ML20041G472

Forwards Revised Environ Rept Section 5.7.1 Re Fuel Cycle. Key Changes Include Thorough Explanation of Method Used to Calculate Doses from Transportation,Tabular Transportation Summary & Estimate of Environ Impacts

ML20041G472
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	03/12/1982
From:	Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF
To:	Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8203220352
Download: ML20041G472 (72)

Text

__ _ . - - - _ -

Department of Energy Washington, D.C. 20545 Docket No. 50-537 HQ:E:82:011 fdAR 121982 e A

. O g Mr. Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office R 4EC5j,"II)

-9 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ! ,p'd,f.l 1 g p 7N2A ~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Et Washington, D.C. 20555  %*7gk%g::a, O

Dear Mr. Check:

'/

l n Q

CRBRP FUEL CYCLE Following our original submission of information on the CRBRP fuel cycle on February 5,1982, we met informally with your staff to clarify the content and to identify any additional information deemed necessary. Our original submission was then revised and supplemented and provided to your staff in draft form on February 23, 1982. On March 2,1982, we again met with your staff and a number of consultants to discuss the content of the

draft material. Several reonests for additional information were made at that meeting.

In msponse to the March 2,1982, request, enclosed please find a revised and supplemented Environmental Report Section 5.7.1, CRBRP Fuel Cycle. Key changes from our earlier submission include a thorough explanation of the n,;:thod used to calculate doses from transportation, a tabular transportation sunnary, a comprehensive description of and estimate of the environmental impacts from waste management, a tabular sunmary of radioactive wastes in the CRBRP fuel cycle, and numerous clarifications requested by the review

, staff. Excepting the section on safeguards in the CRBRP fuel cycle, we believe this submission includes all of the information requested on March 2, 1982.

With regard to costs of safeguarding the CRBRP fuel cycle requested by your staff, we intend to submit these on March 17, 1982, as we agreed on March 2.

. The safeguards section also requires additional information on performance goals and a description of the safeguards at a representative plutonium oxide conversion facility. This infonnation is in preparation and will be submitted as soon as available.

Q0S S'l1 8203220352 820312 PDR ADOCK 05000537 C PDR

l I

2 The CRBRP spent fuel data included in Table 5.7-8 of the submission was generated using the RIBD code for the fission products and the original version of the ORIGEN code with ENDF-4 cross sections modified for LMFBR application for the actinides, adjusted to the appropriate decay time.

Please note that we did not perform new calculations of the CRBRP spent fuel constituents for this submission, but used existing data generated for design of the reactor. We understand from discussions with your staff since March 2 that you no longer require the computer output requested at the meeting.

We further understand that your staff has arranged to have CRBRP spent fuel j

! constituents calculated using the revised ORIGEN code to support your

! review. We will gladly assist in this task, should you find it necessary.

Upon satisfaction of your requests for additional safeguards information, we intend to submit the CRBRP fuel cycle information as an amendment to our Environmental Report. If you have any comments or questions, please contact me.

I Sincerely, J n R. Longene r, Manager Licensing & Environmental Coordination l Office of Nuclear Energy Enclosure cc: Service List Standard Distribution Licensing Distribution i

i 1

, . , + _..--..,._y , - . - , , . . - - ..y -_ -. , . .m.y,.c. y .. - . , , , , - _ - . .

luutnc;ncnt X111 March 1982 5.7 OTHER EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION Operation of the CRBRP should institute no changes in land use not already abrogated during the construction phase. Comparison

[ of the construction phase to the operational phase should, in

. fact, result in relief of some of the man-induced 's' tresses due to j significant reductions in the motion and noise of heavy equipment and vehicular traffic at the plant site. Stabilization of routing should result in greater tolerance of the installation by the terrestrial population. The effects of plant operation are discussed in Sections 5.1 through 5.6. Because of the plant design and the distance of the Site from other industrial or power plants in the area (ORGDP is three miles north-northwest) the CRBRP should not have either thermal or radioactive waste interaction with effluents released by other plants in the area.

No wastes f rom the plant are anticipated to be disposed of by means other than those discussed.in Sections 5.3 through 5.5.

5.7.1 CRBRP FUEL CYCLE The CRBRP fuel cycle includes mixed oxide (MOX) fuel fabrication, blanket element fabrication, reprocessing, management of the wastes generated by facilities in the fuel cycle and transportation of wastes and products among the various facilities. Some of the facilities required to support the CRBRP fuel cycle are not yet available. Notable examples are a fuel reprocessing plant capable of handling CRBRP fuel, and a federal repository for disposal. The environmental impacts estimated herein use existing information regarding the most likely design of these f acilities for those that are not yet available. This assessment also assumes that appropriate facilities will be available in time to support the CRBRP fuel cycle such that interim measures like away from reactor fuel storage and product storage are not required.

5.7-1 82-0034

Ar.enoment X111 March 1982 A simplified schematic diagram of the CRBRP fuel cycle employing plutonium recycle is shown in Figure 5.7-2. The mass flow parameters are characteristic of those for the CRBRP under

} - pseudo-average equilibrium-cycle cond'itions (where the

. cycle-to-cycle variations in the batch CRBRP fuel kanagement have g been averaged out). At equilibrium, approximately 0.9 MT of plutonium and 11 MT of depleted uranium are fabricated into mixed-oxide fuel and blanket assemblies per year. One half of one percent heavy metal has been assumed to be lost in the fabrication process. In the reactor core, irradiation at 975 MW(th) for 274 equivalent full power days destroys approximately

.28 MT of plutonium and 0.38 MT of uranium per year through fission and nuclear transmutation reactions. 0.27 MT of fission 5.7-la 82-0034

AntnGracnt X111 March 1982

~

product isotopes are produced per year. Because of the breeding characteristics of the CRBRP, plutonium is both produced and destroyed in the core and the discharge fuel and blan'kets contain approximately 0.97 MT of plutonium. This spent fuel is -

)  :

chemically reprocessed, where once again 1/24 of heavy metal ,,

isotopes are assumed to be lost or unrecoverable. Fission j products, irradiated structural material and other wastes are shipped to a waste disposal facility. The recovered plutonium (0.96 MT/ year), and perhaps the uranium as well, is recycled as fresh fuel input to the fuel fabrication facilities. The net gain of approximately 0.07 MT of plutonium per year can be stored for later use. The contribution of the plant fuel cycle to the environment is in Table 5.7-1, "CRBRP Summary of Environmental Considerations for Fuel Cycle." Below is a description of the facilities and methods used to estimate the Table 5.7-1 impacts.

Adequate supplies of plutonium are projected to be available from DOE-produced material to startup and operate CRBRP during the five-year demonstration period. No impacts are included in the estimate in Table 5.7-1 for production of this material. These impacts are addressed in environmental impact documents covering DOE production activities. The DOE-produced plutonium must be converted to an oxide form at a yet to be determined facility prior to fuel fabrication. Oxide conversion is planned as a step at the reprocessing plant. The impacts of conversion are bounded by the impacts of operating the reprocessing plant given in Table 5.7-1.

5.7.1.1 CRBRP FUEL FABRICATION Fabrication of the mixed oxide core fuel is planned to be performed at the Secure Automated Fabrication (SAF) line, to be installed in the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) 5.7-2 82-0034 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

Aniendment XIII

. - March 1982 at DOE's Hanford reservation. CRBRP fuel fabrication will require about 65 percent of the SAF line operational schedule (15 of every 24 months) . The data presented in Table 5.7-1 for mixed oxide fuel fabrication are based on the impacts in DOE /E'A-Oll6

! " Environmental Assessment for the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility," July 1980, and supplement. (6) ,(7) 8 The Secure Automated Fabrication (SAF) Program has as its objective to develop and demonstrate an advanced manufacturing line (SAF) for plutonium oxide breeder reactor fuel pins. This line will be the s9urce of fuel for the FFTF and the CRBRP. The SAF line will utilize technology that focuses on improved safety features for plant operating personnel, the public, and the environment. Equipment and process improvements incorporated by the SAF line will yield significant gains in nuclear materials safeguards, product quality and productivity. The SAF line provides the key link between development and full-scale demonstration of technology that will enable commercialization of LMFBR fuel fabrication in the future.

Fabrication of fuel on the SAF line in the fully automated and remotely operated mode results in the following important advances over current manual fuel fabricaton technology:

o Reduced radiation exposure to plant personnel o Reduced access to Special Nuclear Materials (SNM) o Improved containment of SNM I

o Near real-time accountability 9I ANM o Improved product cost and qual,ty o Increased protection of t e r..lic and the environment from I

radiation or contaminatien 5.7-3 rg_ggg3p - _ _ . _ _ _

Amen 6n.ent XIII March 1982 The basic f abrication process includes receiving and assaying nuclear ceramic powders, blending of the powders, pelletizing and sintering the powders into fuel pellets, and loading these pellets into finished fuel pins. The SAF line will include

!: necessary support systems for nondestructive assay, SNM accountability, rapid chemical analysis, waste and ' scrap g handling, maintenance, and material handling. All processing equipment and support systems will be combined to form an interdependent, fully integrated, automated and remotely operated fuel fabrication system.

Upon initial installation of the SAF line, all equipment items will be manually adjusted, calibrated and thoroughly tested using materials simulating flow / handling characteristics of MOX. While these tests are progressing, manual adjustments and corrections will be permitted. At the completion of the tests, the SAF line will be subjected to a MOX demonstration and preproduction qualifications test program to demonstrate capability to proces MOX fuels and to qualify the products for compliance with specifications. During the preproduction qualification test, all operational control, parameter adjustments, and equipment adjustment and calibration will be performed through the remote process control system. If manual operation /adjustmer.ts or equipment repair are required, the fuel material will be emptied from the equipment being worked on as required to minimize radiation exposure. On completion of the preproduction

, qualification tests, the entire process line will be emptied of fuel material and a material balance will be performed to demonstrate the capability of the safeguards and accountability system. Af ter completion of this activity, final adjustment and

~ correction of the process equipment will be made to prepare the SAF line for full-scale production operations.

5.7-4

laencment XIII March 1982 Prior to introduction of feed materials to the fabrication line, '

an analysis and characterization of the feed will be performed.

As the feed material progresses, automatic measurements of the t

quantity of SNM will be conducted and recorded in the process

, control and safeguards computers to maintain a continuous record for process monitoring and for safeguards and accountability j purposes.

The SAF line is designed to minimize the spread of contamination and the threat of diversion. Process enclosures are designed for each subsystem. Glove ports and windows will be incorporated to allow for " hands-on" maintenance. All containment structures will have built-in shielding, and the process equipment will incorporate supplemental shielding as necessary to meet radiation exposure criteria.

SAF equipment is within contamination control enclosures physically located behind isolation walls that function as a secondary confinement barrier. Plant operating personnel are normally located in an operating corridor that is on the opposite side of the isolation wall or in the operations computer center where all process operations are monitored and coordinated.

Under normal operating conditions, plant personnel located in the operating corridor can control and monitor the performance of process equipment. There will be no penetrations in the isolation walls that would provide direct access to the process l equipment by the operators. Under abnormal conditions, the operator can utilize local controls that can be activated to control operation of the process equipment while visually

! monitoring its performance. If tooling changes must be made or 5.7-5 82-0034 _ . -

Amenon.cnt XIII March 1982 when routine maintenance must be performed that requires the presence of an operator at the working face of the containment, .

the fuel material will be removed from the equipment as necessary to raintain personnel exposure limits and to minimize SNM access.

Uranium dioxide feed material for the SAF line wili' be obtained f by having existing UF6 at DOE's diffusion plants converted at a to be determined commercial facility. For the purpose of estimating environmental impacts in Table 5.7-1, conversion is assumed to take place at the blanket fuel fabrication facility.

The total uranium conversion capacity required to support the CRBRP fuel cycle, including blanket fabrication, on an annual average basis is 11MT.

Blanket fuel fabrication for the CRBRP will be carried out at a yet to be selected commercial facility. An average of 70 blanket fuel assemblies will be required per year. There will be about 100 kg of uranium per assembly. Thus, a conservative throughput of about 7.5 MT/yr of uranium is assumed. For the purpose of estimating the environmental impacts in Table 5.7-1, the impacts of the model UO 2 blanket fabrication facility in WASH 1248, were apportioned to a 7.5 metric ton / year throughput.

5.7.1.2 CRBRP FUEL REPROCESSING President Reagan's nuclear policy statement of October 8,1981, endorsed nuclear fuel reprocessing by private industry. The Department of Energy has requested private industry to consider the possibility of making a future commitment to build and operate a reprocessing plant to meet near-term industry requirements. Should the industry not make such a commitment in a time frame compatible with CRBRP needs, other alternatives are available, such as the modification and use of existing 5.7-6 82-0034

Amendment XIll March 1982 reprocessing facilities at Savannah River, Hanford or Barnwell, construction of new facilities, or possible multi-national  !

ventures,

~

e 3

, For the purpose of estimating atmospheric radiological releases,

~

gaseous radioactive effluents were calculated by applying the f confinement factors of the model reprocessing plant in WASH 1535 to the average annual CRBRP fuel source term (see Table 5.7-8) .

For comparison, we have also estimated the environmental impacts which would result were the CRBRP spent fuel reprocessed in the Developmental Reprocessing Plant (DRP). The DRP, described below, is planned by DOE to demonstrate the advanced technology now under development for reprocessing of LMFBR fuels.

Table 5.7-8 shows that the radiological impacts from reprocessing CRBRP fuel on the DRP are similar to those for the model reprocessing plant. The bounding reprocessing impacts, those from the DRP, are included in Table 5.7-1. Other effluents from the reprocessing plant, provided in Table 5.7-1, were estimated by apportiening the effluents of the model p1' ant in WASH 1535 to the 12 metric ton / year throughput required for CRBRP. These are expected to bound the actual CRBRP reprocessing impacts regardless of what reprocessing alternative is eventually used.

There has been some preliminary conceptual design of the DRP, sufficient for completion of an environmental analysis which indicates that such a facility can be operated within existing and proposed environmental guidelines. Similarly, a safeguards analysis has indicated that such a facility can be operated within existing and proposed safeguards guidelines and serve as a

- model for international safeguards demonstration.

5.7-7 f M -lW @ B

Amendnient X111 March 1982 Reprocessing capacity for the DRP has been set at about 1/2 metric ton of heavy metal (MTHM) per day. This capacity has been' selected as a compromise between the minimum that wil'1 permit scale-up to a production-scale operation with reasonable -

t

1. assurance of success, and the maximum that will permit a

- meaningful demonstration of reliable reprocessing systems with

$ the limited quantities of LMFBR type fuels that will be available during the demonstration period. In order to provide economical operation during the early periods of operation and in order to have a full reprocessing load to provide an adequate demonstration of operability (300 day-per-year operation is contemplated), reprocessing of LMPBR fuels will be supplemented by reprocessing of LWR fuels in the DRP.

Study and plans to date for the DRP have focused on a new stand-alone facility at a new site. However, some preliminary thought has been given to constructing a " breeder head-end" (fuel receipt and storage, shearing, dissolution, feed clarification, first cycle solvent extraction, and waste processing) at an existing reprocessing plant. Final decision on a " stand-alone," " breeder head-end," or alternative DRP will consider cost, environmental impact, impact on existing reprocessing plant programs, and importance of a reliable demonstration.

The DRP design is based on the following philosophy:

o The DRP is a U.S. Government owned developmental fuel reprocessing demonstration facility o Public and worker health and safety are of fundamental concern 5.7-8 82-0034

Amendment XIII March 1982 o Safety and safeguards-related features are designed and will be constructed and operated in accordance with ,

industrial standards applicable to nonreactor nuclear facilities. Nationally recognized codes sugh as the ASME, f: ANSI, and similar codes will be followed. The NRC Regulatory Guides, which provide guidelines 'in meeting g those requirements, will be observed.

o The DRP will be operated and maintained within the constraints of 10 CPR 20 for radioactive effluents and personnel exposure, and the 40 CFR 190 environmental standards for exposure of the general public to radioactive material. The DRP is also designed to guidelines equivalent to the 10 CFR 100 accidental release limits for power reactors. Nonradioactive effluents will meet applicable state and local air and water quality standards. .

o The DRP is a developmental facility. Operating flexibility, including the ability to change equipment, is needed to meet U.S. Government program objectives.

DRP Support Pacilities. The DRP provides all of the facilities and services necessary for routine operation and maintenance of l fuel storage and processing activities. The services include water supply, sanitary waste disposal, electrical supply, steam and comprcssed gas supply, access roads, rail spurs, etc.

l Support facilities include on-site maintenance shops, mockup areas, laboratory and routine analytical services, cooling services, warehouses, and offices.

1 5.7-9 82-0034 _ _ _ _ __ _

IJuendn.cnt X111 March 1982 DRP Fuel Receiving and Storace The DRP is ca'pable of receiving and storing currently conceived types of spent oxide fuel .

assemblies from plutonium breeder reactors as well as from light-water reactors. Space is also provided for future storage and reprocessing of carbide breeder fuel, consistent with U.S.

- Government decisions regarding use of carbide fueld. The j specific reactors and fuels that the DRP currently has capability ,

for reprocessing are listed in Table 5.7-7.

The DRP is capable of receiving fuel assemblies that have cooled a minimum of 150 days. For purposes of calculating transportation impact however, the spent fuel and blanket was assumed to be shipped after 100 days, which is conservative.

DRP Fuel Shinoino casks The DRP is capable of (1) unloading casks that have been shipped by either truck or rail, (2) removing road dirt and external surf ace contamination from casks upon receipt, and (3) decontaminating casks prior to shipment from the DRP. The DRP is capable of removing fuel from all of the casks which will be used to ship fuel from the reactors listed in Table 5.7-7.

Capability is also provided to identify fuel assemblies for verification and inventory control, and to assay fuel assemblies for fissile material content.

l DRP Fuel Storace A water-filled pool is provided with capacity to store enough fuel for 100 days of operations at 0.5 MT/ day capacity with CRBRP-type fuel assemblies. The storage facility has provisions for detecting, handling, and canning (if necessary) suspect or known failed-fuel assemblies.

5.7-10 1

82-0034 _

l Amendment X111 March 1982 DRP Cask Maintenance. The capability to perf'orm limited maintenance operations on shipping casks is provided. This capability is limited to removing contaminated water coolant from  !

casks and canisters and placing them in storage tanks; {

f , decontaminating the internal surfaces of casks; and limited

- repair of cask internals and externals.

h DRP Fuel Reprocessing The reprocessing f acility initially provides equipment to reprocess fuel assemblies containing uranium, plutonium, and radioactive fission products, clad in either stainless steel or zirconium alloy. The process functions, as shown in Figure 5.7-3 are:

o Fuel receiving, cleaning, and storage o Mechanical processing and shearing o Dissolution, feed clarification, and feed adjustment o Solvent extraction for purification of uranium and plutonium o Uranium oxide production o Mixed uranium-plutonium oxide production o Reagent makeup and distribution o Rework of off-specification process liquids o Process heating and cooling 5.7-11 rwayisn

la..cn6 ment XIII Merch 1982 DRP Type of Process. Separation of the fission products from the fissile and f ertile material .ts based upon liquid-liquid solvent extraction. The standard Purex process, modified as required for specific nuclear fuels, is the basic process. ,

' + .  !

1

. The Purex process utilizes a tributy1 phosphate (TBP) extractant j in a normal paraffinic hydrocarbon (NPH) solvent. Normally, core and axial blanket fuel is processed together. However, provisions are made to segregate the axial blanket, which is then processed separately from the core in special cases. Radial blankets can also be processed separately from the core.

The uranium and plutonium products are converted to oxides in a f orm to be used directly in f uel fabrication.

Storage capacity for all oxide products is provided for 100 days of operation at the maximum production rate for the two oxide products stated above. Capacity to store liquid products temporarily for 30 days of operation is also provided. The design for storage and shipment of uranium and plutonium is in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 70,10 CFR 73, and applicable Department of Energy Orders.

DRP Process Licuid Recycle and Disposition. Contaminated water and acid used in the processes are recovered, purified, and recycled to the extent practical. Water additions to the process are thus minimized, and excess water is decontaminated prior to release from the stack as a vapor. Radioactivity limits in the vaporized water are consistent with the design objectives for fission product emission. There are no radioactive liquid releases.

5.7-12 82-0034

Ismendment XIII March 1982 .

o l l

DRP Waste and Effluents The DRP will be capable of being operated and maintained within the environmental constraints imposed by Federal, state, and local regulations. This specifically includes consideration of the provisions of

10 CFR 20, 40 CFR 190, and applicable portions of hppendix I of

, 10 CFR 50 for routine operations, and 10 CFR 100 for accident j conditions. Consistent with these regulations, effluent control systems were designed to provide overall plant confinement factors when processing typical breeder reactor fuel as shown in Table 5.7-8. The annual effluent releases from the DRP as a result of processing CRBRP f uel af ter 150 days of decay are also shown in Table 5.7-8.

DRP Waste Manacement Systems. The high-level liquid waste system is designed to accommodate the wastes resulting from the reprocessing of 150 metric tons per year of heavy metal. The waste storage capacity is designed for two years' processing capacity, concentrated to 200 gallons per ton of heavy metal.

High-level liquid wastes are concentrated, solidified, and packaged for subsequent transfer to a Federal repository in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50. The current interpretation of these guidelines is that the centerline temperature of the canistered waste after solidification (assuming solidified glass process) shall not exceed 800 0C, the waste canisters shall not exceed 12 inches in diameter by 10 feet l

l high, and the decay heat output of the individual canisters shall not exceed 5 kW at the time of shipment to a repository. It is anticipated that this heat output level may be reduced to 3 kW per canister, and additional constraints might be placed on these wastes following complete and thorough analysis of their effect I on a repository. Storage space is provided in the waste pool to anticipate such change.

i l

5.7-13 l

82-0034

Amen 6n.cnt X111 March 1982 Radioactive metal scrap originating from the' fuel assemblies, process operations, and nonrepairable in-cell equipment is ,

consolidated and packaged for shipment to a Federal repository.

[ $ The overall size, weight, capacity, etc., of waste shipping casks

~

- to be handled by the DRP are not yet established.

0 $

Nonprocess, potentially contaminated wastes, such as change room showers, sink effluents, and fire-protection water discharges, are routed to a collection system for monitoring and processing to assure compliance with the effluent release requirements. All liquid wastes discharged to the environment will meet EPA Clean Water Act requirements.

All solid wastes that are potentially contaminated are inspected, processed or packaged, as required, and shipped to a suitable burial site. -

Combustible wastes, including waste process organics, are treated by a suitable combustion process to reduce them to a noncom-bustible material for disposal. The remaining wastes will be packaged as required and sent to a suitable disposal site.

I i

5.7-14

Arcadment X11I

- March 1982 5.7.1.3 RADIOACTIVE WASTES FROM THE CRBRP FUEL CYCLE Radioactive wastes are a by-product of the CRBRP f uel' cycle.

Table 5.7-10 summarizes the types, quantities, key constituents, -

f: and disposition of the wastes from the CRBRP fuel cycle. Table

- 5.7-5 compares the quantities of wastes expected to' be produced j in the CRBRP fuel cycle with those of the once-through and uranium-only recycle fuel cycles for LWR's. The following discusses the waste generated at each step in the fuel cycle and the environmental impacts from disposing of these wastes.

Aoequate supplies of depleted uranium in the form of UF 6 are currently available at DOE enrichment plants to supply blanket material for the CRBRP indefinitely. The depleted UF is left 6

over from production of enriched uranium for LWR's. No incremental waste generation nor environmental impacts are attributed to the CRBRP for production of this material.

Operation of the CRBRP does not require the use of enriched uranium for fuel material. This is an important difference between the LWR fuel cycle and the CRBRP fuel cycle. As such, the CRBRP fuel cycle generates no radioactive wastes nor environmental impacts from uranium enrichment.

Conversion of depleted UF to UO 2 for CRBRP blankets is planned 6

to be performed at the blanket fuel fabrication facility. As noted in section 5.7.1.1, both UO f r blanket fabrication and 2

for fabrication of core fuel would be converted. During UF 6

conversion, CaF2 will be formed. This is the most significant waste generated at the blanket fuel fabrication plant.

The CaF2 will be contaminated with about 0.01 uCi/ga of uranium.

The 11 MT/ year of CaF2 generated by the CRBRP fuel cycle is based 5.7-15 n%rwinn

Istndri.ent X111 March 1982

\

on the production rate of one metric ton for'e'ach metric ton of uranium processed as given in section 3.2.5, NUREG 0116(12) The l CaF 2 is expected to be disposed of at the blanket fabrication facility in bulk form. Based on the solubility of CaF2, any

' - uranium leached out would be present in the leachate at

, concentrations of about 10-3 of MPC, which is so low as to be j insignificant as a potential radiation hazard (see WASH 1248, p.

E-16).

Operation of the SAF line is expected to produce about 200 m 3 of transuranic contaminated wastes per year (6) . As CRBRP requires about 65 percent of the SAF line capacity, about 130 m 3 of transuranic wastes will be generated from fabrication of the annual CRBRP core fuel. These wastes will be contaminated with uranium, plutonium, and daughter products to levels in excess of 10 nanocuries per gram. The CRBRP wastes will be partially compacted and packaged into about 145, 55 gallon drums annually.

The transuranic wastes generated from operation of the SAF line will be transported to an existing DOE transuranic waste storage site on the Hanford Reservation. Environmental impacts from operation of the Hanford Reservation are addressed in ERDA-1538,

" Waste Management Operations, Hanford Reservation," December l 1975. CRBRP transuranic waste will be a small addition to over 155,000 m3 of transuranic waste already in storage at the Hanford facility and will result in an insignificant incremental environmental impact compared with the totality of Hanford waste management.

As the LWR fuel cycle does not involve plutonium recycle, as yet, a key diff erence between the LWR and CRBRP f uel cycle is the generation of transuranic contaminated wastes from fuel I

fabrication. This difference is evident from Table 5.7-5. For

( the purpose of estimating the environmental impacts from this l

l

. 5.7-16 l

l 82-0034 __

Amendment XIII March 1982 unique CRBRP fuel cycle waste stream, it was' assumed that these wastes would be ultimately disposed of in a Federal respository. ,

The environmental impacts from disposing of about 85,'000 m3 of transuranic waste in the proposed Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (11)

' - were apportioned to the 130 m3 annual generation rate for CRBRP, and included in Table 5.7-1.

t .

Wastes generated at the CRBR plant are addressed in section 3.5.

Low-level wastes from the plant will be transported to a shallow land burial site for disposal. An estimate of the environmental impacts from disposal of these wastes is based on section 4.7.3.4 of Reference (12). Disposal of this waste will require the commitment of about 0.006 acres of land annually. As indicated in the reference, the routine atmospheric effluents from disposal of low-level wastes are insignificant.

Appropriate fuel reprocessing capability is expected to be available in time to support the CRBRP fuel cycle. No need is anticipated to supplement the approximately 4 years of spent fuel storage capacity at CRBRP with away from reactor storage. As such, no wastes are identified from operation of such a facility to support the CRBRP f uel cycle.

The types and quantities of waste in Table 5.7-5 from reprocessing were estimated based on the conceptual DRP design.

The DRP is expected to generate about 25 m3 of miscellaneous low-level wastes annually in support of the CRBRP f uel cycle.

These wastes will be generated from fuel storage, handling and i cleaning operations prior to reprocessing. The key contaminants are short lived fission and activation products with a total activity level typically of 10Ci/m 3. The low-level wastes will

• contain less than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranic contaminants.

5.7-17 82-0034

March 1982

• s For the purpose of estimating environmental impacts, it is assumed that the low-level wastes will be fixed in concrete, packed in about 120, 55 gallon drums annually, and shipped to a shallow land burial facility for disposal. Based on the analysis in section 4.7.3 of NURFG 0116, the reprocessing plant low-level wastes will require the commitment of approximately'. 0.0025 acres of land annually and result in insignificant routine atmospheric effluents.

Metal scrap waste is generated at the DRP consisting of hulls and hardware from fuel element disassembly and nonrepairable in-cell equipment. The bulk of this waste, that from fuel element disassembly, will be contamina ted with about 0.05 percent of residual fuel material and with activation products formed during irradiation. The metal scrap is expected to have a total activity of about 4 X 10 5 Ci/m3 . For the purpose of estimating environmental impacts, the metal. scrap is assumed to be partially compacted, packaged into about 8, 10 inch diameter by 10 feet high stainless steel cylinders annually and shipped to a Federal repository for disposal.

Operation of the DRP also produces some transuranic contaminated wastes. Essentially all wastes produced from operation of the plant, except for fuel storage and handling, are assumed to be I contaminated with greater than 10 nanocuries per gram of transuranics as well as fission and activation products. These wastes range from 1000 Ci/m3 to 106 Ci/m3 in total activity. For the purpose of estimating environmental impacts, these wastes are assumed to be fixed in concrete, packaged in 10, 55 gallon drums annually, and shipped to a federal repository for disposal.

j Approximately 1 m3 of solidified high-level waste is expected to l be generated from reprocessing CRBRP fuel on an annual average 5.7-18 82-0034- - -- -. -_ _ _ __ - . __

Amendment XIII March 1982 basis. The high-level waste will be fixed n"a matrix with a very low leach rate (such as borosilicate glass) and packaged in i 12-inch diameter by 10 feet long stainless steel cylinders for disposal at a Federal repository. About six cylinders of

!: high-level waste will be produced annually from CRERP tuel

~

reprocessing.

The key constituents of CRBRP high-level waste are in Table 5.7-6. These were calculated to contain 10% of the tritium, 0.5%

of the uranium and plutonium, and all of the non-volatile fission products and other transuranic elements. The fuel was conservatively assumed to be reprocessed 150 days after reactor discharge and the waste is stored as a liquid until solidification 1 year after discharge from the reactor.

NUREG 0116 estimates the environmental impacts f rom disposal of the transuranic and high-level wastes from reprocessing LWR spent fuel in a uranium only recycle mode. The plutonium produced in the LWR is assumed to be disposed of with the high-level wastes in a geologic repository. The constituents of this high-level waste are shown for comparison to those generated from reprocessing CRBRP f uel in Table 5.7-8. These constituents were calculated to contain all of the non-volatile fission products and transuranic elements, 0.5 percent of the uranium and all of the pliitonium for spent fuel 1 year after reactor discharge given in NUREG - 0116, Appendix A.

It is evident from Table 5.7-5 that most CRBRP high-level waste constituents are enveloped by the constituents of LWR high-level wastes f rom U-only recycle. There are three exceptions. Ru-103 and Cm-242 have relatively short half lives and can be expected '

to decay to negligible levels before any significant release would be anticipated from the waste package. The third is 5.7-18a 82-0034

Ar..e n c a.e n t. A lll i March 1982 Am-241, the incremental environmental impact'of which would be overshadowed by the significantly higher concentrations of neptunium, plutonium and uranium in the LWR wastes. 'The environmental impacts of disposal of CRBRP high-level wastes are

' : therefore expected to be similar to those from the , LWR high-level

~

wastes given in NUREG-0116.

d .

Similarly, the environmental impacts from geologic disposal of transuranic contaminated and metal scrap waste from LWR fuel reprocessing envelope the impacts from disposal of similar CRBRP wastes. The impacts included in Table 5.7-1 for geologic disposal of feel reprocessing plant wastes are those calculated in section 4.4 of NUREG 0116.

The DRP does not vent all of the Kr-85 and I-129 in the CRBRP spent fuel to the atmosphere. Instead, Kr-85 is captured and loaded at about 1700 psi into 9-inch diameter by 55-inch high cylinders. About six cylinders will be generated annually containing krypton and xenon gas at about 1.8 x 10 6 Ci/m3 . This waste will be sent to a Federal repository or a separate krypton disposal facility.

I-129 will be fixed in concrete as barium iodate and packaged in about 0.05, 55 gallon drums annually. This waste stream vill be sent to a Federal repository for disposal.

)

5.7-18b 82-0034

Ancndment XIII March 1982 For the purpose of estimating the environment'a'l impacts of waste management in Table 5.7-1, all Kr-85 is conservatively assumed to ..

be released shortly after disposal. Disposal of the very long l 7

half-life (1.72 x 10 years) but low specific activity I-129

' should not result in a significant incremental environmental impact over those estimated from disposal of other " wastes in the l ,

Federal repository.

The nonradiological environmental effects of the shipment of materials from the CRBRP fuel cycle are similar to those characteristic of the trucking industry in general. The CRBRP fuel cycle and waste transportation has been estimated to add 450,000 miles of transportation, including the return shipments of empty casks, shipping containers, and protective overpacks.

Based upon NUREG 0116, the emissions from transportation are presented in Table 5.7-1.

1 1

I i

5.7-19 82-0034 t

(

t

Amenon.cnt XIll March 1982 i

s.

5.7.1.4 DOSES FROM CRBRP FUEL CYCLE Doses from Facility Operations CRBRP fuel fabrication (core fuel) requires about 65% of the SAF line operational schedule (15 of

'  : every 24 months) . Thus, the environmental impact of CRBRP fuel

. fabrication is a portion of the SAF line impact, wh'ich is a g portion of the FMEF impact. The FMEF annual 50-year dose commitments to maximum individuals and the general population within 50 miles of the FMEF are as follows:

Maximum Tndividual Population Orcan Dose (millirem) Dose (Man-rem)

Whole Body 1.5x10-3 4.6x10-3 4

Thyroid 2.2x10-4 Lung 2.9x10-3 9.0x10 2 Bone 9.5x10-3 1.1x10 4.0x10-2 Liver 5.3x10-3 2.1x10-2 Natural background and medical exposures would give an annual average exposure to individuals of about 150 millirem. The annual whole body population doses due to natural radioactivity would be about 25,000 man-rem for the year 2000 population within 50 miles of the FMEF.

l Accidental release of radioactivity and resulting consequences are given in Reference 7. Routine atmospheric releases of plutonium from the SAF line are given in the following table.

Annual Release Isotopic Isotope (Ci/yr) Composition (%)

Pu-236 2.0x10-9 8x10-6 Pu-238 3.4x10-6 0.5 Pu-239 2.2x10-6 72.

Pu-240 2.2x10-6 20.

Pu-241 3.0x10-4 6.

Pu-242 3.0x10-9 1.5

\

l l 5.7-20

( 82-0034

Araendraent X111 March 1982 These releases are based on the above isoto ic' composition, a throughput of 4.0 MT/yr of plutonium, release factors (from the SAF line) of 10-3, and cleanup factors of 1.25x10-8*'(for 3 HEPA filters in series, where each BEPA filter would have a separate tested efficiency of 99.95%). There are no liquid . radioactivity

~

. releases associated with SAF line operation.

l Routine atmospheric releases of uranium (throughput of 6.0 MT/yr of uranium) and other radionuclides from the SAF line were calculated on essentially the same basis and are given below.

Annual Release Isotopic Isotope (Ci/yr) Composition (t)

U-232 - -

U-234 5.8x10-ll 5x10-3 U-235 2.5x10-12 0.72 U-236 - -

U-238 5.4x10-ll' 99.27 Th-231 <2.5x10-12 _

Th-234 <5.4x10-Il -

Pa-234 <5.4x10-ll -

Blanket f uel fabrication for the CRBRP will be carried out at a yet-to-be selected commercial facility. For purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the commercial facility selected will have three stages of HEPA filters (with an efficiency of 99.9% per stage), yielding an overall confinement f actor of 10 9 Atmospheric rcleases for blanket fuel fabrication calculated on this basis are given in the following table.

l l *This is a conservative assumption. Actual cleanup factors would range from 10-9 to 1.25 x 10-10, i

i 5.7-21 l

l L rm;ivann

let.cndment XIII March 1982 s

Annual Relea's'e Isotope (ci/vr)

U-234 -

U-235 3.2x10-11

' U-236 -

U-23 8 2.5x10-9 --

Th-231 <3.2x10-Il -

Th-234 <2.5x10-9 l , Pa-234 <2.5x10-9 The releases are based on a 7.5 MT/yr throughput and isotopic composition of 0.2% U-235 and 99.8% U-23 8. This 7.5 MT/yr throughput is less than 1% of the annual throughput of the model fuel fabrication plant described in WASH-1248 (900 Mt/yr), which could handle the fuel fabrication requirements of 26 light water reactors annually. Thus, CRBRP blanket fuel fabrication environmental impacts, on an annual basis, would be about 1/4 of the comparable impacts given in WASH-1248 for light water reactor fuel fabrication.

Annual 50-year dose commitments to maximum individuals and the general population within 50 miles of the model LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant in WASH-1535 for atmospheric releases given in Table 5.7-8 would be as follows:

Maximum Individual Population Orcan Dose (milliremi Dose (Man-rem)

Whole Body 0.06 1.01 Thyroid 0.87 9.0 Lung 0.10 1.02 Bone 0.15 2.33 Liver 0.08 1.38 1

5.7-22 82-0034

Amendment XIII March 1982

\

Natural background exposures would give an an'n'ual average exposure to individuals in the vicinity of the model plant site of about 102 millirem.(9) The annual whole body popu'lation dose due to natural radioactivity for the population within a 50 mile radius of the model plant js estimated to be 1.02x105 man-rem.(9) i It should be noted that there would be no liquid releases of ,

radioactivity from the model plant. The C-14 released would produce a world-wide population dose commitment, over all time, of 37 man-rem, based on a constant world population of 6x10 9 people.(10)

The doses associated with reprocessing spent CRBRP fuel in the DRP were calculated assuming the model fuel reprocessing plant site described in WASH-1535. Conservative confinement factors were chosen to estimate radioactivity releases. Table 5.7-8 gives information on confinement factors and atmospheric releases of radioactivity associated with reprocessing CRBRP fuel in the DRP.

Annual 50-year dose commitments to maximum individuals and the general population within 50 miles of the DRP at the model LMFBR fuel reprocessing plant site for these atmospheric releases would be as follows:

Maximum Individual Population Oraan Dose (millirem) Dose (Man-rem)

Whole Body 0.06 1.01 Thyroid 3.9 81.2 Lung 0.10 1.02 Bone 0.15 2.33 Liver 0.08 1.38 5.7-23 82-0034

AacnGn.cnt X111 March 1982 s

Natural background exposures would give an an'n'ual average exposure to individuals in the vicinity of the model plant site of about 102 millirem.3 The annual whole body popula' tion dose due to natural radioactivity for the population within a 50 mile

' radius of the DRP is estimated to be 102,000 man-rem.(9)

/ It should be noted that there would be no liquid releases of radioactivity from the DRP. The C-14 released would produce a world-wide population dose commitment, over all time, of 3.7x10 3 man-rem, based on a constant world population of 6x10 9 people.(10)

Note that the DRP doses differ only slightly from those resulting from the model reprocessing plant, primarily due to use of different confinement factors for C-14 aad I-129.

Impacts from high level waste product solidification are included within the total impact from operation of the reprocessing facility.

Doses from Transportation Impacts from transportation of new fuel (on average 84/yr of fuel and 70/yr of blanket) to CRBRP, from operation of CRBRP and from transportation of spent fuel from CRBRP are identified in Section 5.3.

The doses from transportation of wastes from reprocessing are given below:

l Volume /yr Trips /vr Dose (Person-rem)

Low Level 882 ft 3 11 0.220 Metal Scrap 530 ft 3 40 0.660

& Transuranic High Level 35 ft3 3 0.117 l

5.7-24

Amendment XIII March 1982

' l The transuranic wastes from core fuel fabrication are to be stored at the DOE's Hanf ord Reservation. Transportation from the l fuel fabrication plant to the waste management site occurs over a route completely within the Hanford Reservation, with no public

fexposure. Thus there will be no impact from this gransportation Q phase.

4 .

the calculational approach identified in NUREG-0170 was used to determine the population doses due to all different phases of the fuel cycle. The assumptions made for these calculations are as follows:

0 9

l l

l l

l l

5.7-25 82-0034

ici.esm.it;4.L X111 March 1982 Shipment of New Fuel f rom Fabricator by Truckf SST) )

l High Med. Low Population Population Population shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas (f 1

, Average Speed (MPH) 30 50 - 55 i

PopulationDgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 One way traffic per hr. 3,000 800 500 Additional Assumptions:

o Fuel / food stops in population areas of 200/ mile 2, 4 hr/ day.

o 14 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Shielding of new fuel gives same external dose as fog spent fuel shipping cask. Dose Rate Factor - K = 10 o Four lane traf fic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population traf fic.

o Shipment duration 2.5 days.

5.7-26 82-0034

IG..endment XIII March 1982 s

Shipment of New Blanket from Fabricator by Tr'u'ck High Med. Low Population Population Population

' Shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas

-f 4 g

Average Speed (MPB) 30 50 -

55 i

Population Dgnsity 10,000 (person / mile ) 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 One way traffic per hr. 3,000 800 500 Additional Assumptions:

o All stops in low population areas for rest.

o Fuel / food stops in med-population areas, 1 hr/ day o 14 hr/ day lay over o 12 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=10 o Four lane traffic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population zones.

o Shipment duration 5 days l

l 5.7-27 82-0034 _

Amencinent XIII March 1982 Shipment of Plant Radwaste from Plant by Truc'k' High Med. Low Population Population Population shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas Average Speed (MPH) 30 50 Ml 55

(

Population Dgnsity 10,000 (person / mile ) 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 One way traffic per hr. 3,000 800 500 Additional Assumptions:

o All stops in low population areas for rest.

o Fuel / food stops in med-population areas, 1 hr/ day o 14 hr/ day layover o 8 shipments / year, 2500 miles l o Dose Rate Factor K=103 l

l o Four lane traffic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population traffic.

o Shipment duration 5 days.

I l

5.7-28 82-0034

4 Istridrotnt XIII March 1982 Shipment of Spfnt Fuel from CRBRP by Rail High Med. Low Population Population Population ShirEgnt Parameterst Areas Areas Areas

'I 4 Average Speed (MPH) 15 25 - 25 l

t PopulationDgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 Stop Duration (hrs) 0 0 36 Additional Assumptions:

o 14 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=10 3 o Per NUREG-0170, on-link persons dose considered negligible, i

l l

l l

l 5.7-29 82-0034

4 ic..tndr.4nt XIII March 1982 s

~~

shipment of Spsnt Blanket from CRBR by Rail High Med. Low Population Population Population Shinment Parameters Areas Areas Areas M <

Average Speed (MPH) 15 25 -

25

• e -

Population Dgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 Stop Duration (hrs) 0 0 36 Additional Assumptions:

o 12 shipments / year, 2500 mi.les o Dose Rate Factor - no credit taken for geduction in source strength compared to sF'nt fuel. (K=10 )

o Per NUREG-0170, on-link persons dose considered negligible.

l l

l

5.7-30 t

82-0034

Amendment X111 March 1982 s

EWJpment of Irradiated Control and Removable Radial Shield Assemblies from CRBRP by Rail High Med. Low

, Population Population Population

" shipment Parameters Areas Areas ', Areas e

Average Speed (MPH) 15 25 25 I .

Population Dgnsity 10,000 (person / mile ) 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 Stop Duration (hrs) 0 0 36 Additional Assumptions:

o 2 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=10 o Per NUREGO-0170, on-link persons dose considered negligible.

I l

l 5.7-31 82-0034

lu..t. n c.a.t.n t X 111 March 1982 shipment of PuO from Reprocessina Plant by [ ruck (SST)

High Med. Low Population Population Population Shipment Parameters Arean Areas Areas II -

5 Average Speed (MPH) 30 50 -

55 i

Population Dgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 One way traffic

. per hr. 3000 800 500 Additional Assumptions:

o Fuel / food stops in population areas of 200/ mile 2, 4 hr/ day o 14 shipments /yr, 3000 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=103 o Four lane traffic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population traffic.

o Shipment duration 3 days 5.7-32 ,

82-0034

An.endment XIII

, March 1982 shirment of HLW from Reprocessing Plant by a'[1 High Med. Low Population Population Population

, Shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas

% s Average Speed (MPH) 15 25 25 s

Population Dgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 Stop Duration (hrs) 0 0 36 Additional Assumptions:

o 4 conta.iners per shielded. cask o 3 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Assume 36 hour4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> layover in train yards, 65 person / mile 2 5.7-33 82-0034

Ar.chdment XIII March 1982 s

shipment of TUW and Metal scrap from ReDroced'sino Plant by Truck High bed. Low Population Population Population Shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas t- ,

Average Speed (MPH) 30 50 -

55 0

. Population (person / mile )

Dgnsity 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 0.90 One way traf fic ,

, per hr. 3000 800 500 Additional Assumptions o 6 shipment / year, 2500 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=103 o 530 ft3 of material / year 0 3 x 104 Ci/ft 3 o All stops in low population areas for rest.

o Fuel / food stops in med-population areas, I hr/ day o 14 hrs / day layover o Four lane traf fic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population traf fic.

I o Shipment duration 5 days l

t i

5.7-34 82-0034

is.r.cs.on. tnt X111 March 1982 k

Shipment of LLW from Reprocessino Plant by Tr'dck High Med. Low Population Population Population shipment Parameters Areas Areas Areas .

4 - -

Average Speed (MPH) 30 50 . 55 PopulationDgnsity (person / mile ) 10,000 2,000 15 Fraction of distance traveled 0.05 0.05 O.90 One way traffic per hr. 3000 800 500 Additional Assumptions:

o All stops in low population areas for rest o Fuel / food stops in med-population areas, I hr/ day o 14 hr/ day layover o 2 shipments / year, 2500 miles o Dose Rate Factor K=103 o Four lane traffic exists only in high population zones.

This contributes 2% of high-population traffic.

o shipment duration 5 days o 882 ft3 of material / year 0 0.3 Ci/ft3 o 60 drums per truck 5.7-35 82-0034

Anandment X111 March 1982 s

Doses to maximum individuals were calculated'f'or the two different modes of transportation, truck and rail shipment. For ,

truck shipments, the maximum allowable dose in the cab of an exclusive-use tank is 2 mrem /hr. The dose rate at 3 feet. from

$ the surf ace of a cask containing spent fuel is 10 arem/hr.

i Assuming a crew member spends 9 hrs. per day in the' truck cab and

, 1/2 hr. per day inspecting the shipment, the dose is calculated per trip as:

(trip /yr) (day / trip) [ (9 hrs / day) (2 mrem /hr)+(0.5 hr/ day) (10 mrem /hr)]

For rail shipment, it is assumed that the maximum individual would be a person in the yard where the train stops for rest.

Assuming this person was three feet from the cask for the full duration of the stop, the maximum individual dose would be calculated as:

(10 mrem /hr)(stop duration)

The results of the calculations are presented in Table 5.7-9.

5.7-36 FR-fifM10

Isencracnt X111 March 1982

\

5.7.1.5 SAFEGUARDS AND SECURITY Special Nuclear Material (SNM) includes plutonium, U-233 or uranium. enriched in the 235 isotope. The presence of SNM in the

• CRBRP fuel cycle requires that safeguards be applied to prevent

• unlawful diversion of material. The principal fuel' cycle operations that will support the CRBRP are transportation of fresh fuel, fuel fabrication, spent fuel transportation, chemical reprocessing of the spent fuel, and disposal / storage of radioactive wastes derived from spent fuel. The following discussion reviews each aspect of the supporting fuel cycle operations from a safeguards standpoint to show that the overall risks and costs attributable to CRBRP fuel cycle activities are not likely to be significant.

The safeguards and security requirements for DOE facilities are specified in DOE orders, number 5630 for Material Control and Accounting and 5632 for Physical Protection. These are comparble to the NRC requirements published in the Federal Register 10CFR70 and 73.

The most recent design basis threats are given in 10CFR73.1, for sabotage or theft: a determined, violent, external assault, attack by stealth or deceptive actions, by a small group of well trained, dedicated individuals with inside knowledge of the sytem and possibly the assistance of one insider, and equipped with automatic weapons, explosives and other tools, or a conspiracy between individuals in any position who have access to and detailed knowledge of the materials and f acilities. The DOE threat is similar in character including insiders and external assault.

l 1

5.7-37

lunendment XIII March 1982 A

A. Transportation MOX and of Fresh MOX Fuel Under contract with Project Management Corporation for the CRBRP, DOE maintains ownership of the fuel for the initial t core and first four reloads, and is responsible for delivery 1 of the fuel to the plant. Since October 1976," DOE has

, required that all shipments of more than two kilograms of plutonium or uranium-233, or five kilograms of uranium-235 in high-enriched uranium, should be made in Safe Secure Transport vehicles with armed escorts and monitored by the DOE radio-communication system. . The vehicles are similar to those being used for secure transport of nuclear weapons, and provide a level of assurance in excess of that associated with commercial shipment (10CFR 73.25 .37). The CRBRP fresh fuel shipments will use the DOE system, which includes the following security measures:

1. The fresh fuel will be carried in a special penetration-resistant vehicle. The vehicle includes active and passive barriers to protect the cargo, crew compartment armor, and means to immobilize the vehicle.

2. The cargo vehicle itself contains two reliable and i trustworthy armed couriers (both drivers) and will be accompanied by a minimum of one escort vehicle carrying three additional armed couriers (all drivers) .

l

3. Couriers are carefully selected for reliability, trustworthiness and physical fitness, and are specially trained, equipped, and armed.

4. Shipments are under the direct control of a central dispatcher. A system for redundant, all-weather j communication between shipments anywhere in the I

5.7-38 m _ _

Amendn,ent X111

, March 1982 s

continental United States and the dis'p'atcher is in operation. It provides for digital and voice 2-way ,

communications, and for emergency signaling under duress.

Communication is by means of an array of widely-spaced transmitter-receiver stations connected by , land lines to the central dispatcher, with automatic switching and acknowledgement. Both escort and cargo vehicles can communicate with the dispatcher, and routine reports are submitted at frequent intervals.

5. Specific standing arrangements are in effect with state police and certain other local law-enforcement agencies to provide timely response in emergencies. Studies have been made to determine expected response times at various locations; operations have been geared to realistic response-time estimates. Liaison is maintained with other Federal agencies to facilitate further support in extreme emergencies.

B. Fabrication of MOX Fuel The Secure Automated Fabrication (SAF) line is planned for f abrication of CRBRP Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. The SAF line will be installed in the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility at DOE's Banford Reservation.

Safeguards for these facilities, as at all DOE facilities that possess significant quantities of plutonium or high enriched uranium, employ physical protection, material controls, and accounting procedures to detect and to respond to attempts to seize or to steal nuclear material or to commit sabotage. Certain individuals are assigned to provide assurance that the physical protection, material control and accounting procedures are carried out effectively. DOE 5.7-39

Ic.cr.craent XIII March 1982 s

Headquarters and field office personnel l'n'spect- the facilities for compliance with the procedures manuals, and ,

assess the effectiveness of the safeguards / security measures, as they are carried out.

t The physical protection system employs multiple barriers: (1)

, a controlled area, surrounded by a fence, (2) the FMEF building, which is of massive construction, and (3) the secure automated fabrication (SAF) process equipment which is a material access area within the FMEF building. Personnel and vehicle traffic are controlled from a hardened guard post, at the fence, and access to the FMEF and to the material access area is also controlled. Persons and packages entering or leaving are subject to search for contraband and nuclear materials. A second hardened guard post is located within a facility building. Intrusion alarms are installed on the fence and in the controlled area, which is illuminated and under closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance. There are redundant communication links within the facility, from this facility to other DOE facilities in the area, and to the local police.

All employees are selected for reliability and must obtain DOE clearances. Security guards and other responsible individuals must receive training and take qualification tests, periodically.

The SAF process line will be fully automated from the blending of powders through the sintering and examination of pellets, and equipped with sensors so that material balances can be drawn about individual processes and for the whole material balance area every day. Whenever operators have access to the materials, they will be accompanied by material l control and health physics personnel.

l 5.7-39a

Amendment XIII March 1982 s

The SAF line will incorporate provisions 'ffor saf eguards and accountability of SNM throughout the fabrication process. ,

The following features will be included:

o One Material Balance Area (MBA) will be established on the 70-f t level of FMEF containing the SAF Line.

• a o The SAF Line MBA shall generate data that details the quantity of SNM received into the MBA, shipped from the MBA or remaining with the MBA. All SNM entering and leaving the MBA shall be measured by both the shippper and receiver, unless the SNM is in a container sealed with a Tamper Indicating Device (TID) .

o SNM will be carefully characterized before it enters the SAF Line MBA. SNM wil travel through the processing operations using item identification and weight as the primary accountability measurements.

s In instances where weight and item ider.tification do not sufficiently identify the SNM (i.e., scrap and waste),

nondestructive examination of the material will be required, l

i o Unit Process Accountability areas (UPAAs) will be established around each processing step within the SAF Line MBA. Generally, these will coincide with boundaries established for the purpose of criticality control.

l l

l 5.7-40 l

An.cndment XIII

. . March 1982 s

o All SNM entering and leaving UPAAs wil'1 be measured. When SNM leaving a UPAA enters another UPAA through a commen ,

point, only a single measurement is required.

• o Data on all SNM movement within the SAF Line. MBA will be available such that a material balance can be drawn around each UPAA within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />.

C. Spent Fuel Transportation Irradiated (spent) fuel removed from CRBRP represents a small incremental risk over other fuel cycle operations. The spent fuel is hot, both radiologically and thermally, and therefore requires special equipment for even the simplest handling operations. The material is highly unattractive as a target for diversion, since chemical and mechanical operations requiring expensive complex facilities and equipment are required to reduce it to a usable form. Spent fuel assemblies would be transported and protected in large casks weighing many tons. Irradiated fuel assemblies would be contained in a removable cannister inserted in the cask. The fuel casks will be designed to be transported on a 100-ton capacity railroad flatcar. The cask / car combination will be designed in accordance with DOT and NRC regulations, which include provision for crash protection and passive cooling capability. Specific elements which will serve to protect the spent CRBRP fuel while in transit in the cask include multiple heavy steel shells, a thick, dense gamma (radiation) shield, a liquid jacket and sacrificial impact absorbers.

These protection elements, while designed to enable the 9

5.7-41

Amendn.ent XIII March 1982 s

irradiated fuel to withstand crash, also 'p'rovide substantial protection against sabotage. .

Nevertheless, the possibility of sabotage with release of radioactivity does exist. A preliminary 1977 version of the study, " Transportation of Radionuclides in Urban Environs,"

projected over a thousand latent cancers associated with a worst case estimate. Experimental effort to evaluato the extent of the radioactive release by sabotage (source term) has significantly reduced the estimate of expected latent cancers. However, DOE instituted interim " DOE Requirements for the Physical Protection of Highway Shipment of Irradiated Reactor Fuel." These upgraded requirements for the protection of irradiated reactor fuel include:

1) The shipment having an escort, either two individuals in the vehicle cab or one in the vehicle cab and two additional escorts in a separate vehicle.

2) Appropriate communication devices for maintaining continual contact with a central communication center and improved emergency ' communication and vehicle location capability.

3) Improved coordination with local law enforcement agencies and routing avoiding urban areas consistent with U.S.

Department of Transportation's (Docket HM-164) regulations.

These requirements have been officially accepted by the Department of Transportation as essentially equivalent to 10CFR73.37 under Section 173.22(b) (Docket HM-164).

bottom 5.7-41a 82-0034

AmendmGnt XIII March 1982 D. Chrmical Reprocessing The safeguards provisions of the reprocessing facility are expected to be similar to those for the model facility in WASH 1535 or those of the Demonstration Reprocessing Plant (DRP) described below.

The safeguards system for the DRP will provide both physical protection and nuclear material control and accounting capabilities to satisfy Federal [ Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and DOE) regulatory requirements. In addition to these traditional safeguards capabilities, the system will provide for the protection and control of classified matter and information, and the DRP plant and property (i.e., Government property). The system includes mechanisms and provisions for deterrence, detection, delay, communications, assessment, a'ccounting, control, and response as required to meet the above regulations plus anticipated future requirements. The DRP physical protection system includes security zones, facility architectural and design features, personnel and vehicle access control, intrusion detection and assessment, automated alarm reporting, surveillance, communications, and computer security.

Physical security zones include an isolation zone, a protected zone, a hardened area, no access areas, material access areas, vital areas and limited access areas. The isolation zone is an open area surrounding the Protected Zone 5.7-42 82-0034

Amcndment XIII March 1982 s 1 except where support facilities for perso'Enel/ vehicle / rail egress and ingress control are provided. It will ensure that ,l only authorized entry is made to the Protected Zone and will detect unauthorized entry attempts. This zone will be 1 bounded by two chain link fences and will be clear of all objects that could conceal or shield an individ'ual. The Isolation Zone will be equipped with intrusion detection equipment and closed-circuit television (CCTV) to allow rapid reviewing and assessment of this zone. This zone also has a vehicle barrier designed to prevent forced entry with automoblies or light trucks, exterior to the outer of the two zone fences.

The protected zone is the area totally enclosed by the Isolation Zone that contains the Process Building (the hardened Process Building shell included), the open area between the Process Building and the Isolation Zone boundary fence and any other support structures within the area surrounded by the Isolation Zone. The area outside the Process Building will also be lighted during darkness or periods of poor visibility.

The Protected Zone is further subdivided by the hardened area. The hardened area is the portion of the Process Building enclosed within a tornado missile barrier. This includes the hardened shell of the main Process Building and the hardened control centers. Normal and routine entry is restricted with a hardened guard station, at the hardened shell perimeter.

The facility architectural and design features assure that significant quantities of SNM are physically separated from all personnel during normal operations, and access control to 5.7-43 82-0034

Amendment X111 March 1982 s

the security areas is provided. The monolithic structure of the Process Building and the relatively straight building lines at ground level provide the detection and a'ssessment capability of the safeguards system and limit the ease of forceful entry. The natural phenomena barrier.that encloses most of the Process Building is a major barrier of the safeguards system. The limited number of entrances to this hardened area controls access to the Process Building.

The entry-control system will allow surveillance, monitoring and control of personnel, vehicles and materials to and from the Controlled Zone, the Protected Zone, the Process Building, and the hardened areas. Vehicle inspection portals exist at entries to the Protected Zone to allow search of vehicles prior to entry and upon exit. Personnel access portals exist at entry and exit ways of security areas.

A defense in depth concept for physical security depends on the use of electronic devices to detect intruders at each level of defense. Alarms given by the system are both audible and visual and all are received at the safeguards control center and the secondary alarm station. The intrusion detection system consists of exterior and interior intrusion detectors and CCTV cameras, secure signal transmission, alarm assessment and display equipment and alarm and CCTV recording egiupment. This system will be used to detect unauthorized entry into the Controlled Zone, Isolation Zone, and Protected Zone. Interior alarms will annunciate in the continuously-manned safeguards control center and at the secondary alarm station.

To ensure immediate reporting and assessment of possible attempts at intrusion, the intrusion detection sensors and 5.7-44

Amendment XIII March 1982 s

key-card access control system will repor't through a computer-initiated automatic-alarm switching system. This ,

system integrates at the computer, intrusion dete'etion devices, key-card alarms, response action instructions and outline maps with closed-circuit television (CCTV) surveillance and alarm assessment system displa'y. -

Security surveillance of activities and processes involving special nuclear materials and/or impacting on security of these processes is a fully integrated safeguards subsystem.

Primary forms of surveillance used in the DRP will include:

o Guard force (fixed, vehicular and foot patrols) o Management and supervisory observation o Closed-circuit television (ccTV) surveillance monitored and managed at the safeguards control center (SCC) and the secondary alarm station (SAS). -

Full-time surveillance is employed for security barrier fencelines, the Isolation Zone cleared areas and entry / exit-ways through primary barriers.

The communications network for the DRP physical protection system will allow rapid and continuous communication among on-site security force personnel and between on-site and off-site response forces. OffS site communications needs are met using telephones for routine communications and a radio link for emergency communications. Similarly, a radio communication system consisting of base stations, mobile radios and hand-carried portable transceivers will meet on-site communication needs under most conditions.

5.7-45

Macndracht XIII

, March 1982 s

~

Since the efficiency and effectiveness of the entry control and intrusion detection systems depend on automatic data ,

processing, computer security will have a high priority in the overall safeguards system. As such, computer facilities (to include hardware and software) require that level of security for vital areas. Access to the comput'er facilities (the SCC or SAS) requires a key-card reader and digital code operated locking system. Safeguards computer transmission lines will be under constant line supervision and all panel boxes, connectors, etc., will be affixed with tamper devices or switches.

In addition to physical security, the DRP Safeguards System includes material control and accounting capabilities. Both passive and active material control features are included.

Passive material control is accomplished by placing barriers or impediments between SNM and an inside adversary. All significant quantities of SNM are processed and stored in remotely operated cells which limit direct personnel access during routine operation. Active material control is accomplished by monitoring cell penetrations from sensitive process equipment to occupied areas for the presence of nuclear materials.

l The DRP material accounting system will be based on a series of Material Balance Areas (MBA). An MBA is an identifiable I physical area around which accurate SNM balances can be performed. The material balance arecs will consist of a small pool to store spent fuel assemblies, the chemical separation equipment area, storage vessels for the uranium and plutonium nitrate products of the extraction-purification stages, the chemical processing equipment used to convert plutonium nitrate to plutonium oxide (or to MOX), a product storage vault, and the analytical laboratory.

bottom 5.7-46 82-0034

i

, Amendment XIII March 1982 s

~

E. Radioactive Wastes Because of the low concentration of plutonium and uranium in radioactive wastes, it is not considered attractive for diversion purposes. However, there are certain. inherent safeguards features within radioactive waste handling and

. management procedures. .

High level radioactive waste (HLW) will be stored within the physical security bounds of the reprocessing plant prior to shipment. Due to the relatively high radioactivity and thermal generation associated with HLW, transport to a repository will be accomplished in a similar fashion to spent fuel. At the repository, the physical security of the site as well as the remote location of the wastes deep underground should effectively deter diversion. Similarly, transuranic and low level wastes will be. packaged in DOT approved shipping containers and transported from points of origin to

, disposal facilities, where they will be handled within existing physical security systems.

l 5.7-47

Ancndment XIII March 1982 s

5.7.2 POWER PLANT OPERATIONAL NOISE AND IMPACT The CRBRP will contain a large number of sound sources, most of which will be well enclosed in thick concrete structures and will, thus, pose no noise problems. There are, however, several external sources of noise whose effect on the surrounding area is described in this section. Estimated ambient noise level, ,

predicted CRBRP noise levels and impact assessment are discussed in subsequent subsections.

5.7.2.1 ESTIMATED AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL The area on and around the plant site has an ambient noise level characteristic of a sparsely populated rural area. The only consistent source of non-natural noise is traffic on Interstate 40 which is about 1-1/4 miles f rom the center of the CRBRP Site at its closest approach. At the nearest dwelling to the CRBRP Site center, trucks passing on the interstate highway can be heard, but not cars. Based on measurements made in other similar rural areas, the average A-weighted ambient noise level is estimated to be 40-45 dBA. Traffic on the interstate is believed to be a major contributor to the ambient noise level.

l 5.7-48 82-0034

/cendii.cnt. X111 March 1982 s

~

5.7.2.2 PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS The major sources of noise from the plant site will be the mechanical draft cooling towers, the turbine generator building and the main power output transformer. Arrangement of main plant structures is shown in Figure 2.1-4, and the location of these structures on the site is shown in Figure 2.1-3. Cooling tower sound levels were determined from published references (also see Section 5.1.8.4). The transformer sound level estimates were based on the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) transformer ratings. The sound levels from the turbine-generator building we.re based on estimates of the internal machinery noise level corrected for the transmission loss of the metal panel walls.

The radiated noise levels were determined by assuming that the total sound power emitted by the-plant, suitably corrected for directivity (geometry, location and orientation), is radiated hemispherically from the center of the plant site. The sound levels in the surrounding area were calculated by summing the contribution from each of the sources at each point of interest.

Corrections were made for the shielding effect of the plant on the cooling tower noise and of the turbine-generator building on the transformer noise, l

A correction for the molecular absorption of sound in air also has been included.(1) The magnitude of this correction was determined by assuming a sound spectrum for the cooling tower noise.(2) Because most of the area surrounding the plant site is and will remain heavily wooded, a correction for the ground attenuation was estimated and included in the calculated sound l

l l

5.7-49 w

e-cimmt:14t X11I

, , March 1982 levels.(3) A significant change in the groun'd attenuation is anticipated with a seasonal change from summer to winter because ,

of the loss of foliage from the woods.

The nearest dwellings to the CRBRP Site are located approximately 3,100 feet south-southwest of the plant site and approximately 3,200 feet west-southwest of the plant site. Both dwellings are at an elevation of about 800 feet MSL, one on each side of Poplar '

Springs Creek. The predicted sound level, due to normal plant operation alone, at both of these locations is 42 dBA in the summer and 45 dBA in the winter.

At radial distances greater than several thousand feet, contours of equal sound level are almost circular. At a radial contour one mile from the plant site center the predicted summer noise level from the plant is 37 dBA; the corresponding predicted winter level from the plant is 41, dBA. Ambient levels may be higher than these values particularly for locations nearer Interstate 40. The one-mile contour and the two nearest dwellings are shown in Figure 5.7-1.

5.7.2.3 IMPACT Or' OPERATIONAL NOISE l The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development I4) ahs provided outdoor noise exposure guidelines for non-aircraft i

noise. Four categories of external noise exposure are defined.

The categories and their respective noise limits are listed in Table 5.7-3.

Since the noise from the power plant is essentially constant, the

" acceptable" category corresponds to sound levels below 45 dBA, the "normally acceptable" category to levels between 45 and l

5.7-50 82-0034 _ _ _ _

Amendment XIII March 1982 s

65 dBA, the "normally unacceptable" category 'Sevels between 65 and 75 dBA and the " unacceptable" category corresponds to levels .

above 75 dBA.

Based on the predicted levels and contours described in Section 5.7.2.2, the population distribution from Table 2.7-3 and the peak transient population from Table 2.2-14 and Figure 2.2-7, .

there will be no exposure of the permanent population or of the transient population at nearby recreation areas to noise levels above 45 dBA.

At many locations, particularly a recreation area at Caney Creek, the ambient noise from the interstate highway will exceed the noise produced by the plant.

The State of Tennessee and Roane County do not have any regulations or zoning restrictions related to noise that are applicable to the CRBRP Site. The City of Oak Ridge has a zoning ordinance (5) which specifies that sound shall not exceed the decibel levels given in Table 5.7-4 when adjacent to the uses listed. The ordinance does not indicate whether the sound level limits are linear or A-weighted sound levels. The specified levels are assumed to be A-weighted values since the A-weighting simulates the response of the human ear and is thus used in most such ordinances.

5.7-51

An.endment XIII March 1982 To the north, the CRBRP Site property line adjoins the Clinch River Consolidated Industrial Park. The sound level contour ,

shown in Figure 5.7-1 shows that the sound level at this property line will be significantly less than the specified limit in Table 5.7-4. The remainder of the area adjoining the site is rural in character and separated from the Site by the Clinch River. The Oak Ridge ordinance does not specifically address this type of ,

area. However, based on the predicted noise levels, the impact of the noise produced by the plant on the surrounding area will be negligible.

l l

5.7-52 l

82-0034

l 1

3

• JBLE 5.7-1 [

1 CPERP - SR99AY OF D& DOM 2frAL Q24SIDDRATICNS EUR IML CYQ.E j 1

Puel Fabricatim Mixed oxide Uranitsa Dioxide *** waste h natural nen mree tme recre rueli rni an eti perroces s im* * *

• Mam mt n a~rr r tat im retai <

t w racreni.

i

'ttmocrarily Otmaitted -

0.05 10.0 1.3 -

11.35 Urmiisturbed Area -

0.04 9.0 - -

9.04 -

Disturbed Area -

0.01 1.0 - -

1.01 (o Pernpnently Otanitted - - -

2.3 -

2.3 unt#r realimm/davi <

Discharged to air - -

4.2x106 2.7x102 -

4.2x106 f Diarharged to water bodies -

1.3x104 - - -

1.3x104 n

Discharged to grotmd 7.5x102 - -

2.2x103 -

2.95x103 h

'Ittal Water 7.5x102 1.3x104 4.2x106 2.47x103 -

4.2x106 f rusti Puei .{

2 Electrical Durgy (M+-hr/yr) 9.0x103 ** 4.2x10 2 -

5.3x10 -

9.9x10 3 Spivalent Coal (Nf/yr) 3.6x10 3

" 1.6x102 1.3x103 2.0x10 2 -

5.36x103 4 Y

unu nta y Owmicals cases * (Mr/yr) ;9 2D, 133 5.8 0.4 6:10-2 1.2 140 3.9 9.1x10

-2 15.4 56.1 10, 35.2 1.5 .

5.1x10-3 1.6 1.98 6 Bydrocartxms 0.36 1.5x10-2 -

i CD 0.86 3.8x10-2 0.13 2.7x10-2 9.4 10.5 s

Particulates 35.2 - -

6.5x10-2 0.6 35.9 ]

~

F- -

1.2x10-3 - - -

1.2x10-3 l i

5.7-53 ,

82-0034 ]

i i

l

.i

1 O

Wa1.E 5.7-1 (Can2irtued) I Puel Fabricatim 4 Mixed Oxide Uranitra Dioxide *** Waste I fcere Puel) falanket) Perrocessina**** Mr.aom t Trnarrer tatim ht.al '

t.iquids (Mr/yr) h

-1 a b24 ,

1.0x10 - - - -

1.0x10-1 IDO 3 1.0x10-1 5.6 - - -

5.7 -

a MI -

2.1 - - -

2.1 4 3 ,

I F~ -

1.0 - - -

1.0 *%

'm 3~

j 4 1.Cx10-2 - - - -

1.0x10-2

~3 m4 (af ter degrading) 1.0x10-3 - - - -

1.0x10-3 -

Radiological (Curieshr)

Airborne .;

Pu-236 2.0x10-I -

1.36x10-9 - -

3.36x10-9 ,

Pu-238 3.4x10 4 -

8.45x10-5 - -

8.8x10-5 :1 Pu~194 2.2x10 4 -

2.14x10-5 - -

2.34x10-5 .

Pu-240 2.2x104 -

2.20x10-5 - -

2.42x10-5 )

Pu-241 3.0x10-4 -

2.55x10-3 - -

2.85x10-3 .

Pu-242 3.0x10-8 -

4.70x10-8 - -

5.0x10-8 p

(

D-232 - -

6.22x10-ll - -

6.22x10-Il Y t

D-234 5.8x10-11 -

1.62x10-9 - -

1.68x10-9 I A

D-235 2.5x10-12 3.2x10-ll 7.84x10-Il - -

1.13x10-10 6,1 N

?

a r

V

• n I.

5.7-54 f 82-o034 d a

J1 t!-

l. ,y =

-m___

M DSLE 5.7-1 (continued) Ah 41

• J ruel Fabricatim Mixed Oxide Uranitzn Dioxide ***

fCore ruell fR1anket)

Waste Reoroce s s im * * *

• 510agercnt Transocrtatim h tal f

}

g stad10100ical (Qiries/yr)

D-236 - -

1.58x10-10 _ _ 1,$g 10-10 0-23 8 5.4x10-Il 2.5x10-9 7.3Cx10~9 - -

9.9x10-9

p228 - -

1.20:10-12 - -

1.20:10-12  ;

/ G ,-231 2.5x10-12 3.2x10-ll 7.84x10-12 - -

4.23x10-11 -f

'Ib-234 ' 5.4x10-ll 2.5x10-9 2.36x10-10 - -

2.79x10-9 he-241 - .I 2.06x10-5 - -

2.06x10-5 ,

v 237 - -

2.08x10-10 - -

2.08:10-10 ,

y Pa-234 5.4x10-ll 2.5x10-9 7.36,x10-10 - -

3.29x10~9 l 9-3 - -

5.51x103 6.8110-6 -

5.51x103 5, Kr-85 - -

4.75x103 4.7x104 -

5.18x104 M 0-14 - -

1.44x101 - 3 1.44x101 i 2-129 - -

3.26x10~4 -

M 3.26x10'4 4 1-131 - -

3.61x10~2 - -

3.61x10~2 m-103 - -

1.84x10~3 - -

1.84x10~3 ,y Ru-106 - -

7.09x103 - - 7.09x103 Co-134 - -

5.60x10-5 - -

5.60x10-5 4 to Cs-137 - -

1.60x10-4 - -

1.60x10~4 I Rrr-220 - - -

3.0x10~4 -

3.0x10-4 Rrt-222

)

8.2x10-3 -

8.2x10~3 a-J Particulate Fission - -

(.16x10-4 1.1x10-3 -

1.72x10-3  !,

Fredacts >

i<

1 5.7-55 l ,3 l

32-0034 .i .

?

p

]

A uBLE 5.7-1 (Contirred) +

p Puel Fabrication i

Mtzed Cride Uranitan Dioxide *** Waste l fCore Pue11 feladeti Repr ocer sim* * *' P.ruqment Tranrrertation Eigt1 <

l'1 Radiolcolcal (02 ries /yr) p Liquids

'. Metal -

5.0x10~3 - - -

5.0x10-3 Tb-234 -

2.0x10~3 - - -

2.0x10-3

]

fPe-234 2.0x10-3 - - -

2.Cx10-3 'f;di Solids (Cf/yr)

Other than high level

]

Al @ 1.0x10 5 -

7.0x105 - -

8.0x105 p e

Beta # === 34. -

40 - -

74  %,'

High Level - -

3.8.x10 6 - -

3.8x10 6 k,g h rmal G e eration 4 (BtVyr) Not 2.2x10 9 1.6x10 10 5.9x10 10 8.50x10 7 7.72x10 10 p Available 7 mased upon catustion of equivalent coal for power generation

• • Ictal for FNEF operation T)

• • • Non-radiological estimates from WASB-1248, Table B-1 (divided by 4)

• $*8'Ncn-radiological estinates frcas WA5n-1535, vol. II, Section 4.4 (1500 MI/yr divided by 100, or 3 days of plant operation). h;,

. I g

v a

' 4

'd J

5.7-56 82-0034 4 i

. 1

- - .j

Ts.ble 5.7-5 ",?

'1 l I!

Y Wastt_YQlume ogL_% gar fm31 1000 MWe LWR

• 1000 MWe LWR

• h 1, Fuel cycle coeration Waste Tvoe CRBRP No Reevele U Recycle .% '

i UF6 Cinversion (dry) CaF2 Chem Waste --

92 95 (wet) Cary Sludge, Chem --

41 35 e $.

Wastes "gJ T

Enrichment Low-Level Misc. --

28 30 F Fu21 Fabrication CaF , Misc.

2 11 (MT) 29 29 TRU 130 -- --

)

R2act:r ,

Low-Level 67 620 620  ;

If Spent Fuel --

35 --

g Spent Fuel Storage Low-Level --

<3 <1 d N

j Fusl Reprocessing Low-Level Misc. 25 --

7 i, High-Level 1 ,

8 ,/

Misc. TRU 15 --

44 Y Plutonium -- --

6 Kr-85 Cylinders 0.1 -- --

I-129 Cylinders 0.01 -- --

• NUREG 0116, Table 3.3 5

' .f, 1

f 5.7-62 6

7 .

'e

.h

.n

. g .. ir

?! %l 6 t;

su., sum..su w acc a March 1982 o o *

'~

TABLE 5.7-6 Comparison of Annual High-Level Waste Constituents (C1)

Nuclide Half-life CRBRP 1000 MWe LWR (1)

M B-3 12.26Y 5.33x102 2.3x103 -

'Sr-90 28Y 3.65x105 2.7x106 Ru-103 40D 1.25x105 7.18x104 Ru-106 1.0Y 5.28x106 9.6x106 I-129 1.72x107 Y 3.26x10-1 1.31 1-131 8.05D 3.29x10-7 6.97x10-7 Cs-134 2.19Y 2.32x105 6.2x106 Cs-137 30Y 7.88x105 3.7x106 Ce-144 285D 3.95x106 1.6x107 Th-228 1. sly 4.83x10-3 1.18x10-1 U-234 2.48x10 5 Y 4.06x10-3 2.66x101 U-235 7.13x10 8 Y 1.96x10-4 5.99x10-1 U-236 2.39x10 7 Y 3.96x10-4 1.10x101 U-238 4.51x10 9Y 1.84x10-2 1.01x101 Np-237 2.2x10 6 Y 1.04 1.19x101 Pu-236 285Y 1.53x10-2 9.63 Pu-238 89Y 8.41x102 1.0x105 Pu-239 2.44x10 Y4 2.14x102 1.1x104 Pu-240 6.58x10 3 Y 2.20x102 1.7x104 Pu-241 13Y 2.47x104 3.5x106 Pu-242 3.79x10 5Y 4.70x10-1 4.83x10 Am-241 458Y 1.04x105 8.8x103 Cm-242 163D 1.09x106 2.5x105 Cm-244 17.6Y 3.5x103 8.2x104 l

(1) " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing and Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle," NUREG-0116, Appendix A; 10% of B-3,100% of others, multiplied by 35 MTHM/ annual LWR charge; 1 year after discharge.

5.7-63 82-0034 L. __.

Table 5.7-7 IRP IPDGSS CAPABILITY

• 1hroughput per 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> day s Epet Fuel Fuel Fuel Hm d- Solvent Mixed-oxide U Itenctor fuel, Element / ton available, receiving, cleaning, end, extraction, conversion, corwersion 4 tons /yr elments elments kg kg kg kg FT1F U 72 3 (30 total U 360 e Pu 28 31.7 by 1991) 24 16 500 Pu 140 250 OBRP U 88 U 440

• cx>re Pu 12 15.1 5.5 24 8 500 Pu 60 240 250 ceRP U 98 U 490 blanket Pu 2 9.3 2.6 24 5 500 Pu 10 40 460 0 99 U4% e ENR Pu 1 5.3 Unlimited 24 Not reluired 500 Pu 5 20 4 80 U 99 U 495 PWR Pu 1 2.2 Unlimited 10 Not required 500 Pu 5 20 4 80 .

IIP U 78 U 437 core Pu 22 7.8 18 10 4 500 Pu 63 252 248 UP U 97 U45 -

blanket Pu 3 5.5 12 10 3 500 Pu 15 60 440  %

t

'l r

5.7-64 82-0034 5;- .

=

k*

e

'DBLE 5.7-8 '.+

Atzespheric Releases frcan Reprocessing OBRP Sp=nt Fuel Model Reprocessing DRP .t

• Plant Input Confinement Release Cmfinenent Release ..

Raditmuclide 1Ci/yr1* __ Factor (Ci/vri Facter (C1/yII. }

9-3 5.51x10 3 1 5.51x103 1 5.51x10 3 0-14 1.4 4x10 I '* 102 1 1 1.44x10 1  %

Kr-85 4.75x10 4 102 1.44x102 4.75x10 10 4.75x103 -

Sr-90 3.70x10 5 $, o9 7.4x10-5 9 7.4x10-5 5xg0 I-129 3.26x10-1 10 3.26x10-5 10 3.26x10-4 9 1 3.61x10-3 3.61x10-2 I-131 104 103 ,

Re-103 3.61x106 1.84kl0 109 1.84x10-3 10 9 1.84x10-3 7.09x10 6 10 9 Ra-106 109 7.09x10-3 7.09x10-3 ,

9 D-232 3.11x10-2 5x10 0 6.22x10-11 5x10 6.22:10-13 s -

5x10 8 8 -

D-23 4 8.12x10-1 1.62x10-9 5x10 1.62x10-9 '

D-235 3.92 x10-2 5x10 8 7.84x10-II 5x10 8 7.84 x10-11

• D-236 7.91x10-2 5x10 8 1.58x10-10 5x10 8 1.58x10-10 D-23 8 3.68 5s10 8 9 5x10 8 7.36x10-9 '.

Pu-236 2.07 2x10 9 7.36x10 9 2x10 9 9  :,

Pw-23 8 1.69x109 2x109 1.36x10 8.45x10- 5 2x109 1.36x10 8.45x10- 5 m Po-239 4.27x10 4 2x109 2.14x10-5 2x109 2.14x10-5 t-Pu-240 4.40x10 4 2x109 2x109 2.20x10-5 2.55x10-3 2x109 2x109 2.20:10-5 2.55x10-3 (t

Pu-241 5.10x106 '

Pu-242 9.40x10 1 2x109 4.70x10-8 2x10 9 4.70x10-8 .

i Cs-134 2.80x10 5 5x109 5.60x10-5 5x109 5.60x10-5 Cs-137 7.99x105 5x109 1.60x10-4 5x109 1.60x10-4 h 5x109 1.20x10-12 5x109 1.20x10-12 /

h 228 5.98x10-3 ~,

h 231 3.92x10-2 5,109 7.84x10-12 5x109 -

7.84x10-12 h 234 3.68 5x109 7.36x10-10 5x109 7.36x10-10 he-241 Np-237 1.03x105 1.04 5x109 5x109 2.06x10-5 2.08x10-10 5x109 5x109 2.06x10-5 2.08x10-10

{'.

Pa-234 3.68 5:109 7.36x10-10 5x10 9 7.36x10-10 ..

Ch-242 2.71x106 5x109 5.42x10-4 5x109 4 .:

Or-244 3.58x103 5:109 7.16x10-7 5x109 5.42x10 7.16x10- 7 ..

e

• 150 days af ter discharges fission products calculated with RIBD codes actinides calculated with  !*

CRIGD4 code.

• • 200 ppa N in fuel. { q l- ,

t 5.7-65 0034

• e r

senonient x111 March 1982 Table 5.7-9 Transportation Radiological Impact Fuel Cycle Shipment / Distance Pop. Dose Max. Person Dos 3 Element vr _fMiles) fPerson-Remi fPerson-Rem)

New Fuel 14 2500 0.449 1.40 New Blanket 12 2500 0.0065 0.013 Plant Radwaste 8 2500 0.430 0.878 Spent Fuel 14 2500 0.489 0.160 Spent Blanket 12 2500 0.432 0.160 Irradiated Control, RRS 2 2500 <0.001 0.002 PuO 2 14 3000 0.536 1.64 Reproc. Radwaste HLW 3 2500 0.0817 0.360 TUW & Metal 6 2500 0.324 0.660 Scrap LLW 2 2500 0.109 0.220 l

5.7-66 82-0034

t t

Table 5.7-10 }

Radioactive Wastes from the CRBRP Fuel Cvele I s

Ann

• Facility Maste/Formt Containtig YglurcefmgalGeneration 1/9 of Containers Key Constitugntg

• FD21 Reprocessing Plant a Low-Level concrete / drums 25/120 ,sion & Activation 1 rrodccts, 10. C1/m3

• ( .

Misc. TRU concrete / drums 10/50 Fission Products & ,

>1 nC 10g-10g/gC1/m{RU, .

Metal scrap metal / cylinders 5/8 Fuel Material,

Fission products,&actigation 4x10 C1/m3 f in -

e High-Level glass / cylinders 1/6 Fission f TRU, 1.5Produgts, x 10 C1/m3 Kr-85 gas / cylinders 0.1/6 Kr&Xggas,3 1.0x10 C1/m ,f I-129 concrete / drums 0.01/0.05 Bariumy Iodatg .i 1.4x10 C1/n Ciro Fuel Fabrication Plant i TRO solid / drums 130/145 U, Pu e

- >10 nC1/g

(

Blanket Fuel Fabrication Plant I LLW 11 MT Uranium

(*

CaF2 / bulk .

0.01 uC1/g

• CRBR Plant LLW solid-concrete / drums 67/319 Fission, activation I proguets /

<10 3 ,

C1/m -

{

t

't -

1 1

5.7-67

'J : ~

6- .

w  : .

i I

I f

T2 CURE 5.7-2 l' .

tanRP [QulllRRILM IUtt, Ef tt[

PLU10NILPt AND URAN!UM M55 FLOW (KI/ year, average) i 11.07 MT U 11.13 MT dep1 U -

l -

FutL/BLANKIT CRBRP TABRICATION 0.Es he vu

'P 0.89 M1 Pu i 1 0.97 MT Pu e it loss assnd I . I 10.64 MT U 3.27 MT FP q . < r t

0.96 MT Pu PLtTf 0 NILE REPROCESSI M .- 4. toss STORA t ass n e

" 0.27 MT 10.53 MT U

, Fission Products WASTt STORAGI i

l l.

t .

I

\

3:

. - _ _--- -----, ,, ,,ct, .  ; g, U waren I >

t i i g

f 10 enoCIIS *-

. S.

-o .o = ,

, o;r n

1 1 4 .t n-o .

Eo.R, ."_ n "P. a . A"o

• TTvY 3 s,: . 2 ;-

A s -*

a- r gE 3.;- > E,n .

o 727- g o> , ~,'

=s EC rC o

's .p ,n, gg-af !o  ;

- --o.

cE Ez!

g aseretr acio ** E r.

y =,

ag=; -g =; l- * 'g g g e- <.- to rnocess g =, .

,, e

- = l r-s

, ,, i! rr m-

.. i. ea 1

' A ti :j 3, d ,

j sn ' s m s= i, a 8,

, ,s I, e.

C 5 II 8

m 3 F+ 55S 4-

={'

l l! *! E"" 5 +

r- szo t*g 2,3  : a iI .n5 g z-T 5 z

y seo 1l i3 l3 - a o

a gg 88

+c, m *:

2 m

_-._ _ _ .a J! ,,8 ,','

o .

O II , . .z.

O E,c c , dI n on -

m c o="

n, c' v =,~, *l n-o E, E,"o so ez I.

.. "g . "5 . - P

$ E,I E!! *-- k,h *- Eh *--

a N"

on

+ 2$ ::

+--

EcI so 4

E 3

g

• ~

jf

+

lE o

• E.

se >>o a -

Z r tg- e: 6n 3"

sc a 25 E O Br2 s

E -

'2 en , p 9 l l 0  : o y I

m E +- =8 r .,

y E* EQ C e ao Qp C Co o, Es- =

0 T _

o e i r l '

i r I,

o,e go ,- E n

,n =,o o -

=

o m a n5 n* Ea g .a o o .. -

4 f

l $rE  : f os g igr n Ei d o.*e- y- je ,o y "5

~ 5>t tgg 7 - -1 r.; --

=

+

5,. 5.

=

n e'.

• - o .

s Figure 5-7.3 e' .

--- _ _ _ . e

I Amendment XIII

\

March 1982

5.5 REFERENCES

1. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Wastewater Facilities -

Engineering Section, Extended Aeration Systems, Chapter 5 in Section 5 of the Design criteria Including Laws.

Regulations, and Policies for Water and Wastewater Systems, Nashville, Tennessee, 1977, pp 5-1 through 5-8.

2. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Wastewater Facilities Engineering Section, Design of Supplementary (Tertiary)

Treatment Systems, Chapter 6 in Section 5 of the Design criteria Including Laws, Regulations, and Policies for Water _

and Wastewater Systems, Nashville, Tennessee, 1977, pp 6-1 through 6-9.

3. (Deleted)

4. (Deleted)

5. Telecon, Van Vleck, L. D., HESD to Knox County Air Pollution Control Department, 31 May 1974.

6. Tennessee Department of Public Health, Division of Air Pollution Control, Regulations: Chapter 1200-3-14, " Control of sulfur Dioxide Emissions"-

7. Tennessee Dept. of Public Health, Division of Air Pollution Control, Regulations: Chapter 1200-3-6, "Non Process Emission Standards"

8. Tennessee Dept. of Public Health, Division of Air Pollution Control, Regulations: Chapter 1200-3-18.03 " Volatile Organic Compounds - Standards for New Sources".

5.6 REFERENCES

1. IEEE Committee Report, Transmission System Radio Influence, l IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and System, Vol PAS-84, August 1965, pp 714-724,

2. Bartley, J. W., Smith, R. T. and Dobson, H. I., Tennessee Vallev Authority's Radio Interference Experiences on 500-kV Iransmission Lines, IEEE Transactions on Power Apparatus and Systems, Vol PAS-87 April 1968, pp 903-911.

3. Frydman, M., Levy , A. , and Miller, S. E., Oxidant Measurements in the vicinity of Enercized 765-kV Lines, in presented at 1972 IEEE PES Summer Meeting, San Francisco, j California, July 1972.

}

l B

13.0-34 82-0052

e* * ' Amendment XIII March 1982 s-

5.7 REFERENCES

1. _ Standard values of Atmospheric Absorption as a Function of Temperature and Humidity for Use in Evaluatino Aircrali Flyover Noise, ARP 86b, Society of Automotive Engineers, New Yor k , N.Y. , 196 4.

2. Capans, G. and Bradley, W. E., Acoustical Impact of Coolino 4! Towers, Journal Acoustical Society of America,.Vol. 55, 536(A), 1974.

3. Pas, S. P., Prediction of Excess Attenuation Spectrum for Natural Ground Cover, Report WR 72-3, Wylie Laboratories, Huntsville, Alabama, February 1972.

4. U.S., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Noise Abatement and Controit Departmental Policy, Implementation Responsibilities, and Standards, Departmental Circular 1390.2, Washington, D.C., August, 1971.

5. Zone Ordinance, City of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Section 6-504 Noise, June 17, 1959 with May 29, 1975 amendments.

6. FMEF Environmental Assessment, Supplement for Secure Automated Fabrication (SAF),. October 1981.

7. Environmental Assessment for the Fuels and Materials Examination Facility, DOE /EA-0116, July 1980.

8. Projections of Radioactive Wastes to be generated by the U.S. Nuclear Power Industry, ORNL-TM-3965, February 1974.

9. WASH 1535, Volume II, " Proposed Final Environmental Statement, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program,"

December 1974.

1." . ERDA-1535, Volume I,Section III D, " Final Environmental Statement, Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Program" December 1975.

11. NUREG-0116, " Environmental Survey of the Reprocessing S Waste Management Portions of the LWR Fuel Cycle", October 1976.

12. DOE /EIS-0026, " Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant", Vol. I, Table 4-2, October 1980.

5.9 REFERENCES

1. CVTR Decommissioning Report, Amendment No. 24 to CVNPA License Application dated July 9, 1959 (Docket No. 50-144),

May 1967.

13.0-34a 82-0052

• ..