21 - Would the inclusion of " source" material be appropriate?
3.
Page 2, line 14 - The " acceptable" decommissioning alternatives may change in the decommissioning policy reevaluation.
See general comment (2).
4.
Page 3, lines 21 Current thinking is that safe storage will be limited to less than 100 years, which reflects EPA criteria.
This limit should be reflected in this paragraph.
5.
Page 4, Section 3.4 - The reduction of radioactive waste volume may be an appropriate consideration in this paragraph.
6.
Page 5, line 1
' Safe' storage would be a more accurate term than
' protective' storage.
The paragraph should describe custodial, passive, 1
and hardened safe storage.
(See NUREG/CR-0130, pages 4-1 through 4-5.)
Page S, line 19 - Financial planning for decodnissioning is an NRC 7.
requirement.
'Shall' would be more appropriate here.
8.
Page 5, line 23 - Facilitation of decommissioning will probably be a requirement under the new decommissioning policy. 'Shall' would be an appropriate consideration.
9.
Page 6 Section 4.1.1 - Consideration of remote connections is a good point.
Items considered in this section would also tend to reduce occupational exposures during operating phase.
10.
Page 11, Section 5.1 - This section should specifically discuss the ALARA concept of R.G.1.86 (Regulatory Position C.4.e(2)). The discussion implies that the criteria reproduced in Table 5.1 are acceptable, which may or may not be true.
11.
Page 11, Section 5.2 - (See general comment (1).)
Does subsection 1 assume full time occupancy (i.e., 8760 hours0.101 days <br />2.433 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> /yr)? What is the basis for subsection? Suggest review of NUREG-0613 for curren1. thinking of decommissioning staff.
-12.
Page 14, line 13 - Reevaluation of decommissioning policy will probably limit safe storage to less than 100 years.
13.
Pages 14 and 15, Sections 6.3 and 6.4 - These sections reference draft ANS 15.14 and 15.17.
Is it proper to reference draft Standerds?
4 ENCLOSURE 1
ENCLOSURE 1 2-
- 14. Appendix A, lines 12, 13, 14 - It should be mentioned that hardened, passive, and custodial safe storage (NUREG/CR-0130) is followed by deferred dismantlement unless radioactivity has decayed to unrestricted level.
Clarification of decommissioning modes in Section 3.4 (see comment 6) would alleviate this comment.
15.
References - See Enclosure 2 for complete listing of NUREGs related to decommissioning.
Items marked with asterisk are suggested for inclusion in the Reference section.
4 t
A ENCLOSURE 1
m ENCLOSURE 2
~
BIBLIOGRAPliY AND REFERENCES 3 1.
NUREG/CP-0003, " Conference Proceedings for State Workshops for Review of the Ituclear Regulatory Commission's Decommissioning Policy," December 1978.
2.
NUREG/CP-0008, " State Workshops for Review of the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion's Decommissioning Policy," December 1979.
3.
NUREG/CR-0129, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Refer-ence Small Mixed 0xide Fabrication Plant," C.E. Jenkins et al., February 1979.
h.
a.
NUREG/CR-0130, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," R.I. Smith, et al., June 1978.
b.
NUREG/CR-0310 (Addendum), " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decom-missioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station,"
R.I. Smith and L.M. Polentz, August 1979.
5.
NUREG/CR-0131, " Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities - An Anotated Biblio-graphy," G.J. Kong k and C.R. Sample, October 1978.
6.
NUREG/CR-0134 (ORNL/NUREG/TM-215), " Potential Radiation Dose to Man from Recycle of Metals Reclaimed from a Decommissioned Nuclear Power Plant,"
F.R. O'Donnell, et al., June 1979.
7.
a.
NUREG-0217, "NRC Task Force Report on Review of the Feder:11/ State Program for Regulation of Commercial Luw-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds," March 1977.
b.
NUREG-0217 (Supp. 1) "NRC Task Force Report on Review of the Federal /
State Program for Regulation of Commercial Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial Grounds" (Analysis of Public Comments), October 1977.
8.
NUREG-0240, "The Nuclear Regulatory Commission Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Program," September 1977.
9.
NUREG-0278, "Tecnnology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant," K.J. Schneider et al., October 1977.
10.
NUREG-0300, " Proposed Goals for Radioactive Was'e Management," W.P. Bishop, et al., May 1978.
.[' 11.
NUREG-0436, " Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," March 1978 (Revision 1, December 1978).
12.
NUREG-0456 (FBDU-224-10), "A Classification System for Radioactive Waste Disposal:
What Waste Goes Where?," J. A. Adams and U.L. Rogers, June 1978.
3This section includes only NUREG reports.
See items 5 and other NUREG reports
- for more complete listing of documents concerned with decommissioning.
ENCLOSURE 2 20 l
.c ENCLOSURE 2
[7590-1]
13.
IluREG-0511, " Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Uranium 14illic.g,"
0 raft published April 1979.
14.
ilVREG-0514, "DECOST - Computer Routine for Decommissioning Cost and Fund-ing Analysis," 8.C.11ingst, December 19,9.
pIS.
ilVREG/0569, " Facilitation of Decommissioning Light Water Reactors,"
E.B. licore, Jr. et al.,fm.. h,s 1979.
16.
IlVREG/CR-0570, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Refer-ence Low Level Waste Burial Ground," E.S. f4urphy and G.14. Ifolter, WB 17.
!!UREG-0584, "Assurin fluclear Facilities,"g the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning R.S. Wood, December 1979.
18.
IlVREG-0586, " Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Decommis-sioning of Commercial fluclear Facilities," Published k19.
liUREG-0590, Rev. 1, " Thoughts on Regulation Changes for Decommissioning,"
G.D. Calkins, December 1979.
flUREG-0613, " Residual Radioactivity Limits for Decommissioning,"
l.
Enrico F. Conti, October 1979.
21.
IluREG-0671, " Decommissioning Commercial fluclear Facilities:
A Review and Analysis of Current Regulations," A.H. Schilling, et al., August 1979.
22.
IluREG/CR-0672. " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Refer-ence Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," H.D. Oak, et al.,
1980.
i ENCLOS'JRE 2
A
<~
ENCLOSURE 3 DRAFT 1
ANS 15.10--1979 2
DECOMMISSIONING OF RESCARCII REACTORS 3
Foreword--(this Foreword is not part of the standard for Decom-4 missioning of Research Reactors, AUS 15.10).
5 The American Nuclear Society Standards Secretariat established' 6
Subcommittee ANS 15 in the Fall of 1970 with the task of preparing 7
a standard for the o.peration of research reactors.
In January, i
8 1972, this charter was es:panded to the multiple tasks of preparing 9
all standards for research reactors.
,To implement this enlarged 10 responsibility, a number of Subcommittee Work Groups have been 11 ostablished to develop standards for consideration, and comple-12 mentary action by Subcommittee ANS 15.
ANS 15.10 is one of these 13 groups.
14 In March, 1979, Working Group 15.10 was assigned the task of 15 developing a draft standard for deccmmissioning of research reac-16 tors.
The membership of Working Group 15.10 is as follows:
17 T.
R. Schmidt (Chairman), Sandia Laboratories Ro 18 J. G. Condelos, COP, Department of Energy 19 J. W. Driscoll, Argonne National Laboratory 20 B. V. T.
Kinne, General Physics 21 T.
S.
LaGuardia, Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
~~
22 W. J. Manion, Nuclear Energy Services, Inc.
l 23 D. McConnon, United Power ~ Associates
)
l 24 J.
F.
Nemec, UNC Nuclear Industries 1
i 25 Present decommissioning regulaticas for reactors are con-25 tained in 10 CFR Part 50 which addresses primnrily the financial 27 qualifications of the applicants.
The policy for licensed power
,E![CLO_SURE_3
+
I reactors is contained in U.S. ACC Regulatory Guide 1.86 which was issued in June 1974 and is generally used as a basis for decommis-2 3
sioning activity.
Currently, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is 4
in the* process of developing more specific guidance on decommis-5 sioning in an effort to generate a more explicit overall policy.
'6 The initini work will primarily be directed toward production and 7
utilization facility licensees.
Decommissioning of research reac-8 tors will be examined starting in late 1980.
The development of 9
this standard will provide needed procedures, criteria, and' stand-10 ardi=ation for the decommissioning of research reactors.
Al As a caution, because of the current developmental activity 12 by the NRC in this area, it should be recognized that some of the 13 procedures and criteria stated in this standard are not based on 14 existing regulations, and that as regulat..ons are developed and 15 approved, such procedures and criteria acy be subject to change.
16 We affirm, further, that the use of any standard of perform-
- 17 ance, conduct, or excellence is volitional.
The decision to use l18 a standard is a management matter, presumably on technical advise-19 ment.
The, institutionalizing of a standard can and almost must be
,20 conditional; i.e., high' probability exists that some exception or 21 addition will compromise the absolute, unconditional application 22 of a document which was composed to cross lines of functional and 23 material discipline.
4
o DRAFT ANS 15.10 DECOMMISSIONING OF RESEARCH REACTORS Contents Pace
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 1.1 Scope 1
. t.
1 2.0 DEFINITIONS 2.1 Decommissioning 1
2.2 Research Reactor 1
2.3 Unrestricted Release 1
2.4 Shall, should, and may 2
3.0 DECO"MISSIONING ALTERNATIVES 2
3.1 - Protective Storage 3
3.2 Entombment 3
3.3 Prompt Removal /Disnantling 4
3.4 Delayed Removal / Dismantling 4
4.0 PLANNING 5
4.1 Design Pla'nning 5
4.1.1 Occupaticnal Exposure 6
4.1.2 Accessibility 6
4.1.3 Decontamination 6
4.1.4 Removal Activity Sequencing 7
4.1.5 Materials of Construction 7
4.1.6 Financial Planning During Design.
7 4.2 Operation Planning 8
4.2.1 Preparatory Work During Operation 8
4.2.2 Financial Planning During Operation 8
4.3 Decommissioning Planning 9
4.3.1 Survey of Pacility and Equi.pment 9
4.3.2 Radiation Survey.
9 4.3.3 Estimation of Radioactive Inventory
.~.
9 4.3.4 Decommissioning Plan 9
4.3.5 Activity Specifications 10 4.3.6 Detailed Procedures 10 4.3.7 Maintenance and Surveillance Planning 10 4.3.8 Quality Assurance Planning 10 5.0 RADIATION CRITERIA 11 5.1 Sur' face Cont mination Criteria 11 5.2 Radioactive Activation Criteria 11 6.0 SURVEILLANCE 13 6.1 General 13 6.2 Radiation Exposure 14 G.3 Fire Protection 15
e Contents Pace 6.4 Physical Security 15 6.5 Structural Integrity 16 6.6 Environmental Monitoring 16 17 7.0 EUVIROM!! ENTAL ASSESSMENT 7.1 Regulatory Requirements 17 7.2 Environmental Impact Factors 18 19 8.0 QUALITY ASSURAMCC 9.0 REPORTS / DOCUMENTATION 20 9.1 Design Construction.
20 9.2 Operations 20 9.3 Decommissioning 21 APPEl! DIX A - VARIED TERMINOLOGY FOR DECOMMISSICMING ALTERNATIVES APPENDIX B - RADIONUCLIDES OF CONCERN IN NEUTRON-ACTIVATED MATERIALS APPEUDIX C - DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FACTORS 1.
Environment.al Impact Factors C-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action C-1 1.2 Alternatives Including Proposed Action C-1 1.3 Affected Environment C-1 1.4 Environmental Consequences C-1 2.
Estimation of Environental Impacts C-3 2.1 Occupational Exposure C-3 2.2 Exposure to Public C-4 2.3 Monrad,iological Effluents.
C-4 2.4 Commitment of Resources.
C-5 4
Sm
, (
1 AUS 15.10 2
Draft of 3
Decommissioning of Research Reactors 4
October 1979 5
Caution Notice:
This standard is in preparation 6
and review and has not been reviewed and approved by 7'
the AMS or ANSI.
It is therefore subject to revision 8
or withdrawal and should not be used until formally 9
issued.
10 l.0 INTRODUCTION i
11 1.1 Scope.
This standard provides requirements and guidanco 12 for the decommissioning of research r'eactors and includes decommis-sioning alternatives, planning, radiation criteria, surveillance 14 and naintenance, environmental impacts, quality assurance, and 15 reports and docus.entation.
16 2.0 DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Deconmissioninc.
Decocaissioning is defined, for a
' 18 nuclear, facility, as the measures taken at the end of the facility's 19 life to assure the continued protection of the public from any residual radioactivity or other potential hazards present in tbe 20 3 21 facility.
For the scope of this standard, only the special nuclear 22 and byproduct materials are covered.
All other hazardous substances 23 will be handled in accordance with standard industry procedures or
}4 guidelines.
25 2.2 Research Reactor _.
A device designed to support' a self-26 sustaining neutron chain reaction for research, developmental, 27 educational, training, or experimental purposes, and which may 28 have provision for production of non-fissile radioisotopes.
i a
1 i
1 2.3 Unrestricted Release.
The release of material, equipment'4 6h}bdL4 2
s[ waste when its radioactive content on the surface of.or inherent
/
A c t.Md 3
within any portion of material, equipment.of waste is su ficiently 4
low so as to pose no unacceptable health hazard to any individual 5
or group of individuals regardless of any future use or of any 6
future location of the material, equipment, or waste.
7 2.4 Shall, should, and may.
The word "shall" is used to 5
8 denote a requirement; the word "should" to denote a recommenda-9 tion; and the vord "may" to denote permission, neither a 10 requirement nor a recommendation.
In order to conform to this 11 standard, the user shall conform to its requirements but not 12 necessarily to its recommendations.
113 3.0 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES 14 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognizes four accepta-15 ble decommissioning alternatives for nuclear reactors.
These alter-
,16 natives are described in Regulatory Guide 1.86, " Termination of 17 Operacing Licenses for Nuclear Reactors" and include:
mothballing, 18 entombment, prompt removal of radioactive materials immediately fol-
'19 lowed by facility dismantling (if desired), and-conversion.
Since
'20 the conversion alternative refers to installation of a new steam 21 supply system and retaining the non-nuclear portion.of a power plant, 22 the conversion alternative is not applicable to research reactors
- 23 and is not included in this standard.
Also, in this standard the i
'24 term " protective storage" is used in place of "mothballing."
25 Several decommissioning studies have identified the need for 26 another decommissioning alternative which provides sufficient
I radioactive decay time to reduce occupational exposure and for 2
decommissioning c,osts.
This alternative, commonly referred to as la/;j
,.Q % /,, h,,e s r si cw ~
3 delayed-removal / dismantling,, is neither addressed in nor precluded cv.'d 4
Since several benefits can be derived 5
'from the delayed removal / dismantling alternative, it has been 6
included in this standard.
Appendix A includes a summary of 7
various terminologies used to define decommissioning alternatives.
!k.:.u 0i loa""
8 3.1 2notect-ive, S tor ag e.
The actions required td place a j'd>
-/-
^
l':u d e.
9 research reactor in pr-otective' storage shall include:
4,
& s-a,,, n. yr L ~.a /w...*4:. Gu tw J wj-10 a.
Re'moval and off-site shipment of all fuel assemblies.
Removal and o f f-si te shipmen t of, r ad ioac tive f.la-ids' b2*~##")'s 4h wl 11
'b.
en x.wy,'.
12 and' uastes.
13 c.
Removal or stabilization of contamination from 14 accessible areas.
15 d.
Maintaining all required systems, such as heating, 16 ventilation, air conditioning, radiation monitoring, 17 fire protection, environmental monitoring systems in 18 operation, as appropriate.
j 19 e.
Deenergizing nonrequired systems.
20 f.
Performing routine minor maintenance, as required.
q 17,s.W..n.J,w cys.w w;. ame<z: + n m 21
'The duration of the protective storage alternative is depend-22 ent on several factors, including:
structural condition of.the 23 facility, lifetime of the residual radionuclides, future use of 24 the facility and/or site, and the cost of the security /mainten-25 ance/ surveillance program.
26 3.2-Cntemt=ent.
The entombment decommissioning alternative 27 requires the scaling of radioacti'e or contaminated components 20 within a structure which will provide integrity until the
~
1 radioactive material has decayed to the unrestricted dose levels 2
stated in Section 5.
The actions required to entomb a research s
3 reactor include:
jgcm /cew yvu. % w / M A z. & 2.. : A a % H y.
j f
4 a.
Removal and off-site shipment of all fuel assemblies.
S b.
Removal and off-site shipment of radioactive fluids 6
and wastes.
7 c.
Removal or stabilization of contamination in accessible 8
areas.
9 d.
Enclosure of the remaining reactor components in a sealed include use of the existing structure.
structure which may/xwM.aL%un sy::
,10 t'.u.dail sJen u9 cruo Dw
-a 11 e.
Performing surveillance and maintenance, as required.
Jai
?,.,2.wekW AL< tmab,oJ f yn,d';w.
/
w,;g, 12 3.3 Prompt-Removal / Dismantling.
Decommissioning by the
.Am uw& cr 13 pfcimpt-removal / dismantling alternative requires the removal and 14 off-site disposal of all radioactive and contaminated materials.
15 The dismantling of nonradioactive portions of the facility is not 16 required.
The actions required to achieve the prompt removal /-
17 dismantling alternative include:
18 a.
Removal and off-site shipment of all fuel assemblies.
19 b.
Removal and off-site shipment of all radioactive or 20 contaminated components.
21 c.
Decontamination of structural surfaces to allow unre-22 stricted access.to the facility and off-site disposal 23 of resulting waste.
, /.
J.
.L :J.
-t
. /
R,;m ;../
p v.....
3 _..
24 3.4 De.layc.d_ Removal /Di sman tli nc.
The delayed removal / dis-J,..m.i c.1 A..4.. < g;.., i~ n... -y y.,. t.< Al..
25 mantling alternative provides sufficient time to elapsejto simplify ad:x, x c.-
c. i+..,
26 removal.of radioactive componentsjor to reduce occupational expo-
?
27 sures.
7 1
The facility is placed in protective storage or a form of 2
entombment for the delay period.
Following the delay period, all 3
remaining radioactivity or contaminated components are removed and
'4 shipped off-site.
Structural surfaces are decontaminated and the 5
facility is released for unrestricted access.
6 4.0 FLANNING 3
7 Planning for decommissioning of research reactors should be 8
included as part of the design of the facility.
This planning 9
should consider methods of construction to f acilitate decommission-mz w~nu=w, B0 ing with respect to feasibility,^, occupational exposure and cost.
,h w f. p a :/
R1 This planning should include anticipating the need for siteg ata, d
R2 shielding, decontamination and site and facility access.
R3 For existing operating reactors, decommissioning planning R4 should be included in the design of major facility modifications.
R5 Preparatory decommissioning work should be planned and implemented B6 during the operating period, to include ordering special tooling
' Udlcad B7 or equipment and collecting reliable site data.
j B8 Mther a research reactor is in the design or operating 1.CnN 39 stage, financial planning for ultimate decommissioning Should-
/s 80 be performed to assure adequate funds will be available when 81 they are needed.
82 4.1 Desian Planning.
In planning the construction of a,
,c%'$
23 research reactor, the architect-engineer and designers shodTd n
84 consider. the requirements for ultimate decommissioning and dis-85 mantling of the facility.
The following discussion ~ identifies
~~
I certain areas where designers can simplify ultimate dismantling 2
activities.
4;wca05/
(,e iG 't.)
3 4.1.1 Occupational Exposure.
The design of the systems and 4
structures should provide for protection of decommissioning per-
'5 sonnel from direct radiation exposure.
This should include con-6 sideration of adequate radiation shields around potentially higbiy 7
radioactive components, simplified component design for rapid 8
disassembly, remote connections to chemically deconta.hinate 9
inaccessible highly radioactive components, and adequate w6rking 10 space to gain access with cutting and removal tooling.
11 4.1.2 Accessibility.
The design of the f acility should 12 include platforms, doors, passageways, cranes, portable hoist 13 supports or rails and adequate lighting and power supplies (ser-
~
14 vice air and electrical) to potentially high dose rate cubicles.
15 This will minimize unnecessary preparatory work to provide these 16 services at the end of facility life.
17 To facilitate the removal of dismantled radioactive material 18 from the buildings and site, adequate equipment hatches sh.ould be 19 provided with floor loading capacities sufficient to support heavy 20 shielded packages or casks.
Roadbeds into the facility from main
~
21 highways should be designed with the load carrying capacity to 22 support the heaviest anticipated shielded shipments (component, 23
' container, shields and vehicle) from the' building..
~ '
24 4.1.3 Decontamination.
The design and specifications for 25 piping, ccmponents, and structures should recognize the potential 26 for. deposition of internal or surface contamination, and should 27 provide for' simplified decontamination techniques.
These
-7 1
techniques should include the elimi. nation of " dead legs" or non-2 drainable cavities in piping and components, and the elimination 3
of inaccessible interstices on welded structures.
Exposed concrete 4
surf aces should be given a smooth finish coat and should be treated -
5 with a waterproof coating to prevent penetration by contaminated 6
liquids.
7 4.1.4 Activity Removal verification.
The design phase should 8
include engineering studies which verify the feasibility of dis-mantlingandremovalofpotentialkyhighlycontaminatedoracti-9 10 vated components, systems and structures.
11 4.1.5 Materials of Construction.
The design of components 12 that will be exposed to the reactor neutron flux should include 13 consideration of the material constituent elements to minimize 14 the activation of long-lived isotopes so as to reduce radioactive 15 inventory and occupational exposure.
Where reduction in elemental 16 composition of these specific radionuclides is not possible for 17 reasons of strength, corrosion resistance, or availability, t
18 alternative design measures should be explored to minimize
~
19 incident neutron fluence.
20 Typical radionuclides of concern, including their h,alf-lives, 21 decay scheme, and energy of decay, are shown in Appendix B.
~~
22 4.1.6 Financial Planning'During Desion.
Planning for the 23 design and construction of the facility should include a prelimi-24 nary _ estimate of the costs to decommission the facility at the 25 end'of:its usefu1~ life.- The estimate should include the costs-26
.for the dormancy period'if a protective storage l option is con-
- * *) A'* N L"'? ".'.
27 templated.
7.,.;au.2 av s n.n &
e-h ~ wa " ""
d M
t 1
4.2 Operation Planning.
Decommissioning planning during 2
operation of the research reactor can simplify the decommission-3-
ing program and achieve significant. reductions in cost, occupa-4
.tional e::posure,.and program duration.
The following discussion 5
identifies certain operational activities to simplify decommis-4
-6 sioning.
J 7
4.2.1 Preparatory Hork During Operation.
Prior to final shutdoun, the facility operator'4 M uG7-ngyinitiateactivitie'sinantici-8 9
pation of decommissioning.
These activities include preparing l10 preliminary estimates of the magnitude and composition of radio-
- 11 activity in contaminated and activated components.
If immediate
-12 dismantling is to be accomplished, speci.el tooling and equipment 13 may be designed and procured during f acility operation while
- 14 there is sufficient lead time to avoid unnecessary delays.
The 4fwaC1' 15 Decommissioning Plan (discussed below) may also be prepared prior 4
16 to final shutdown.
17 4.2.2 Financial Planning Durina Operation.
The facility 18 operator should periodically reassess the estimated costs f.or l19 decommissioning during the operating life of the facility.
The
- 20 reassessment should be performed at-least once every'five years,
- 21 and should consider the cost impact of modifications to the
' 22 facility, regulatory changes, improvements in decommissioning E23 technology, availability of decommissioning services (decontani-24 nation, removal, shipping and burial) and cost escalation.
The 25 facility operator should adjust the decommissioning financial 26.
plan as necessary.
v
_9_
1 4.3 Decommissioning Planning.
In planning the actual 2
decommissioning of a research reactor, the program shall include.
3 the major elements identified in the following -subsections.
4 4.3'.i' Survey of' Facility and Equipment.
The construction-5 and operating history should be reviewed to determine unique 6
factors that may impact decommissioning methods such as concrete 7
cracking and rework, contaminated spills on concrete surfaces, t
8 system piping and insulation, or experiments. leaving additional 9
highly radioactive materials requiring disposal.
10 4.3.2 Radiation Survey.
A thorough radiation survey of all
~11 systems and structures shall be performed to determine the radio-
- 12 active status of the reactor facility.
This information will be 13 used in the determination of the radioactive inventory and to
,14 plan the activities.and sequence of the decommissioning program.
15 4.3.3 Estimation of Radioactive Inventory.
The radioactive
- 16 inventory of contaminated and activated materials shall be estimated
- 17 by direct measurement and/or by calculation.
The inventory will 18 be#used in determining the ultimate disposal of systems and struc-19 tures and to estimate occupational exposure during decommissioning.
120 4.3.4 Decommissioning Plan.
The decommissioning program
,)
'4:...;o.t 21 should be described in a decommissioning plan.
The plan should 22 identify the curr'ent status of the facility, its operating history, 23 radioactive inventory, the planned decommissioning alternative to 24 be used,.the end product of the program, radiological and nonradio-25 logical safety analyses covering the program and'its end product, 26 program organization and control, and a general description of
' 27 the methods to be used to accomplish the program.
Tho. plan for i
10-I licensed reactors shall be approved by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 2
Commission.
The plan for other reactors shall be approved by the 3
cognizant authority.
4
- 4.3.5 Activity Specifications.
The major activities of
~~ ~
5 the program 'shall ~be-defined by written activity specifications 6
which describe what is to be accomplished, methods to be used,.
7 disposal requirements and detailed safety analyses.
Activity 9
8 specifications are used as the basic planning tool for the 9
program.
10 4.3.6 Detailed Procedures.
Each vork area identified in 11 the activity specifications should be further defined by detailed 12 procedures.
The procedures provide the step-by-step instructions, equipment required, safety precautions, equipment o[oerating parame-13 14 ters, and disposal methods (as applicable).
t 15 4.3.7 Maintenance and surveillance Planning.
The facility 16 operator shall plan for maintenance and surveillance (security 17 and radiological) during decommissioning activities and during 18 the dormancy period for protective storage or! entombment.
These 19
. maintenance and surveillance requirements shall be identified in 20 the revised facility technical specifications.
See Section 6 21 for a detailed discussion of maintenance and surveillance require-22 ments.
23 4.3.8 Ouality Assurance Planning.
The quality assurance 24 program shall be prepared-in accordance with the requirements 25 in Secti_on 8.0.
-.y.
0,::...d l DSS, Q C EU 'O b W" d '^ *N N*""h "
f d '. k*
y G
r r -
[,he%* CA.Md tv &)' p Meltkm.2 /.
\\
- f. LeZ;.uwicceh Aena Ayj!.9-e.;-stre-n ct"Oc~
--a 1
5.0 RADIATION CRITERIA 2
Material, equipment or wastes that e.xist at the end of a 3
research reactor facility's operating life may be inherently 4
radioactive and/or contaminated on interior or exterior surfaces 5
by radioactive particulates.
If the item's radioactivity is above 6
unrestricted release limits, then the item must be processed and 7
disposed of in accordance with applicable requirementa.
It follows 8
that materials containing radioactivity belou these limits may be 9
handled and disposed of without consideration of radiation-10 related regulations.
I j
11 5.1 Surface Contamination Criteria.
Radioactive contamina-heliUb-tion on the surface of material, equipment or waste.shall be [4s. lvw-:
a,;,,.g o6 12 n,.,y ;. s.." :
13 equal to or less than the levels stipulated in U.S.
negulatory Grs u * -
14 Guide 1.86, " Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear 15 Reactors," in order to meet unrestricted release criteria'for 16 surface. contamination.
This criteria is reproduced in Table 5.1.
17 5.2 Radioactive Activation Criteria.
Activated material, 18 equipment, or waste shall be classified as meeting unrestricted 19 release criteria if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
'17 ' " ".
20 1.
The total beta-gamma emission at 1 cm from guyjM. u m 21 the surface of highest activation of the item
. c ah2-d'.,',jn"2 -
g,vpi.. w as determined by measurement and/or calculation,
2 2 -
c '-
23 shall not exceed 5 mrem /yr above natural back-24 ground.
25 2.
The maximum concentration of radionuclides any-26 wh'ere (as determined by measure:r.ent or calculation)
TABLE 5.1 ACCEPTABLE SURFACE CONTAMINATION LEVELS a
bc bd b0 Nuclide Average Maximum Removable s
2 2
2 U-nat, U-235, 5,000 dem a/100cm 15,000 dpm a/100 cm 1,000 dpm a/100 cm U-238, and associated decay products 2
2 2
Transuranics, 100 dpm/100 cm 300 dpm/100cm 20 dpm/100 cm Ra-226, Ra-228, Th-230, Th-228,
'l[
Pa-231, Ac-227, I-125, I-129 2
2 2
Th-nat, Th-232, 1000 dpm/100 cm 3000 dpm/100 cm 200 dpm/100 cm Sr-90, Ra-223, Ra-224, U-232, I-126, I-131, I-133 2
2 Seta-gamma 5000 dpm S-Y7100 cm2 15,000 dpm S-Y/100 cm 1,000 dpm S-Y/100 cm emitters (nuclides with decay modes'other than alpha emission or spontaneous fission) except Sr-90 and others noted above.
Where surface contamination by both alpha-and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides exists, the 3
limits established for alpha-and beta-gamma-emitting nuclides should, apply independently.
bas used in this table, dpm (disintegrations per minute) means the rate of emission by radio-active material as. determined by correcting the counts per minute observed by an appropriate detector for background, efficiency, and geometric factors associated with the instrumentation.
cMeasurements of average contaminant should not be averaged over more than 1 square meter.
Por objects of less surface area, the average should be derived for each such object.
2 dThe maximum contamination'. level applied to an area of not more than 100 cm,
2 eThe amount of removable radioactive material per 100 cm of surface area should be determined by wiping that area with dry filter or soft absorbent paper, applying moderate pressure, and assessing the amount of radioactive material on the wipe with an appropriate instrument of known efficiency.
When removable contamination on objects of less surface area is determined, the pertinent levels should be reduced proportionally and the entire surface should be wiped.
_13_
'[ijcw,.M'e:
_ fr. f 1
within the mass of an item of material, equipment,
_,< a A,n s,,_,,
or waste shall be limited such that if the material cc.tIy svi' 2
4 a,e-/>
d 3
is taken internally via ingestion or inhalation jcras2> : b'
,y set =n cu ' 5 -
4, pathways, the resulting radionuclide body burdens 5
will not exceed the Maximum Permissible Body Burden 6
for radionuclides taken collectively, as stated by 7
the ICRP for the general population.
The conserva-8 tive methodology to demonstrate compliance as used 1
9 in a previous decommissioning action is to replace 10 the mass of the specific elements of concern in the 11 standard can with the corresponding elements in the 12 item being evaluated at the specific activity levels 13 existing in the item.
The resulting body burdens 14 shall not exceed the ICRP limits.
15 6.0 SURVEILLAUCE 16 6.1 General.
This section presents the requirements for 17 maintenance and surveillance that shall be implemented during 18 a period of protective storage so as to ensure. health and safety 19 to the general public and meet the various requirements of the 20 applicable regulato,ry agencies.
These requirements are generally j h & q,c; / ?y u.:t G v:;,*
21 applicable to both a stored or-entombed facility.
g 22 The maintenance and surveillance requirements discussed below 23 pertain to radiation exposure, fire protection, physical security, 24 structural in,tegrity, and environmental monitoring.
1 6.2 Radiation Excosure 2
Radiation surveys of the facility shall be performed in 3
accordance with the following requirements:
4 1.
Radiation surveys, including general area radiation
.. levels, fixed and loose surface contamination levels, 5
6 and airborne samples, shall be continued on a scheduled 7
basis.
Surveys shall be performed quarterly at inter-8 vals not to exceed four months.
Results of these sur-9 veys shall be reviewed by the cognir. ant ownar's health 10 physics personnel.
11 2)
The surveys shall continue until a change in the 12 facility's status results in the determination of 13 unrestricted use of the site by the general public.
14 Based upon the actual survey results, the requirements of 15 the Personnel Monitoring Program for personnel needing access to 16 the dormant facility may be modified if expected exposures are 17 less than or equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the applicable 18 values specified in 10 CFR 20.101. Any such modification to the 19 Personnel Monitoring Program should be consistent with the "as 20 low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principle.
21 6.3 Fire-Protection.
It is necessary for the fac'ility to 22 maintain a Fire Protection Program during the storage or entomb-23 ment' period.
Fire Protection Programs for operating research 24 reactors are discussed in (draft) standard AtiS 15.17, " Fire Pro-25 tection Program Requirements for Research Reactors."
26 1)
Emergency Plan sections addressing fire brigades, fire 27 fighting, etc., shall be revised to reflect the change 28 in status of the facility and personnel available.
e a.
4.,$wA
- 2) p,-/nspection and testing of fire detection systems, 1
2 and fire fighting equipment shall be performed in 3
accordance with the facility's f, ire protection program.'
4 3)
Periodic scheduled inspection tours shall be conducted of the accessible portions of the facility in accord-5
' ~' -
6 ance with the facility's fire protection program.
7 4)
If the facility is not to be continually patrolled by 8
security personnel, then the fire detection / alarm 9
system shall provide a continuous monitoring of 10 the facility using audible and visual alarms at a 11 a central monitoring station.
- 12 6.4 Physical Security.
Physical Security for either a L13 stored or entombed facility means those actions necessary
.14 to isolate the public from radioactive materials remaining on L15 the site.
Physical Security requirements for operating research
-16 reactors are discussed in (draft) standard ANS 15.14, " Physical 17 Security of Research Reactors."
18 1)
Physical barriers shall be used to prevent unre-L19 stricted access by unauthorized personnel to areas 20 of the facility where tadioactive materials remain.
21 2)
A remote readout intrusion alarm system shall be 12 2 installed to indicate when a physical barrier has 23 been breached for areas where general area radiation 24 exposures are equal to or greater than 5 mrem /hr or 25 secu'rity personnel shall be stationed at.each access 26 barrier.
~.
1 3)
Physical barriers (fences, building walls, welded 2
doors, etc.) shall be inspected for degradation 3
of integrity quarterly at intervals not to exceed 4
four months.
Written reports from each inspection 5
shall be on file.
6 4)
Testing of intrusion alarm systems shall be con-7 ducted quarterly at intervals not to exceed four 8
months.
Written procedures shall be used and 9
the results of the tests reviewed and filed at l10 the facility.
11 6.5 Structural Intecrity.
The structural integrity of
. 12 the building (s) containing radioactive systems shall be main-
- 13 tained at a level equal to that required during the operational l 14
' phase of the facility's lifetime.
- 15 Inspection of f acility structural members, walls, floors,
!16 and roofs should be conducted semi-annually at intervals not
- 17 to exceed seven months.
These inspections and the containment
~18 y testing of sealed areas shall be conducted using written 19 instructions and results shall be on file.
.20 6.6 Environmental Monitoring.
Environmental radiation 21 surveys shall be performed semi-annually at intervals n'ot to 22 exceed seven months.
Sampling shall be performed for soil, 23 vegetation, and water from the same locations as those used 1
24 during reactor operation.
Results of surveys and subsequent
- 25 analysis shall be compared with data established during the 26 reactor's operating period.
-17_
1 The surveys shall be conducted using written instructions 2
and the results shall be on file.
Any increase in radiation s
3 levels shall be investigated for cause and ef fect.
Significant t
4 changes s. hall be reported to the cognizant regulatory agency.
5 7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6
The planning for decommissioning of research reac. tors shall 7
include the environmental assessment of decommissioning activities.
8 The planning shall address the regulatory requirements, eaviron-9 mental impact factors, and methods for evaluation of impacts.
I 10 7.1 Regulatory Recuirements.
The National Environmental 11 Policy Act (MEPA) of 1969 as amended, Title 1, Secti,on 102, 12 applies to the decommissioning of research raactors.
Regulations 13.
for implementing NEPA by Federal Officials are provided in 40 14 CFR Parts 1500-1508.
The Code Section 1501.4 requires the Federal 15 agency to determine whether an environmental impact statement is 16 required.
The agency may prepare an environmental assessment 17 to determine whether an impact statement is required, 'or whether 18 a finding of no significant impact is required based on the
,19 findings of the assessment.
The agency may require the -appli-
!20 cant'to submit environmental information for possible use by the 21' agency in preparing an environmental-impact statement.
This 22 Section describes the type of information that should be pro- -
- 23 vided by the applicant.
24 For licensed research reactors, the U.'S.
Nuclear Regulatory I25 Cc= mission (NRC) is the responsible Federal agency.
NRC proc 2dures
1
" Licensing and negulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental 2
Protection."
3 For other Federal and military research reactors various 4
Federal agencies, such as the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) 5
'or the Department of Defense (DOD) are responsible.
DOE proce-6 dures for implementing NEPA regulations are provided in " DOE 7
Guidelines for Compliance evith the National Environmental Policy 8
Act," published for comment in 44 FR 421 36, July 18, +1979 (effec-9 tive immediately).
10 7.2 Environmental Imuact Factors.
The f actors that should 11 be considered in evaluating the decommissioning environmental I
12 impacts of a research reactor are identified in 40 CFR 1502.13-16.
1 13 These factors are:
14 1.
Purpose and need for the action 15 2.
Alternatives including the proposed action 1
16 3.
Affected environment l
l 17 4.
Environmental consecuences 18 a.
direct effects 19 b.
indirect effects 1
1 20 c.
possible conflicts with governmental land use actions j
4 21 d.
environmental effects of alternatives 1
22 e.
energy requirements l
23 f.
natural and depletable resource requirements 24 9
urban quality, historic and cultural resources g
i 25 h.
mitigation of adverse enironmental impacts.
1 26 The research reactor owner should provide this information 27 to the responsible agency with the Decommissioning Plan to support 1
i
1 the request for a Decommissioning 0rder.
Certain factors may not 2
apply on a site-specific basis and may be eliminated or modified.
3 Further discussion of these factors is included in Appendix C.
4 8.0 QUALITY ASSURA"CE 5
A Quality Assurance Progra= complying with ANSI N402--1976 6
(ANS 15.8), " Quality Assurance Program Requirements for. Research 7
neactors," shall be prepared for the decommissioning operation.
8 The Program shall cover those safety-related systems, structures, 9
and components and all other safety-related activities that 10 are involved in the specific decommissioning mode selected.
11 Special emphasis shall be applied to quality assurance in:
12 1)
Preparation, safety review, and control of plans, 13 specifications, and procedures,to be used in the 14 decommissianing; 15 2)
Personnel environmental monitoring; 16 3)
Monitoring of any materials to be released i
17 for unrestricted use; and 18 4)
Characterization, packaging, and disposal 19 of radioactive waste.
20 Necessary modification to those quality-related activities 21 governed by the Facility Technical. Specifications, or equivalent, 22 shall be effected by appropriate changes to the Specifications.
+
a
~,
1 9.0 REPORTS / DOCUMENTATION 2
Information needed to support facility decommissioning should 3
be collected throughout the lifetime of the facility.
Unless 4
required data is collected and.placed in an archive.the diffi-5 culty and cost of planning for decommissioning are significantly 6
increased.
This section identifies data for archiving which is 7
developed during the several phases of the facility's life.
The 8
data specified below may be in addition to the requirements of 9
' ANS 15.1, " Standard for the Development of Technical Specifica-10 tions for Research Reactors."
I 11 9.1 Desicn/ Construction.
The following design / construction 12 documentation should be collected and archived:
13 a.
Full set of as-built drawings.
14 b.
Construction photographs with detailed captions.
15 c.
Procurement records which identify types and quantities 16
.of materials used during construction.
17 d.
Equipment / components specifications, including pertinent 18 information, i.e.,
supplier, weight, size, materials of 19 construction, etc.
~
20 9.2 Operations.
The following documentation shourd be col-21 lected and archived-during the operational phase of the facility:
22 a.
Safety Analysis Report (s) 23 b.
Technical Manual (s)-
24 c.
Environmental Assessment Statement (s) 25 d.
Operating History including power levels, 26 scrams and scheduled shutdowns 27 c.
Radiological Survey Reports
1 f.
Operational / Maintenance Procedures 2
g.
Abnormal Occurrence Reports 3
h.
Deactivation Plans / Reports
... i.
Technical Specifications 5
j.
Design Changes and updated drawings.
6 9.3 Decommissionino.
The follouing documentation shall be
'7
- collected and archived to provide a detailed record of the decom-8 missioning:
9 Planninc Phase 10 a.
Environmental Assessment 11 b.
Environmental Impact Statement (if needed) 12 c.
Decommissioning Plan 1
13 d.
Activity specifications 14 e.
Project Management Plan
((,C.[.'/dcuuu*),"N
,../. J.bv. 4 <.~:-
W'"'
15 f.
Budget Plan
} j,{:
f w
16 g.
Cost and Schedule Estimates i
17 Operations Phase 18' a.
Detail Work Procedures 19 b.
Safety Analysis Report (s) 20 c.
Periodic Status Reports 21
.d.
Final Site Survey / Report 22 e.
Final Program Report 23 f.
License Modification / Termination
1 1
APPENDIX A 2
VARIED TERMINOLOGY FOR DECO DiISSIONING ALTERNATIVES 3
The terminology used to identify alternative approaches to 4
the decommissioning of nuclear facilities is varied.
Thi's standard 5
uses tne terms identified in U.S. Regulatory Guide, 4.86, "Termina-6 tion of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors".
Other terms and 7
their relationship to Regulatory Guide 1.86 are summarized below.
Relationship 8
9 to Reg. Guide 1.86
.10 Source Tern Terminology 11 NUREG/CR-0130 Dismantlement Same 12 Safe Storage--hardened Entombment 13 Safe Storage--passive No Equivalent 14 Custodial Mothball 15 NUREG/CR-0273 Layaway Mothball 16' Protective Storage No Equivalent 17 Entombment Eame 18 Dismantlement same!
19 AIR /NESP-009 Mothballing Same 20 Entombment Same 21 Prompt Removal /
22 Dismantling Dismantling 23 Delayed Removal /
24 Dismantling No Equivalent 25 IAEA-179 Stage 1 Mothball 26 Stage 2 Entombment 27 Stage 3 Dismantling
APPENDIX B RADIONUCLIDES OF CONCERN IN SOME COMMON NEUTRON-ACTIVATED MATERIALS Isotope Half-Life Means of Emission Energy (MeV) t 1/2 (yr)
Production 1
14C 5730.0 N
(n,p)
S-0.15G 49V 0.906 C r "5, (p,a)
Y 0.6*
54Mn 0.856 Fe (d,c) y, B -
g 0.835, 0.829 a
94 R
55Fe 2.6 Fe (n,Y)
Y O.23*
S 59Ni 8 x 10 Ni S8 4
(n,Y)
Y 1.06*
m i
62 Mi o
63Ni 100.0 Zn$' ((n,Y)
S-0.067 i
O 652n 0.667 n,Y)
B
,Y 1.106, 1.115 o5 SSCo 0.194 Mn (a,n)
S+,Y,Y 0.474, 0.54, y
0.810 a
S9 60Co 5.263 Co (n,Y)
S, y, y 0.314, 1.17, e
1.33
'4 92 93Mo B3000.g Mo (n,Y)
Nb x-rays zg 94Nb 2 x 10 Mb93 (n,Y)
B,Y,Y 0.49, 0.702, c:
0.871 95 95Nb 0.096 Zr decay S,Y 0.16, 0.765 94 95Zr 0.175 Zr (n,Y) 8, y, 'Y 0.396, 0.724, 0.756
/
14 14C 5730.0 N
(n,p)
S-0.156 34 l
35S.
0.238 S 35(n,Y)
B-J.
0.167 36Ci d.
3.01 x 10 C1 (n,Y)
B, i' i', e.b, 0.714, 0.511 5
.r' 37 F
0.81 37Ar 0.0953 Cl (p,n)
Y-Ci37 (d,2n) as O
39Ar 269.0 Ar (n,Y)
B 0.565 38 g
'o 40K 1.28 x 109 B,Y 4
40 41Ca 8 x 10 Co (n,Y)
Y 1.314, 1.46 44 45Ca 0.446 Co (n,Y)
B-K X-rays 45 4GSc 0.229 So (n,Y) 8,
Y, Y 0.252 1.48,.0889, 1.12 56 54Mn 0.856 Fe (d n)
Y,S-0.035, 0.829 i
e, w
APPENDIX D (cont.)
Isotope Half-Life Means of Emission Energy (I1eV) t 1/2 (yr)
Production 2.6 Fe54,(n,Y) y 0.23*
55Fe 0.122 Fe58.(n,i) 8, y, y 1.57, 1.1, 59Fe 1.29 55 58Co 0.194 Mn (a,n)
B+,
y, Y 0.474, 0.511, 0.81 m
~
S9 0.314, 1.17,
{
60Co 5.263 Co (n,Y)
B, y, Y 1.33 oz 4
8 59::i 8 x 10 NiS8 (n,Y)
Y 1.06*
S2 63Ni 100.0 Ni (n,Y)
S 0.067 64 65Zn 0.667 Zn (n,Y)
B,Y 1.106, 1.115 4
93 94Nb 2 x 10 Nb (n,Y)
- 6,Y 0.49, 0.702, 0.871 95 95Nb 0.096 Zr decay 6,Y 0.16, 01765 4
92 93Mo 3.5 x 10 Mo (n,Y)
Y Nb X-rays 45 46Sc 0.229 Sc (n,Y) 8, Y, Y-1.48, 0.889, 1.12 56 54Mn 0.856 Fe (d,c)
Y, B-0.835, 0.829 5
55Fe 2.6 Fe '2 (n,Y) y 0.23*
5 54Fe 0.122 Fe (n,Y)
B,Y, 1.57, 1.1,
/
1.29 h
60Co
,5.263 CoS9 (n,Y)
S, y, y 0.314, 1.17, p
1.33 x-3 65"n 0.667 Znfg,Y)
S,y
~1.106, l'.ll5 4
110 mag 0.69 Ag (n,Y)
SS, 9 **
1.5, 1.505
- Continuous spectrum at y energies below this number, due to bremsstrahlung.
- Energy of highest energy S-and highest energy y given.
j t
e s
1 APPENDIX C 2
DETAILED DISCUSSION OF 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FACTORS 4
'l.
Environmental Imoact Factors.
Each environmental impact -
5 factor identified in 40 CFR 1502 is discussed below and the infor-6 mation required to define the factor is presented.
7 1.1. Purpose and Need for Action.
Describe why the research b
9 reactor is being decommissioned, including any historical back-9 ground pertinent to.the need to decommission.
10 1.2 Alternatives Including the Procosed Action.
Describe 11 the decommissioning alternatives considered (protected storage, 12 entombment, prompt removal / dismantling, etc.) including the
- 13 selected decommissioning method, and the reasons for rejecting
,14 decommissioning alternatives in comparative form to provide a 11 5 clear basis for choice of the selected alternative.
'16 1.3 Affected Environment.
Briefly describe the research 17 reactor and associated facilities and areas affected by decommis-18 sioning.
19 1.4 Environmental Consecuences.
This is the scientific 20 and analytic basis for the comparisons of alternatives used in
- 21 the selection of the decommissioning method.
A listing of the
~~
- 22 potential environmental factors of decommissioning reseprch 23 reactors is shown in Table C.1.
The discussion of these f actors
- 24 should include (as applicable) the environmental impacts (bene-25 ficial and adverse) of the alternatives including'the proposed 26 cetion, the relationship between short-term uses of man's 27 environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term
C-2 1
productivity, and any irreversible or irretrievable cc.itments 2
of resources should the proposal be -implemented.
3 TABLE C.1 4
LIST OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS 5
1.
Direct Effects 6
A.
Occupational Exposure 7
B.
Exposure to the Public 8
C.
Commitment of Land 9
D.
Liquid, Gaseous., Solid Discharges 30 E.
Aesthetics 11 F.
Noise s2 2.
Indirect Effects 3
A.
Licensed Burial Ground Usage 4
B.
Local Landfill Usage 5
C.
Exposure to Public from Transportation 6
D.
Socio-Economic Effects 87 1.
Housing 8
2.
Employment
.9 E.
Public Road Usage O-3.
Possible Conflicts with Governr.ent Actions i
v1 A.
Federal
- 2 B.
Regional P3 C.
State F4 D.
Local
- 5 4.
Environmental Effects of Alternatives 96 A.
Protective Storage j
^
- 7 B.
Entombment 98 C.
Prompt Removal / Dismantling r-l F9 D.
-Delayed Removal / Dismantling 50 5.
Enerav Recuirements El A.
Electricity 2
B.
Fuel Oil E3 C.
Gasoline E4 D.
Diesel 55 E.
Natural Gas
C-3 1
6.
Natural and Deoletable Resource Reouirements 2
A.
Concrete 6
3 B.
Wood 4
C.
Metals 5
D.
Gases (.ar g on, nitrogen, acetylene, helium, oxygen) 6 E.
Water 7
F.
Land 8
G.
Chemicals (decontaminate) 9 7.
Urban Quality, Historic and Cultural Resources 10 A.
Noise 11 B.
Public Road Usage 12 C.
Socio-Economic Effects 13 D.
Aesthetics 14 8.
Mitigation of Adverse Environmental Imoacts 15 A.
Shielding 16 B.
Filtration, Evaporation and Demineralization 17 of Water-Based Liquids 10 C.
Dilution p
D.
- cu<c,:ct:,
s 19 2.
Estimation of Environmental Imcacts.
Estimates of the 20 major potential environmental impacts may be developed f rom the 21 methods identified in the following subsections.
The impacts 22 that are deemed to be insignificant should be discussed only 23 briefly.
I 24 2.1 Occupational Excosure.
Decommissioning of a research 25 reactor will result in radiation exposure to workers.
There are 26 two sources of radiation dose:c (1) direct exposure from radio-
/.*,dd4" 27 active components, and (2) ' ingested exposure from gases, particu-h 28 lates and aerosols.
Direct exposure to workers results from the 29 f acility decommissioning activities including decontamination and 30 removal of radioactive components,. and transportation of radio-
.~ :. y +
31 active wastes for disposal.
. Ingested exposure can be minimized c
32 In' using respiratory protecticn, and dust and acrosol control-T - O * " ^* S
- "
- S - ? ^/ " " "
33 measures.
. r. w,
/
- e Q
C-4 Estimates of direct exposures,from facility activities can be made from a survey of radiation levels throughout the reactor buildings, and an estimate of the manhours exposure for each activity.
Estimates of occupational transportation exposure (truck driver) may be obtained by the methods provided in
' WASH-1238.2 Estimates of radioactive gaseous ingestion exposure may be made by the methods of the ICRP Publication.3 Estimates j
4 l
of contaminated concrete dust release rates may be obt'ained
~
from NUREG/CR-0130.4 2.2 Excosure to the Public.
Decommissioning activities aa,/<w m 11 may expose the public to radiation from (1) gaseous emissions, 12 (2) liquid releases, (3) transportation of vastes, and (4) l13 direct exposure at the site.
114 Estimates of the source, concentration and rate of release 15 of gaseous and licuid emissions to the environment are available 4 and AIF-NESP-009.5 Estimates of transportation 16 in NUREG/CR-0130 17 exposure to the general public may be made by the methods of
'18 WASH-1233.2 The direct dose at the site may be estimated by 19 calculation, or by measuring the dose at the' site boundary and
- 20 assuming an individual is at that location for the duration of 21 decommissioning activities' (or until all radioactivity is
'22 removed).
23 2.3 Nonradiolocical Effluents.
The release of nonradio-24 logical liquid,. gaseous and particulate effluences should be
- 25 evaluated for their chemical toxicity or nuisance impact.
- 26 Estimates of the toxicity of chemicals are site-specific and 27 must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Liquid and gaseous.
- -e o
C-5 chemical discharge source, concentration and discharge rate should be estimated to determine the impact on the area' hydrology (and potable water. supplies) and atmosphere.
Moncontaminated dust levels from concrete demolition by blasting may be estimated by the methods of BNHL-1697.6 2.4 Commitment of Resources.
Throughout the decommission-ing program resources will be consumed to achieve the desired end product configuration.
The major resources that snould be accounted for include fresh water consumption; construction /-
demolition materials such as concrete, wood, metals, and chemi-
.1 cals; fuel and electrical power,' /$w/, (*[/2"0mC4Xw-IdedN"Y[.
s O
e O
4
- e e
D 9
4
9
~
- s -
o e
a REFERENbES 1.
"The Boiling Nuclear Superheater Power Station Decommis-sioning Plan," Vol. II, Safety Analysis of the Decom-missioned Plant, Puerto Rico Water Resources Authority, WRA-B-69-1, May 16, 1969, pp. 8-12.
2.
" Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and fron Nuclear Power Plants,"
U._S.
- AEC, WASH-1238, December, 1972.
3.
" Recommendations of the International Commission o.n Radiological Protection," ICRP Publication 2, Perg2 mon Press, 1959.
4.
R.
I.
Smith, et al, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decom-missioning a Reference Pressurized liater Reactor Power Sta-tion," NUREG/CR-0130, June, 197 8. {Ma.v?MAwf(Scad'D17 5.
W. J. Manion and T.
S.
LaGuardia, "An Engineering Evalua-tion of Nuclear Power Reactor D.ecommissioning Alternatives,"
AIF-NES-009, Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., November, 1976.
6.
J.
M.
Selby, et al, " Considerations in the Assessment of the Consecuences of Ef fluents from Mixed Cxide Fuel Fabrication Plants," BNWL-1697, Rev. 1, pp. 78-79, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland,iTA, June, 1975.
e
)
e 6
,. -