ML20034A025

Forwards Application for Routine Disposal of Septage from Facility,Per 10CFR20.302

ML20034A025
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/11/1990
From:	Papanic G YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
BYR-90-42, NUDOCS 9004190185
Download: ML20034A025 (34)

Text

YANKEE ATOMICEtECfRIC COMPANY "C'N'.*g*g%'f';"l"

' g 580 Main Street, Bolton, Massachusetts 017401399 ys..__..-

April 11, 1990 BYR #90-42 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Document Control Desk Washington, D.C.

20555

References:

(A) License No. DPR-3 (Docker No. 50-29)

Subject:

10 CFR 20.302 Application

Dear Sirs:

Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.302, Yankee has prepared the attached application for the routine disposal of septage from Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

This application utilizes guidance contained in NRC regulation 10 CFR 20.303 for the disposal of licensed material into a sanitary sewerage system.

We trust that you will find this submittal satisfactory, however, if you have any questions please contact us.

Very truly yours, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY I

George Papanic, Jr.

i Senior Project Engineer Licensing Enclosure GP/emd

.h 29 C

Oh P

l

~$l

y:.a eg' i

ij

,'

i:

e

< ;j T

f f '[

3y

'.I

\\f j

YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION..

. APPLICATION FOR APPRO%AL.

70' ROUTINELY DISPOSE OF SEPTAGE UNDER 10CFR20.302' k

i 1

'WPP12/14' 1

~' -

i w, y.

~

i i

+

6 i

'k 1

6 5

y i

ytJ

• 5 ie s

TARLE OF CONTENTE s

r E&Se L

TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................

ii

(

LIST OF IABLES....................................................

iii LIST OF FIGURES...................................................

iv

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1 2.0 WASTE STREAM DESCRIPTION..........................................

2 2.1 Physical / Chemical Properties................................

2 2.2 Radiological Properties.....................................

3 3.0 PROPOSED DISPOSAL METH0D..........................................

5 l

3.1 Septic Tank Waste Procedural Requirements and Limits........

6 L

3.2 Adminis t ra tive Proc edure s...................................

7 4.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT................................

8 5.0 EVALUATION OF RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT.................................

9 5.1 Septic Tank Sample Analysis Data............................

9 5.2 Pathway Exposure Scenarios..................................

10 5.3 Dose Assessments............................................

11 5.3.1 External Exposure to a Truck Driver /SWTF Worker.....

11 5.3.2 External Exposure Due to Long-Term Buildup..........

12 5.3.3 Carden Pathway Scenario.............................

14 5.3.4 Incineration Pathway Scenario.......................

20 5.4 Maximum Releasable Activity.................................

21 6.0 SUMHARY AND CONCLUSIONS...........................................

23

7.0 REFERENCES

24 WPP12/14 4

l l

1 I

LIST OF TAtl.ES

~

Number Iilla Eage 1

Landspreading Ingestion Pathways (Adult) 25

~

2 Landspreading Ingestion Pathways (T<:en) 16 3

Landspreading Ingestion Pathways (Child) 27 t.nds,r.. ding inges u.n,ae,.a,s on,.nt>

2.

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

L

-lii-WPP12/14

11ST OF FIGl9tES L

'k 1

Yankee Plant Sanitary Waste Disposal Process 29 I

l l

4 1

1

-iv-WPP12/14

1 YANKEE NUCLFAR POWER STATION Apgligation for Approv11 1p_ Routine 1v Dispose of Septaee Unt.er 100FR20.302

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YANKEE) requests approval, pursuant to 10CFR20.302(a), of a method proposed herein for the routine disposal (typically, once every one to two years) of septic tank waste containing very low levels of licensed material over an extended period of time of 30 years.

Yankee proposes to periodically dispose of accumulated septic waste solids from the plant's sanitary system septic tank by transferring it to a public Sanitary Waste-Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) where it will be' mixed with, processed, and disposed of, as part of sanitary waste generated from many sources. This is analogous to other Nuclear Regulatory Conunission (NRC) licensed facilities who have their sanitary waste systems connected directly to a municipal sewer line.

Part 20.303 of Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations already permits these NRC licensees to discharge licensed material into a sanitary sewerage system.

Routine maintenance of Yankee's septic system is necessary to ensure proper operation of the system. Periodic pumping of the septic tank to remove accumulated solids is necessary to prevent the carryover of solids into the subsurf ace leach field which would inhibit the soil absorption capabilities of the field.

j This application addresses specific information requested in 10CFR20.302(a), and demonstrates that the periodic disposal of septage from Yankee's Sanitary Waste System over an extended periods of time (30 years),

under both normal and unexpected conditions, will not result in significant impacts either to the environment or to individuals in the general public. WPP12/14

)

1

2.0 WASTE WATER STREAM DESRIE.n0N s

2.1 Phvalcal/ Chemical Pronerties The waste involved in this application consists of residual septage L

(accumulated settled and suspended solids, and scum) associated with the sanitary sewerage collection and treatment system at the Yankee plant.

The Yankee plant utilizes an on-site septic system supplemented with off-site treatment at a SWTF for the safe disposal of the plant's sanitary waste stream. Figure 1 is a schematic of the overall sanitary waste disposal process.

The on-site septic system consists of a 7,000 gallon buried septic tank and a subsurface soil absorption leach field.

Sanitary sewage from the plant flows (estimated 2,600 gallons / day) into the septic tank.

The septic tank function in the overall system design is for the collection of sludge and scum.

and partial separation of liquids from the incoming sanitary waste. Some of the solid particles settle to the bottom and form a layer of sludge, where greases and oils float to the surface creating a scum layer.

The septage is retained in the septic tank and the remaining-conditioned waste-water liquid is permitted to flow into use underground leaching field for treatment. The leach field is the terminal point of the on-site portion of the plant sanitary waste treatment process. Some of the septage stored in the septic tank is reduced to liquid by bacterial action in the septic tank, but the rest of the septage remains essentially untreated.

This material must be pumped out at regular intervals to prevent it from i

overflowing the tank and entering the leaching field (References 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10) where it will clog the soil and eventually lead to septic system failure.

In general, septage pumped from septic tanks is discharged to a SWTF for treatment as part of the overall system design (Reference 10). The septage is then co-treated with other sanitary wastes at the SWTF. The septage pumped periodically from the Yankee plant has, in the past, been treated and disposed of in this fashion when no licensed material was determined to be present. WPP12/14

Thz removal of thz septege from thz septic tank end subsequent transportation to a SWTF constitutes the off-site portion of.the Yankee plant overall sanitary waste disposal process.

2.2 RadiolesiCA1 Properties The plant's sanitary system septic tank collects waste from the l

lavatories, showers, and janitorial facilities outside the Radiological Control Area (RCA). No radioactivity is intentimally discharged to the septic system. However, plant investigations into the source of low levels of licensed material found in septic tank waste have identified that very small quantities of radioactive materials, which are below detection limits for radioactivity releases from the RCA, appear to be carried out of the control area on individuals and accumulate in the septic tank.

The suspected primary source of the radioactivity (i.e., floor wash water) is now either poured through a filter bag to remove suspended solids and dirt before the water is released into a janitorial sink, or the wash water is returned to the RCA for disposal.

An isotopic analysis, at environmental detection limits, of two 1

composite volumetric sample columns of septage taken from the plant's septic tank identified the following plant-related radionuclides:

Activity Concentration Nuclide (pci/km wet +/- 1 aiemm)

West Manhole East Manhole Sample Location Sarple Location i

Co-60 92.4 A 3.9 13.2 i 2.2 Cs-134 5.9 1 1.3 Cs-137 9.2 1 1.5 3.2 & 1.0 After the initial analysis of the composite samples noted above, the samples were sub wquently centrifuged into liquid and wet solids portions and reanalyzed. There was no activation or fission products identified in any of the liquid fraction samples indicating that the detected activity was in a form that had been carried out of solution with the solid fraction of the samples. WPP12/14

Analysis of the resulting solid fraction of the septage indicated the following radionuclide concentrations:

' Activity Concentration Nuclide (pC1/km wet +/- 1 airma)

West Manhole East Manhole Sample Location Emmple Location Co-60 1,588 i 42 528

• 26 Mn-54 47113 Cs-134 67 1 11 Cs-137 203 1 17 100 1 13 The original septic tank samples were volumetric samples representative of the distribution of solids and liquid from bottom to top of the tank. The ratio of the weight of the solid fraction sample to the weight of the solid fraction plus liquid fraction sample allows a determination of the percentage of total solida content of the septic tank.

For the waste sample from the west manhole, the solid fraction of the composite sample was found to be

~~

0.024, or 2.4 wt. 1.

For the east manhole, the solid fraction of the total sample was 0.046, or 4.6 wt.%.

The principle radionuclide is Cobalt-60, which accounts for approximately 82% cf all plant-related activity detected in the septage.

The total radioactivity content of the septic tank can be estimated by calculating the mass of solids present in the 7,000 gallon tank by taking the higher (conservative) solids fraction determined from the sample data. This is multiplied by the mass of septage in the tank and by the highest activity concentration determined in the solids. As a result, the estimated maximum total activity ist Total Activity g

Nuclide (uci)

Co-60 1.94-Mn-54 0.057 Cs-134 0.082 Cs-137 0.248 TOTAL 2.33 WPP12/14

3.0 IROPOSED DISIOSAL MET 510D

~

Upon approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Yankee L

proposes to periodically dispose of accumulated septage from its septic tank by contracting with a town-approved (Board of Health, Rowe, Massachusetts) b septic tank pu. aper for the removal and transfer by truck of the septage to a Massachusetts SWIF for treatment. At the SWTF, the septage would typically be mixed and diluted with other raw sewage and introduced either into an anaerobic digester or aeration pond for biological treatment. The resulting processed sludge from the SWTF is typically then mixed with sand in a ratio of 50/50 and disposed of in a sanitary landfill, where it would be covered by I

clean soil daily. An alternate disposal means could potentially result in the processed sludge being landspread as a fertilizer, though generally for nonhuman-consumed vegetation, such as sod. None of the regions SWTFs which would be used by local septic tank pumpers were identified as incinerating their sludge as a means of treatment.

This method of tank pumping and transfer to an SWTF is identical to that normally applied to septic tank systems, irrespective of the presence of licensed material.

Once the septage is pumped into the contract vendor's I

transporting vehicle, the situation is analogous to the handling of licensed material under 10CFR20.303. Part 20.303 of Title 10 to the Code of Federal Regulations already permits these NRC licensees to discharge licensed material into a sanitary sewerage system if certain conditions are met. Due to the remoteness of the Yankee plant's location, it is impractical to directly connect eewer lines to a facility to handle sanitary waste.

In this case, a tank truck acts as a sewer line in transferring septage to a SWTF. The quantity and form (soluble or dispersable) of any licensed material contained in our septage is not affected by the means employed to transfer it to a SWTF I

for processing. Therefore, it would be the same whether the plant was directly connected to a municipal sewerage system or trucked its septage on a periodic basis to a SWTF.

l

. WPP12/14

S 301 Essile Tank Waste Procedural Requirements and Limits

]

Gamma isctopic analysis of septic tank waste shall be made prior to transfer of the waste by a etmtracted septic tank pumper to a SWTF by obtaining a representative sample from the tank no more than 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> prior to l

initiating pump-out. At least two septage samples shall be collected fro:n the plant's septic tank by taking a volumetric column sample which will allow for analysis of the solid's content of the tank. The weight percent of solid content of the collected sample will be determined and applied to the gamma isotopic analysis in order to estimate the total radioactivity content of the tank.

I These gamma isotopic analyses of the representative samples will be performed at the Technical Specification Environmental Lower Limit of Detection (LLD) requirements for liquids (see Technical Specification Table 4.12-1, " Detection Capabilities for Environmental Sample Analysis") in order to document the estimation of radiological impact from septage disposal.

The radionuclide concentrations and total radioactivity identified in the septage will be compared to the concentration and total curie limits established herein prior to disposal.

The limits to be applied are as follows:

1.

The concentration of radionuclides detected in the volume of septage to be pumped to a disposal truck shall be limited to a 3

combined Maximum Permissible Concentration of Water (MPC) (as listed in 100FR Part 20. Appendix B Table II. Column 2) ratio of less than or equal to 1.0.

2.

g The total gamma activity which can be released via septage transfer l

to any SWTF in one year (12 co..secutive months) is limited to not more than 20 microcuries (equivalent to a maximum whole body dose of 1 mrem to any individual in the public).

I I WPP12/14 l

\\

J If ths total activity limit is mit, complicnce with the self-imposed

]

dose criteria will have been demonstrated since the radiological impact 3

(Section 5) is based on evaluating the exposure to a maximally exposed hypothetical individual such that his annual whole body dose would be limited J

to approximately 1 mrem, both the concentration and total activity limits represent a small fraction of the allowable limits permitted under 10CFR20.303 to other NRC licensees who have their sanitary waste systems directly connected to a public sewerage system.

If not for the biological nature of sanitary waste, the above release limits would also allow for the direct discharge of the waste under the plant's existing Technical Specification requirements for release of liquids to the environment.

3.2 Administrative Procedures Complete records of each disposal will be maintained.

In addition to copies of invoices with approved septic tank pumpers, these records will include the concentration of radionuclides in the septage, the total volume of septic waste disposed, the total activity in each batch, as well as total accumulated activity pumped in any 12 consecutive months.

For petlods in which disposal of septage occurs under this application, the volume, total activity, and relative nuclide distribution, shall be reported to the NRC in the plant's Semiannual Effluent helease Report. WPF12/14

t I

40 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONML'NTAL IMPACT t

0 I

The proposed method for dicposal of septage is the same as currently used by all facilities designed with septic tanks for the collection of septic waste. No new structures or facilities need be built or modified, nor any j

existing land uses changed. Septage from Yankee will be trucked to an existing SWTF, where i't will make up a small f raction of the total volume of sanitary waste treated each year. As a result, there will be no impact on topography, geology, meteorology, hydrology, or nearby f acilities by the

{

proposed method of disposal.

I I

I I

g I

I I

I lI I I I

~8-WPP12/14 i

500 EVALUAIl0N_QT_ RAD 10 LOGICAL IMPACT Radiological evaluations have been performed for the purpose of bounding the dose impact associated with the disposal of septage. The norm 1 method of septage handling and treatment would provide for dilution of Yankee's septage with other waste-water at a public SWTF. The processed sludge would typically be buried in a sanitary landfill, thus limiting the potential exposure pathways to man, or widely dispersed if used as a fertilizer, thereby preventins; any build-up of activity f rom successive annual i

pumpouts from the plant's septic tank. The dose assessments, however, did consider the maximum potential impact of long-term buildup of activity I

resulting from 30 years of placing septage waste in the same SWTF, with all the processed sludge assumed to be buried in one landfill disposal cell.

5.1 Septic Tank Sample Analysis Data I

The analysis of the septic tank's measured radioactivity, and its distribution between liquid and solid fractions, provides the bases upon which a dose assessment of disposal of septage can be made. The composition of the septic tank waste determined from the sample analysis ist I

Composite Sample East End Composite Sample West End I

Manhole Location Manhole Location Wt. Liquid 3.502 kg 3.460 kg Wt. Solid 0.087 kg 0.167 kg I

Solid fraction of the composite sample as collected is equal to:

I Solid fraction = Wt. solid /(Wt. solid + Wt. liquid)

I The solid fraction for the East End sample was 0.0242, and 0.0460 for the West End. The activity in the solid fraction was basically found to contain all the detected radioactivity as noted below:

I East End Solids Sample West End Solids Sample (oC1/ke) Wet (pci/kg) Wet 47 I

Mn-54 67 Cs-134 Cs-137 100 203 Co-60 528 1,588 WPP12/14

With the septic tank volume taken as approximately 7,000 gallons (26,500 liters), and assuming the maximum solid fraction (0.046) and maximum radionuclide concentration applies to the total tank's content, the total L

maximum radioactivity content is estimated to bet Ito.topg Half-Life Qe (01)

Mn-54 312.2 day 5.73 E-08 Co-60 5.272 yr 1.94 E-06 Cs-134 2.065 yr B.17 E-08 Cs-137 30.17 yr 2.48 E-07 SI 5.2 Pathway Exposure Scenarios Radiological evaluations were performed for both the expected activities associated with handling, processing, and disposal of septage waste at a SWTF, and a hypothetical event causing undiluted septage release.

The bounding case was determined to be associated with a hypothetical event which lead to the spreading of undiluted septage from Yankee's septic tank directly on a garden area where food crops are grown.

The contracts with town approved septic tank pumpers will direct that septage be disposed of at a SWTF in Massachusetts.

It is not expected that any disposal will occur other than at an SWTF.

It is, therefore, not considered credible that successive bounding case activities could occur which lead to a long-term buildup of activity on a single minimum size garden plot.

In addition, since incineration of septic waste is not a current practice in the loce.1 area, the potential exposures associated with incineration are not of current concern. However, the establishment of a

=_

conservative total whole body dose criteria for release of sanitary waste, via the above-noted garden scenario, assures that the potential resulting whole body dose due to incineration would not be expected to result in significant doses to any individual.

This assessment is further detailed in Section 5.3.4.

The contributing pathways of exposure for the normal SWTF disposal process include:

1.

External exposure to a truck driver.

2.

External exposure to a SWTF worker. WPP12/14

L 3.

External exposure to cn individual stcnding on the SWTF Icndfill after 30 years of buildup and decay.

The following garden exposure pathways were addressed for the me.ximally exposed hypothetical individual:

1.

Standing on the ground plane.

2.

Inhalation of resuspended material.

3.

Ingestion of leafy vegetables.

4 Zugestion of stored vegetables.

5.

Ingestion of icilk.

6.

Liquid pathways.

It should be noted that the milk pathway is mutually exclusive to the other food production pathways since it would be impossible to support the grass-cow-milk-man exposure chain if the limited land area is utilized for the growing of food crope for direct human consumption.

The two sets of ingestion pathways have been calculated so that the potential maximum impact can be assessed. Similarly, radionuclide movement into the ground water pathway would tend to reduce the impact of surface-related exposure paths and is, I

therefore, considered independently.

5.3 Dase Asseamments 5.3.1 Etternal_ Exposure to a Truck Driver /SWTF Work r t

The external dose rate from a 3,500-gallon tank truck filled with septage containing the total measured activity in the septic tank (2.33 uCi) was calculated for the purpose of estimating exposures associated with I

shipping the waste to a SWTF. A three-dimensional point-kernel shielding code for the determination of direct radiation from ganana radiation emanating f rom a self-attenuating cylindrical source (DIDOS-IV, Reference 14) was utilized to calculate the external dose rate from the tank truck. The truck was modeled as a cylindrical radiation source with a radius equal to 1.22 meters and a 1ength of 2.84 meters. A dose rate of 1.2E-04 mrem per hour for a point one meter from the end of the cylinder along the axis was calculated. No credit for shielding provided by the tank truck or cab was assumed.

The dose to a 1 r WPP12/14

truck drivar making c 100-milo trip to o treatment fccility ct cn cverage of 20 miles per hour plus a three-hour waiting period at the SWTF, is estimated to be 9.5E-04 mrem.

It is concluded, based on the total activity limits proposed, that this pathway will not lead to significant exposure of any individual.

It is also concluded that due to the sanitary properties of septage handling, a SWTF employee's direct exposure time is kept to a minimum. Using the dose rate estimated for the truck driver above, and conservatively assuming that it requires an employee at the SWTF a full eight-hour day to process each truckload of waste, and act taking any credit for dilution or increased distance from the waste, a waste processing facility employee's dose is also estimated to be 9.5E-04 mrem.

I If the maximum activity content proposed to be disposed of each year I

were assumed as the source term (20 pCi), the dose to the truck driver /SWTF worker is estimated to be less than 1.0E-02 mrem using the same assumptions as noted above.

5.3.2 External Exposure Due to Lone-Term Buildun In order to assess the potential impact from the postulated buildup of i

activity resulting from 30 years of septage disposed at the maximum annual allowed activity content, it was conservatively assumed that the entire quantity of accumulated activity at the end of 30 years was buried in a common landfill disposal cell which was then available to the general public for uncontrolled access (8,760 hours0.0088 days <br />0.211 hours <br />0.00126 weeks <br />2.8918e-4 months <br /> per year).

For regional SWTFs, waste sludge is typically mixed with sand and placed in landfill disposal cells on a daily basis and covered by a layer of at least six inches of composited material before the end of each working day, I

as required by Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regulations (Reference 16). The landfill disposal cells range in size from about one acre up to about five acres. After a cell is full, a final layer of compacted material is required to be placed over the entire surface of the i

cell to a minimum depth of two feet (Reference 16). WPP12/14 i

~

J Antlytically, if Qo is th2 amount cf rcdioactivity per ttnk full of septage for a give nuclide, then the total accumulated radioactivity Q,(max) disposed of after 30 pumpouts is given if Q,(max) = Qo (1 + E + E2+E3,g4,,,,,, g29)

= Q, (1 - E29)/(1 - E)

(A) where E = exp(-Kat)

%

• is the decay constant for this selected nuclide (1/ year), and at = time interval between applications, assumed to be 1 year.

If the maximum total activity of 20 microcuries (with the sance relative distribution as determined in the current septic tank analysis) were assumed to be released each year, then the accumulated activity at the end of 30 years is found in the following table:

A Qo 9e(max) 1 Nuclide llalf Li[g (1/vaar)

InCifbatgM uCi l

e Co-60 5.27 y 0.1315 16.65 132.14 Mn-54 312. d 0.8109 0.49 0.88 Co-134 2.07 y 0.3357.

0.70 2.45 00-137 30.2 y 0.023

.2.15 46.04 Total 20 182 If the 20 microcuries per year limit is assumed to be all Co-60, then the resulting accumulated total after 30 years would be 159 microcuries, and result in a higher calculated dose than that from the above mix.

Assuming a minimum landfill disposal cell to be one acre in area, and that_the 30-year accumulated activity (159 uCi; Co-60) was disposed of in one g

year along with SWIF sludge that formed a minimum one foot layer which was p

placed immediately below the two-foot disposal cap of the cell, the resulting WPP12/14 l

I d:s3 rate one metcr cbov3 the ground curfcca was cciculotsd to be 6.4E-07 mrem / hour.

If it is also assumed that an individual remained on the I

landfill for a full year (8.760 hours0.0088 days <br />0.211 hours <br />0.00126 weeks <br />2.8918e-4 months <br />) without taking any credit for shielding by a residential structure, the total whole body dose would be 5.6E-03 mrem, or about 56% of the truck driver's/SWIF workers calculated exposure.

Since the landfill cap (2' minimum) effectively isolates the vegetation zone of the top 15 cm plow layer, no garden pathways of exposure are included. However, it is noted that the 30-year accumulated activity concentration spread over a one acre landfill disposal cell would result in an area density of only 3.7E-03 microcuries per square foot. This is I

approximately a factor of 11 below the surface area density of the garden pathway scenario in Section 5.3.3 for the bounding case of placing 2

20 microcuries directly on a 500 ft garden. Therefore, even if it is postulated that an individual were to dig a cellar hole for a new home on the landfill site after closure, the resulting dose impact would still be bounded by the garden scenario as described below.

I It is, therefore, concluded that for normal handling, pro m s.

and disposal of septage at a SWTF, the maximum annual dose is received by the I.

truck driver or SWTF worker handling the annual batches of septage pumped for disposal, and not the result of accumulated activity buildup ov6r extended time pet'ods.

5.3.3 Garden Pathway Scenario 1

The radiological impact associated with an event which place undiluted septage directly on a garden was carried out using the dose assessment models in Regulatory Guide 1.109 (Reference 13), and in a sanner consistent with the I

methodology employed by the plant's ODCM.

Special consideration was given to l

the following:

1.

The computation of an effective self-shielding factor to account for the effect provided by the soil after the waste is plowed or mixed in the top 15 cm surface layer.

f /

WPP12/14 s-I I

I 2.

Th3 definition of en annual activity roloosa roto, which following a year's time of continuous release, would yield the ground I

deposition expected to prevail after a tank pump-out and spreading on the 500 ft2 garden.

3.

The definition of an effective atmospheric dispersion factor to represent the resuspended radioactivity.

4.

The proper representation of partial occupancy factors and usage.

data.

I 1.mndspreadina. Resuspension and Occupancy Factors if it is assumed that the garden plot is limited to a surface area of 2

2 500 ft, then the land deposited radioactive material S (Ci/m ) following landspreading will be equal to:

S, = Q, (Ci)/(500 ft2

• 0.0929 m ffg )

(B) 2 2

The denominator of this equation is equivalent to the (D/Q) deposition I

factor normally employed in the airborne impact assessment of deposited radionuclides; that is:-

1 (D/Q) = 1/(500 ft2

• 0.0929 m fgg )

l 2

2 E

= 2.15E-02 (m-2)

(C) i I

Following the application of undiluted septage on the garden, some of the radioactivity may become airborne as a result of resuspension effects.

I The model used to estimate the radionuclide concentration in air above the disposal plot was taken from WASH-1400, Appendix VI.

According to that model, 3

the relationship between the airborne concentration A, (Ci/m ) and the surface deposition ist I

2 A, = S, (01/m ) x g (if,)

(p)

WPP12/14 I

I WMi

~

whara K is the resuspension factor cnd is tek:;n to b3 cqual to 1.0E-06 (1/m)

I (Reference 11) which is believed conservative due to the limited surface area involved and the irrigation provided to a garden which l-minimizes airborne dust.

The 500 ft2 garden size was selected based on the minimum surface area necessary to include a garden as part of the land-use census as required by Yankee's Technical Specification 3/4.12.2.

This is the minimum area which could be expected to produce sufficient food to support the uptake assumption on food consumption noted below.

In addition, by limiting the garden surface area to 500 ft2 (a circle with a 3.85 m radius) the concentration of radioactivity in the garden is maximized since the concentration for any given surface area is physically limited by the total activity available in the septage.

For direct radiation I

estimates from standing on the ground plane, a commonly used assumption of an infinite plane source (which can be approximated by a circle with a radius of 15 m) would in f act undercalet. late the surface dose rate from that of a 2

500 f t garden by a factor of about 8 due to the dispersal of the fixed quantity of activity available to be spread. For use with the garden pathways I

of exposure, it is assumed that the septage is mixed in the top cultivated 15 cm of soil with no additional clean soil cover placed over it.

As for the occupancy factors for direct exposure to the ground deposition and for insnersion in the resuspended radioactivity, 360 hours0.00417 days <br />0.1 hours <br />5.952381e-4 weeks <br />1.3698e-4 months <br /> was used for the radiological impact analysis. The 360-hour interval is believed j

to be a reasonably conservative time frame a gardener would spend each year on r

a plot of land or garden during the growing season in the northeast (everage

[

two hours a day for six months).

Garden pathway data and usage factors as applicable to the area in the vicinity of the plant are shown below. These are the same factors as used in the plant's ODCM assessment of the off-site radiological impacts due to routine releases from the plant, with the following exceptions:

i 1 !

WPP12/14 i

I I

1.

Tha soil cxposure ti:a was ch ng3d f rom 15 years to 1 ysar to account for the discrete application of septage on a garden plot.

2.

The fraction of stored vegetables grown in the garden was I

conservatively increased from 0.76 to 1.0.

3.

The crop exposure time was changed from 2,160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> to 0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> to reflect the condition that no radioactive material would be dispersed directly on crops for human or animal consumption, the deposition on crops of resuspended radioactivity being insignificant 1y small; that is, crop contamination is only through I

root uptake.

USAGE FACTORS Vegetables Leafy Veg.

Milk Inhagation*'

I Individual (ke/vr)

(ke/vr)

(liters /vr)

(m /vr) i Adult 520 64 310 329 I

Teen 630 42 400 329 Child 520 26 330 152 I

Infant 330-58 I

• Inhalation rates have been modified T.o reflect an annual occupancy factor of 360 hours0.00417 days <br />0.1 hours <br />5.952381e-4 weeks <br />1.3698e-4 months <br />.

I VEGETABLE PATHWAY Stored Leafy Vegetables Vegetables l

2 Agriculturalproductivity{kg/m) 2.0 2.0 Soil surface density (kg/m )

240.0 240.0 Transport time to user (hours).

0.0 0.0 i

Soil exposure time (hours) 8,766.0 8,766.0 Crop exposure time to plume (hours)

.0

.0 Holdup after harvest (hours) 1,440.0 24.0 t

Fraction of stored vegetables grown in garden 1.0 Fraction of leafy vegetables grown in garden 1.0 I WPP12/14 I

N COW-MTLE PATHWAY s

Pasture Feed Stored read 2

Agriculturalproductivity{kg/m)

.7 2.0 Soil surface density (kg/m )

240.0 240.0 Transport time to user (hours) 48.0 48.0 r

Soil exposure time (hours) 8,766.0 8,766.0 L

Crop exposure time to plume (hours)

.0

.0 Holdup after harvest (hours)

.0 2,160.0 Animals daily feed (kg/ day) 50.0 50.0 Fraction of year on pasture

.5 Fraction pasture when on pasture 1.0 As noted above, liquid exposure pathways are considered independent from those associated with garden exposures.

Since the laboratory analysis

{

data of septic tank waste shows that all the activity is associated with the; suspended or settled solids fraction, and not dissolved in the liquid portion, transport of activity through groundwater would not be expected to lead to drinking water supplies being impacted by septage placed on farm lands.

It is, therefore, not anticipated that the groundwater pathway could result in doses comparable to the direct surface exposure puthways. As confirmation of this, however, a methodology for groundwater analysis, as developed by Kennedy, et al. (1990) (Reference 12), was used as a check.

This model assumes that the radionuclides on the ground are leached into the water table with a leach rate based on continuously saturated soil. Once into the water table, the radionuclides are immediately available for consumption. The volume of water used for dilution is limited to the quantity used by one person in one year (91,250 liters). No credit is taken by soil retardation of the nuclides, either during the leaching process or during groundwater movement. Consumption of water is assumed to be 2 liters / day. The resulting dose factors, by radionuclide, are listed in Table 3.4 of Reference 12.

Of the radionuclides detected in the septage Co-60 is the dominant nuclide, and has the highest dose factors. The total effective dose equivalent from drinking water is 4.4E-6 mrem /yr for 1 pCi of disposed Co-60.

The maximum organ dose is 1.9E-5 mrem / year per pCi, with the organ being the LLI wall. These results are several orders of magnitude below the direct surface exposure doses as detailed below. The groundwater pathway is, therefore, not significant. WPP12/14

E Direct Ground Plane Exoosure.

I To account for the gamma attenuation provided by the soil, it was necessary to carry out an appropriate shielding calculation.

This was

.I accomplished through use of the DIDOS computer code which computed the radiation levels from a cylindrical volume source with a radius of 3.85 m and a height of 0.15 m, with the receptor located along the axis,1 m above the source.

~

The source density was set equal to 1.6 g/ce, which is equivalent to 2

the Regulatory Guide 1.109 value of 240 kg/m for the effective surface I

~

If the total activity content of

' density of soi1 within a 15 cm plow layer.

the septic tank, as listed earlier, were assumed to be uniformly distributed I

in the source disk, the volume source dose rate is equivalent to a dose rate of 2.SE-04 mrem /hr. The total dose from standing on the garden area for 360 hours0.00417 days <br />0.1 hours <br />5.952381e-4 weeks <br />1.3698e-4 months <br /> each year is seen to be 0.099 mrem from the total activity content measure in the septic tank (2.33 pCi) being placed on the garden.

Garden Pathway Total Dose The maximum individual ingestion / inhalation exposure assessments resulting from' garden crops or pasture grass grown on a septage disposal plot were added to the direct ground plane doses discussed above. This results in a bounding estimate of dose to a hypothetical maximum exposed individual. The whole body and critical-organ radiation exposures after a tank pump-out and l

spreading on a garden at a concentration level equivalent to the measured concentrations in septic waste are as follows:

Radiation Exposure Individual /OrrAn Maximum Exposed Individual 0.122 mrem /yr Child /Whole Body 0.157 mrem /yr Child / Liver i

WPP12/14 I

Th2 individual p2thw y contributions to th9 total dosa cro es fo11cvst Pathwav-Dependent Critien1 Orean Doseg l

i Maximally Exposed Maximally Exposed 4

Individual / Organ Individual /Whole Body 1

(Child / Liver)

(Child)

Pathway (aram/vear)

(mram/vear)

Ground Irradiation 0.099 0.099 Inhalation 0.0003 0.0001 Stored Vegetables 0.055 0.0214 Leafy Vegetables 0.0028 0.0011 Milk Ingestion *

(0.019)

(0.0036)

TOTAL 0.157 0.122 t

l

' Tables 1 through 4 detail the inteinal dose breakdown by radionuclide cnd pathway'of exposure.

As. can be seen in the results, the whole body and maximum exposed organ dose are appropriately equivalent. This is due to the dominance of the external ground plane exposure pathway controlling.the dose to both the organs and whole body.

5.344. Incineration Pathway Scenario s

At the present time, there are no knokn facilities for the incineration of septage in the vicinity of the Yankee plant.

For completeness, however, we have addressed the radiological impact expected from incineration. This will preclude the necessity of revising this application request if such a facility becomes available in the future.

i The basis for the radiological assessment of incineration is a report by Murphy, et al. (1989) (Reference 15), in which they calculated individual and population dose impacts from low level waste disposal scenarios. This report used a radionuclide distribution that was based on extensive studies of

. j

• As described above, the milk pathway is mutually exclusive to the vegetable ingestion pathway; and, therefore, not added into the total.

WPP12/14

.I

^

pow 3r r2 actor low isval wastes. This distribution was similst to the mansured g

distribution in the Yankee septage in that Co-60 and Cs-137 were the i

W predominant gamma emitters.

N The results of their analyses show that the transport worker receives the highest dose from the incineration scenario. The transport worker dose is I

approximately a factor of 5 higher than either the maximum incinerator worker or the maximum disposal site operator, and is several orders of magnitude j

higher than the maximum individual doses to the general public.

The dose to the transport worker has been discussed above

.I j

(Section 5.3.1) for the off-site disposal of septage f rom Yankee.

This transport worker dose will not change if the septage is incinerated, since it l

was conservatively assumed that the worker spends 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> traveling to the disposal site. Therefote, the dose to the individual landowner, from the i

garden scenario, will still be controlling for all disposal options, including incineration.

I 5.4 Maximum Releasable Activity The above analysis for landspreading on a garden the measured activity levels detected in the septic tank indicates that over 80% of the total whole body dose received by the hypothetical individual is due to direct external exposure to the ground plane. Of this direct dose component, Co-60 accounts for about 96% of the exposure.

In determining a practical means by which any future detectable levels of licensed material can be limited to ensure that the controlling hypothetical individual's annual dose is limited to I

approximately 1 mrem or less, the sum of all measured gamma emitting nuclides can be assessed as Co-60 to determine the quantity of gross activity that, if released in septage, would limit the dose to 1 mrem.

i Repeating the above controlling analysis for the event which placed the septage shipment directly on a garden plot, and assuming that the activity available is all Co-60, the total activity which relates to the annual dose WPP12/14 i'

,,.---.J;;...

- - -. -. - - - -, - -'4

-s

' limit critoria-of 1 mram is datorminsd to be approximstely 20 microcuries.

~

' The breakdown by exposure pathway for this~ scenario, assuming' an activity release of 20 microcuries-in the form of co-60 is'as follows:

Maximum Exposed Individual /Whole Body Pathway (aram/vear)

Ground Irradiation 0.980 Inhalation-0.0004 Stored Vegetables 0.13 Leafy Vegetables 0.0068 TOTAL 1.1 All other scenarios for the normal treatment and disposal of septage, including postulated accumulation and build-up of activity at a single SWTF for a 30-year period (at 20'microcuries/ year), result in radiological impacts to individuals which are approximately a factor of 100 or more below the whole body dose for the garden pathway.

The following sunmary cot

'9 calculated whole body doses associated with normal handling e.:

de with the 1 mr m bounding event garden scenario. This demonstrate diat_by limiting the annual quantity of activity in septage to 20 microcuries, the expected dose impact for disposing of septage at a SWTF will in fact be well below a dose criterion of 1 mrem / year:

Maximum Whole Body Annual Dose scenario (mram)

(a)

Septic truck driver /SWIF worker.

1.0E-02 (20 uCi Co-60 per year)

(b)

SWTF landfill af ter e-losure.

5.6E-03 (30-year accumulation; 159 uCi Co-60) WPP12/14

6.0

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSIONS The disposal of septage by transferring it to a public SWTF is in

(

cccordance with standard practices for treatment of the type of waste material generated by a septic tank / leach field sanitary waste system.

Periodic pumping of the_ septic tank is necessary for the maintenance and continued operation of Yankee's sanitary waste system. Approval for disposal of septic waste from the-Yankee sanitary system is requested to prevent failure of the sanitary system to adequately handle plant domestic waste.

Alternate means of disposal of the septage would involve the treatment of it as radwaste, with the subsequent need to stabilize, solidify, and dispose of the material at a licensed burial ground at excessive cost and a loss in valuable disposal ground volume.

The radiological analysis results indicate that the public health effects due to the biological activity and infectious constituents of such sanitary waste far outweigh the concerns due to any radioactivity which is present. By setting release limits which restrict the exposure to a maximum hypothetical indivi? e1 of 1 mrem per year, it is ensured that radiological risks from the proposed disposal method are of no significance.

The proposed release limits represent a small fraction of NRC limits permitted for disposal of similar waste by licensed facilities who have their sanitary systems connected directly to a public sanitary sewerage system.

These proposed limits are also within the plant's current allowable release limits for discharge of normal liquid waste to the environment, with any resulting dose to any individual in the public being far less than committed exposures due to natural background radiation.

. WPP12/14

7.0 REFERENCES

1.

" Design Manual - On-Site Waste-Water Treatment and Disposal Systems,"

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625/1-80-012,- October 19'Jb.

2.

"Septage Management," U.S. Environtsntal Protection Agency, EPA-600/8-80-032, August 1980.

3.

" Handbook - Septage Treatment and Disposal," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-625/6-84-009, October 1984.

1 4

" Septic Tank Care, U.S. Department of Health," Education, and Welfare, I

U.S. Public Health Service,1975.

5.

" Manual of Septic Tank Practice," U.S. Public Health Service, Publication No. 526, 1957.

6.

"Your Septic System," Prepared for the Massachusetts Department _of i

Environmental Quality Engineering, Publication No. 10043-32-625-12-77-CR, 5

January 1978.

-I 4

7.

" Septic System". Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Planning Council, 1981.

8.

" Septic Systems," Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, Publication No. 12551-24-300-9-81-CR, 1981.

)

9.

Clark, J. W., W. Viessman, and M. J. Hammer, " Water Supply and Pollution i

Control." International Textbook Company,1971.

10. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., " Waste-Water Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse," McGraw-Hill, 1979..

11.

Camber, H., " Introduction to Health Physics," Page 321, Pergamon Press, 1969.

12.

Kennedy, W.

E., Peloquin, R.*A., " Residual Radioactivity Contamination From Decommissioning," NUREG/CR-5512, January 1990 (Draf t Report for '

Comment).

13. Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 100FR, Part 50, Appendix I, USNRC, Revision 1, 1977.

s 14.

J. N. Hamawi, " DIDOS-III - A Three-Dimensional Point-Kernel Shielding Code for Cylindrical Sources, ENTECH Engineering, Inc., Technical Report P100-R2, December 1982 (updated to Version DIDOS-IV, October 1989, Yankee Atomic Electric Company).

15. Murphy, E.

S., Rogers, V.

C., "Below Regulatory Concern Owners Group:

Individual and Population Impacts From BRC Waste Treatment and Disposal,"

EPRI NP-5680, Interim Report, August 1989.

16.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Regulations 310 CHR 19.15 (Disposal of Solid Waste in Sanitary Landfills). WPP12f' i

1 TABLE 1 LANDSPREADING INGESTION PATHWAYS j

(ADULT)

(2.33 UCI TOTAL ACTIVITY)

(MREM)

PATHWAT BONE LIVER KIDNEY LUNG GI LLI THYR 0!D WHOLE 800Y

!NHALAtl0N 5

54 MN 0.00E+00 2.93E 06 -

7.28E 07 1.04E 04 5.72E 06 0.00E+00 4.66E 07 l

60 CD 0.00E+00 2.11E 05 0.00E+00 1.09E 02 5.21E 04 0.00E+00' 2.71E*05 I

134 CS 3.17E 05 7.22E 05 2.44E 05-8.31E 06 8.85E 07 0.00E+00 6.19E 05 137 CS 1.07E 04 1.39E 04 4.98E 05 1.68E 05 1.88E 06 0.00E+00 9.58E 05 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.39E 04 2.35E*04 7.49E 05 1.11E 02 5.30E 04 0.00E+00 1.85E 04 STORED VEGETABLES 54 MN 0.00E+00 3.10E 04 9.21E 05 0.00E+00 9.4BE 04 0.00E+00 5.91E 05 60 ' CD 0.00E+00 1.78E 03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.34E 02 0.00E+00 3.92E 03

)

134. CS 2.24E 03 5.33E 03 1.72E 03 5.72E 04 9.32E 05 0.00E+00 4.35E 03 137 CS 9.25E 03 1.27E 02 4.29E 03*

1.43E 03 2.45E 04 0.00E+00 8.29E 03 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.15E 02 2.01E 02 6.11E 03 2.00E 03 3.47E 02 0.00E+00

.1.66E 02

- LEAFY VECETABLES i

54 MN 0.00E+00 4.34E 05 1.29E 05 0.00E+00 1.33E 04 0.00E+00 8.29E 06 60 CD 0.00E+00 2.24E 04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 4.20E-03' O.00E+00 4.93E 04 134 CS 2.91E 04 6.92E 04 2.24E 04 7.44E 05 1.21E 05 0.00E+00 5.66E 04 137 CS 1.14E-03 1.56E 03 5.31E 04 1.76E 04 3.03E 05 0.00E+00 1.02E 03 i

TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.43E 03 2.52E 03 7.68E-04 2.51E 04-4.38E-03 0.00E+00 2.09E 03 i

COW MILK 54 HN 0.00E+00-2.39E 06 7.10E 07 0.00E+00 7.31E 06 0.00E+00 4.55E 07-

~

60 CD 0.00E+00 5.33E 05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.00E 03 0.00E+00 1.18E 04 134 CS 8.11E 04 1.93E 03 6.25E 04 2.07E 04 3.38E-05 0.00E+00 1.58E 03 137 CS 3.31E 03 4.53E 03 1.54E 03 5.11E 04 8.77E 05 0.00E+00 2.97t 03 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 4.12E 03 6.51E 03 2.16E 03 7.18E 04 1.13E 03 0.00E+00 4.66E 03 U

25

I TABLE 2 I

LANDSPREADING INGESTION PATHWAYS '

(TEEN)

(2.33 UCI TOTAL ACTIVITY)-

(MREM)

PATHWAY SONE LIVER KIDNEY LUNG GI LLI THYR 010 WHOLE BODY I

INHALAfl0N 54 - MN 0.00E+00 3.78E 06 9.41E*07 1.47E*04 4.94E 06 0.00E+00 6.21E 07 60 to 0.00E+00-2.77E*05 0.00E+00-1.60E 02 4.75E 04 0.00E+00 3.63E 05

.I 134 CS 4.28E 05 9.60E 05 3.19E 05 1.25E 05 8.31E 07 0.00E+00 4.67E*05 137 CS 1.50E 04 1.90E 04 6.80E 05 2.70E 05

-1.90E 06 0.00E+00 6.96E 05 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.93E 04 3.17E 04 1.01E 04 1.62E 02 4.82E 04' O.00E+00 1.53E 04 W,

I STORED VEGETABLES 54 MN 0.00E+00 4.84E 04 1.44E 04 0.00E+00 9.93E 04 0.00E+00 9.60E 05 '

60 CD 0.00E+00 2.83E 03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3.69E 02 0.00E+00 6.37E 03 1

134 CS 3.65E 03 8.59E 03 2.73E 03 1.04E 03 1.07E 04 0.00E+00 3.98E 03 137 Cs 1.57E 02 2.10E 02 7.13E 03 2.77E 03 2.98E 04

'O.00E+00 7.30E 03 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.94E 02 3.29E 02 1.00E 02 3.81E 03 3.83E 02 0.00E+00 1.78E 02 I

LEAFT VEGETABLES ~

54 MN 0.00E+00 3.68E 05 1.10E 05 0.00E+00 ~

7.55E 05 0.-00E+00 '

7.30E 06 j

60 C0 0.00E+00 1.93E 04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.51E 03 0.00E+00 4.34E 04

' {

134 CS 2.57E 04 6.0$E 04 1.92E 04 7.34E 05' 7.52E 06 0,00E+00 2.81E 04 I

137 CS 1.05E*03 1.40E*03 4.77E 04 1.85E 04 1.99E 05 0.00E+00 4.68E 04 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.31E 03 2.24E 03 6.80E 04 2.59E 04 2.61E 03 0.00E+00 1.21E 03 CCW MILK 54 MN 0.00E+00 3.98E 06 1.19E*06 0.00E+00 8.15E 06 0.00E+00 7.88E 07 i

60 CD 0.00E+00 9.03E 05 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1.18E 03 0.00E+00 2.03E 04

- 3 134 -CS 1.41E 03 3.31E 03 1.05E 03 4.02E 04 4.12E 05 0.00E+00 1.54E 03 137 CS 6.00E 03-7.99E 03 2.72E 03 1.06E 03 1.14E 04 0.00E+00 2.78E 03 I

TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 7.41E 03 1.hE 02 3.77E 03 1.46E 03

-1.34E 03 0.00E+00 4.52E-03 26 I

I I

TABLE 3 j

LANDSPREADING INGESTION PATHWAYS (CHILO) j (2.33 UCI TOTAL ACTIVITY.)

(MREM)

. PATHWAY BONE LIVER KIDNEY LUNG Gl*LLI THYR 010-WHOLE BODY INHALAfl0N 54 MN 0.00E+00 3.17E 06 7.41E 07 1.17E-04 1.69E 06 0.00E+00 7.03E 07 60 CD -

0.00E+00 2.40E 05 0.00E+00 1.29E 02 1.76E 04 0.00E+00 4.15E 05 I

134 CS 5.54E 05 8.63E 05 2.81E 05 1.03E 05 3.27E 07 0.00E+00 1.91E 05 137 CS 2.03E 04

'1.85E 04

'6.32E-05 2.33E 05 8.10E 07 0.00E+00 2.87E 05 l

8 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 2.58E 04 2.98E 04 9.20E 05 1.31E 02 1.79E 04 0.00E+00 9.00E 05 I

t i

STORED VECETABLES i

~

54 MN 0.00E+00 7.25E 04 2.03E 04 0.00E+00 6.08E 04 0.00E+00 1.93F 04 60 CD 0.00E+00 4.40E 03 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 2.44E 02 0.00E+00 1.30E 02 i

134 CS 8.42E 03 1.38E 02 4.28E 03 1.54E 03 7.45E 05 0.00E+00 2.91E 03 137 CS 3.80E 02-

- 3.63E 02 1.18E 02 4.26E 03 2.27E 04 0.00E+00 5.36E 03 i

TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 4.64E 02 5.53E 02 1.63E 02 5.80E 03 2.53E 02 0.00E+00 2.14E 02 1

LEAFY YEGETABLES 54 MN '

O.00E+00 4.13E 05 1.16E 05 0.00E+00 3.47E 05

0. DOE +00 1.10E-05 60 CD 0.00E+00 2.25E 04 0.00E+00-0.00E+00 1.24E 03 0.00E+00 6.62E 04 l

134 CS 4.45E 04 7.30E 04 2.26E 04 8.11E 05 3.93E 06' O.00E+00 1.54E 04 137 CS 1.90E 03 1.82E 03 5.94E 04 2.14E 04 1.14E 05 0.00E+00 2.69E 04 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 2.35E 03 2.82E 03 8.32E 04 2.95E 04 1.29E 03 0.00E+00 1.10E 03 i

COW MILK 54 MN 0.00E+00 5.95E 06 1.67E 06 0.00E+00 4.99E 06 0.00E+00 1.58E 06 60 CD 0.00E+00 1.40E 04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 7.77E-04 0.00E+00 4.13E 04 134 CS 3.25E 03 5.33E 03 1.65E-03 5.93E 04 2.87E-05 0.00E+00 1.12E 03 8

'137 C3 1.45E 02 1.38E 02 4.51E 03 1.62E 03 8.67E 05 0.00E+00 2.04E 03 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 1.77E 02 1.93E 02 6.17E 03 2.22E 03 8 97E 04 0.00E+00 3.58E 03 t

8 I

i

D i

TABLE 4 LAN0 SPREADING INGESTION PATHWAYS (INFANT)

(2.33 UCI TOTAL ACTIVITY)

(MREM)

' PATHWAY SONE LIVER KIDNEY LUNG Gl*LLI THYROID WHOLE BODY INHALATION i

54 MN 0.00E+00 1.87E 06 3.69E 07 7.39E 05 5.22E 07 0.00E+00 3.69E 07 60 CD 0.00E+00 1.47E 05-0.00E+00 8.25E 03 5.84E 05 0.00E+00 2.16E 05_,

i

'8 134 CS 3.37E 05 5.98E 05 1.62E 05 6.78E 06 1.14E 07 0.00E+00-6.34E 06 l

137' CS 1.23E 04 1.37E 04 3.85E 05-1.59E 05 2.99E 07 0.00E+00 1.02E 05

?OTAL FOR PATHWAY

't.57E 04 2.13E*04 5.51E 05 8.35E 03 5.94E 05 0.00E+00 3.84E 05 STORED VEGETABLES 54'MN 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00' O.00E+00 l

60 CD 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00.

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 1

134 CS 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 3

137 CS 0.00E400 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 i

8 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00-'

O 00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 l

t t

LEAFY VECETABLES 54 MN 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 60 CO 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00

0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 134 CS 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00'

.137 CS 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 -

0.00E+00.

0.00E+00 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00:

.0.00E+00 0.00E+00 COW MILK 54 MN 0.00E+00 1.11E 05 2.45E 06 0.00E+00 4.06E 06 0.00E+00 2.51E 06

' j j

60 CD 0.00E+00 2.86E-04 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 6.81E 04 0.00E+00 6.76E 04 '

. l 134 CS 5.23E 03 9.76E 03 2.51E 03 1.03E 03 2.65E 05 0.00E+00 9.85E 04-137 CS 2.31E 02 2.70E 02 7.25E 03 2.94E 03 8.45E 05 0.00E+00 1.92E 03 TOTAL FOR PATHWAY 2.83E 02 3.71E 02 9.77E 03 3.97E-03 7.96E 04 0.00E+00 3.58E 03 I

l 28 i

uns7 t J as i

LEACH FIELD l'

l SEPTIC l

TANK LIQUID i

i (PRETREATMENT)

TREATMENT

=

l SCUM *

! YANKEE PLANT i

LIQUID e

=

i WASTEWATER l

! !~

~

- ~ ~ ~ ' '

l i.

SLUDGE *-

4 i!

i ii.

SEPTAGE:

l i.

..... L.........

..j._.............!

TREATMENT ON-SITE; PROCESS i (see note)

.(LIQUIDS) l l

WASTEWATER i

~

OFF-SITE PROCESS

=i TREATMENT (SEPTAGE)

!_____._.... _ FACILITY Note:

Septage Hauier/ Tank Truck Pipe Une

. YANKEE PLANT SANITARY WASTE DISPOSAL PROCESS FIGURE 1

___.--___.u___..

,....-.._,_._,.,..m.mm.m..

.-~_.._.u.._.........._....