ML20004C486
| ML20004C486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Plum Brook File:National Aeronautics and Space Administration icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004C477 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106040159 | |
| Download: ML20004C486 (5) | |
Text
,.
, - w.~
. ~ ~
- 3. a :-
a h-jaa a*%,;{o UNITED STATES y'
4
,s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
wAsMNGTON, D. C. 20555
, k.v p ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT APPRAISAL BY-THE 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SU0 PORTING ORDER AUTHORIZING' DISMANTLING OF FACILITIES:
~ AND DISPOSITION OF COMPONENT PARTS NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)
PLUM BROOK REACTOR AND PLUM BROOK MOCK-UP REACTOR i
DOCKETS NOS. 50-30 AND 50-185 Introduction By letters dated March 17, 1980, as revised by letters dated November 7,1980 and' February 23, 1981, NASA requested authorization to dismantle the Plum Brook Reactor and Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor, to dispose of the component parts and to terminate Licenses Nos. TR-3 and R-93.
These reactors are i
located at NASA's Plum Brook Reactar Facility near Sandusky, Ohio. In addition, NASA requested authorization to decontaminate the Plum Brook l
H5t Laboratory and Radiochemistry Laboratory. Both of these facilities are also located at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. Decentamination of these laboratories was authorized on May 28, 1980, by Amendment No. 2 to
' Byproduct Materials License No. 34-06706-03. This is an evaluation of the potential environmental effects of dismantling the Plum Brook Reactor and the Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor.
Plum Brook Reactor 7
The Plum Brook Reactor was put into service in 1961 and operated at 60 MWt. Operation was discontinued in 1973 after 98,000 ruegawatt days
- of. operation. Fuel and radioactive wastes were then removed and partial decontamination accomplished. The reactor license was amended to " possess-but-not-operate" (protective storage status) in July 1973.
Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor The Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor is a 100 KWt swicming pool-type reactor which operated from 1963 to 1973. The Mock-up Reactor was also shutdown
)
in January 1973 with the reactor put in safe storage and License No. R-93 i
.amanded to " possess-but-not-operate" on August 1,1973. The Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor accumulated approximately 198 megawatt days of operation during its use at the Plum Brook Facility.
i 8196040159
_2 Plum arcok Reactor Facility The 60 MWt Plum Brook Reactor is a materials test reactor. Light water was used for cooling and moderating of the core. Experimental materials were inserted into the reactor by means of tubes. The reactor tank is surrounded by a shield of high density concrete which is up to 9 feet thick. The reactor and its primary system are enclosed in a steel containment vessel of 100 feet diameter. A system of canals (now dry) was used to facilitate water-shielded trrnsfer of irradiated experiments and spent fuel elements outside the containment vessel to storage canals and a hot laboratory.
The Reactor Building surrounds the containnent vessel and houses the 100 KWt Mock-up Reactor, decontamination facilities, the reactor control room and offices. The Hot Laboratory and an office and laboratory building are attached to the Reactor Building. The office and laboratory building houses offices, electronics repair shops, a health physics and first aid facility, and the Radiochemistry Laboratory.
Other buildings and facilities used in the Plum Brook reactor operations which may need decontamination are the Fan House; the Service Equipment Building; the Waste Handling Building; eight, 64,000 gallon underground water storage tanks; a 100 foot stack and the Emergency Retention Basin.
In addition, the facility contains a number of " clean" facilities and buildings which will also be verified to meet release criteria following the dismantling process.
The 01smantiinq P1ans NASA has described the complete dismantling operation in their dismantling plans of March 17, 1980, as revised. NASA intends to remme only the radioactive components and structures during the dismantling process except for a nonradioactive redwood cooling tower that will also be removed. A11' structures at the reactor site will be left standing to the extent practicable during the dismantling process. The Hot Laboratory Building and associated hot cells will be decantaminated under a separate authorization from the NRC. There will be minimal changes to the structure of the buildings, water lines, or sewer lines during the dismantling process. Certain pieces of equipment, including reactor internals, may be chemically decontaminated prior to physical disassembly.
Solvents and cleaning agents will be selected by the contractor but will be submitted to NASA for approval _ prior to use.
Environmental Effects All buildings, facilities and soil at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility will be decontaminated to levels acceptable to the NRC for release to unrestricted I
access as specified in letter dated February 23, 1980, from NASA. The concurrently issued Safety Evaluation (SE) describes procedures which will assure that there is no significant release of radioactivity and therefore, nc significant imcact on the environment due to the decontamination.
All radioactively contaminated and activated material, scrap and soil will be placed in Department of Transportation (C0T) approved shipping containers and transported in accordance with NRC and 007 regulations to
._y__
,7
. a licensed radioactive waste burial site for disposal. COT packaging
~
requirements and NRC burial site requirements are such that there will.
be no significant impact on the environment due to transportation or-burial.
Following. inspection by. the NRC, the Plum Brook-Reactor Facility, including -
all remaining structures, will then be released for unrestricted use with-no requirements for licensing or. periodic monitoring.
Radiation aspects of airborne particulate contamination and liquid waste will: be controlled as described in the concurrently issued SE.
NASA's control measures are adequate to assure that significant amounts of radioactivity will tot be released during the dismantling operations.
Therefore, dismantling will have no significant impact on the environment.
Any discharges-to the surface or to ground water will be done in accordance -
with requirements of the NPDES permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Pe. wit No. ::t 0001392).- Discharges will, therefore, have no significant impact on the environment. No radioactive gasses remain
'at the Plum Brook Facility.
~
The majority of structures at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility will -emain intact and may be releaseu for unrestricted use following dismantlement.
Alternatives to Dismantling the Reactors and Discosal of Comocnents The reactors have not been operated since 1973 and are of no present or future use to NASA as reactor facilities. The residual radioactive reactor components prevent use of the buildings and structures for other purposes by NASA or other federal or private organizations. Thus, the alternatives are to de nothing or to dismantle to some further degree.
Costs and Benefits of Facility Dismantline and Alternatives The cost of dismantling the Plum Brook reactors and decontaminating the reactor-associated facilities is estimated by NASA to be approximately 6.3 million dollars (1978 dollars). NASA has evaluated five alternatives for dismantling the Plum 3rcok Reactor Facility as follows:
Mode 1 - to maintain the present safe storage status for 100 years and then dismantle; Mode 2 - to consolidate and reduce the physical area in safe storage while decontaminating the other site areas; Mode 3 - build temporary entombment structures around the Plum Brook Reactor and dismantle everything eles; Mode 4 - dismantle all structures, both radioactive and nonradioactive; Mode 5 - dismantle only radioactive structures, remove contamination from all contaminated areas and leave nonradioactive structures in place.
4
4 6.
g
' NASA considered cost, time, radiation expcsure received and. environmental effects. The cost of removal of radioactivity only (Mode 5) is shown
-by NASA to be the minimum cost of any alternative.
Dismantling all ' structures both radioactive and nonradioactive -(Mode 4)
- is not only more costly but it would reduce the value of the property by removal of useful buildings. The other three alternatives involve long-term safe storage of the facility with continued costs for maintenance,
~
monitoring and access control. In addition, the buildings and other -
structures have no non-reactor use until they are free of radioactivity.
Occupational radiation exposures for each of the five alternatives have been estimated by NASA. The immediate dismantlement options (4 and 5) result in the higher exposure, with the total exposure estimated at 134 man-rem. This exposure, however, is less.than a typical operating year at the Plum Brook Reactor. Also, the total exposure will be spread over-the multi-year period of dismantling. The SE discusses NASA's exposure control procedures which we have found acceptable.
The' environmental effects of the dismantling alternatives consist of radiological and nonradiological. Potential exposure to the public due to transport of. radioactive wastes has been estimated by NASA to be 8.2 man-rem. NASA has determined that there will be no significant exposure to the public from the dismantling operation because of the shielding, the containment envelopes and liquid release control measures used. We have determined that the radiological estimates by NASA are adequately conservative.
Nonradiological environmental effects of dismantling are those one would expect with construction activities. Noise from demolition operations, increased truck traffic, some dust and increased soil in i
runoff water may result frcm dismantling. These effects would be about the same for all alternatives but would occur later in time for the alternatives that assumed long-term safe storage. The effects would probably be of lower magnitude and of shorter duration than were experienced during construction of the facility. Chemical decontamination waste effluents would be regulated by the NPDES pennit and be subjected to the same evaluation criteria for all alternatives.
NASA has determined, and we agree, that for the Plum Brook Reactor site, the removal of radioactive material only (Mode 5) is an acceptable alternative for decommissioning. Mode 5 is the least expensive for the Plum Brook Reactor site and converts an unusab}e facility to one which can be used by the federal government or others for productive operations.
The somewhat increased exposures for the dismantling (Mode 5) are adequately compensated for by the return of this facility to productive uses and the elimination of continued maintenance, and monitoring.
6 r
i; ty' 9 '
Long Term Effects of Dismantling of Reactor-Components and Decontamination of Plum Brook Reactor Site Upon removal of the reactor components and decontamination of the Plum '
Brook Reactor Facility, the buildings and other structures can be used by NASA, other federal agencies or private organizations for non-reactor purposes. -The irradiated fuel has been transferred to Savannah River-for reprocessing; -the unirradiated fuel has been transferred to Oak Ridge for use in Oak Ridge reactors. The long-term effects of removal of radioactive material from the Plum Brook Reactor site will, therefore, be beneficial in that a-facility that has limited use now will be available for unrestricted use.
Conclusion We conclude that there will be no'significant e1vironmental impact associated with the dismantling of the Plum Brook Reactor Facility and the disposal-of component parts, and that no environmental statement is required to be written for dismantling of the Plum Brook Reaccor Facility and disposal-of component parts.
1.
j
.-