ML20043A737
| ML20043A737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001201 |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1990 |
| From: | Haughney C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043A733 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005230048 | |
| Download: ML20043A737 (6) | |
Text
p
{
i f
7590-01 i
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND s
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING
[
RENEWAL OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SNM-1168 4
B&W FUEL COMPANY-COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR FUEL PLANT LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA
+
DOCKET NO. 70-1201 The U.5, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the renewal of Special Nuclear' Material License No. SNM-1168 for the continued operation of the B&W Fuel Company (BWFC), Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP),
located in Lynchburg, Virginia.
SUMMARY
.OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
-Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action is the renewal of I
the license necessary for '.r4FP to continue operations.
Principal activities in the fabrication facility include the processing of low-enriched uranium (54.1%
U-235) received as UO2 pellets, encapsulating the pellets in metal tubing, and clustering the tubing into fuel assemblies for shipment to nuclear reactor sites.
In addition to the fabrication facility, there is a treatment area for chemical and radiological liquid wastes, a storage area for UFs cylinders, and an area used for refurbishment of contaminated field service equipment.
Sanitary waste water is discharged to the sanitary treatment facility at the nearby Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (NNFD) fabrication plant.
Byproduct material i
and transuranic elements contained in sealed capsules are available for nondestructive testing and inspection purposes.
9005230048 900517 PDR ADOCK 07001201 C
PDC l
2 r
1 1
.The Need For The Proposed Action:
The BWFC CNFP is one of several facilities that fabricates fuel elements for light-water reactors.
There is continuing demand to meet the needs-for operating reactors.
Because BWFC CNFP is a supplier of fuel for reactors, denial of the license renewal would necessitate expansion of similar activities at another existing fuel fabrication facility or the construction and oper3 tion of a new plant.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The exhaust gases from potentially radioactive sources pass through a prefilter and a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.' Potentially contaminated liquids generated at the CNFP are controlled by means of a dedicated evaporatiori system.
The liquid effluent is collected and allowed to evaporate (with heat if necessary) into the existing airoorne effluent control system where it is HEPA filtered prior to release.
CNFP conducts an environmental monitoring program to provide information on the environmental impact of site operations.
The staff has evaluated CNFP's monitoring program for radionuclides and concluded that it is adequate to provide the necessary information to show compliance with regulations or to 1
indicate the presence of excessive buildup of radionuclides.
Doses were calculated using radioactive effluent release rates measured at p
CNFP.
The liquid and gaseous effluent source terms in the calculations were.
l the maximum annual releases during the last 7 years.
The released particles are assumed t'otbe completely in an insoluble form to providt a maximum calculated lung dose for the inhalation pathway and then, completely in a soluble form to provide a maximum calculated bone dose for the ingestion pathway.
The nearest residence to the CNFP plant is located 800 meters east northeast of the plant site.
For airborne emissions, the pathways considered in the individual dose l
estimates were (a) direct irradiation from ground deposition, (b) immersion in
.the airborne plume, (c) direct inhalation, and (d) ingestion of vegetation, l
meat, and milk that are conservatively assumed to be produced at the nearest residence.
For liquid emissions, the pathways were (a) submersion in water, (b) ingestion of water, and (c) ingestion of fish that are conservatively I
assumed to be from the James River at the point of influx.
I
+
3 b
The doses are mainly from the inhalation and ingestion pathways.
The critical organ dose to the nearest resident would be 5.4E-2 mrem /yr to the lung.
An infant at the nearest residence would receive 9.72E-2 mrem /yr to the lung.
This is well below the 25 mrem permitted by 10 CFR Part 20, Section 20.105 (c),
which incorporates the provisions of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) standards in 40 CFR Part 190.
The cumulative dose to the nearest resident due to the operation of the CNFP, NNFD, and NNFD-RL is 5.8E-2 mrem to the body.
The majority of this is due to operations at the NNFD.
The cumulative dose is still well below the 25 mrem permitted by the regulations.
The' population duse of 7.72E-2 man-rem from operations is only about 0.00013 percent of the population dose of 6.12E4 man-rem resulting from natural background radiation.
The nearest population which draws on the James River for domestic use is Richmond, Virginia, approximately 209 km downstream from the plant site.
Using the radionuclide concentration in the river near the CNFP,
-ignoring any further dilution, the total-body dose commitment to the population at Richmond is 8.0E-3 man rem.
The annual total-body dose to this same population from natural background radiation is about 28,248 man-rem.
Therefore, under conservative assumptions, the population dose estimate from
~ drinking water from the river is a small fraction of the background radiation dose.
==
Conclusion:==
The staff concludes that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed license renewal for continued operation of CNFP are expected to be insignificant.
To evaluate future impacts, all existing requirements for environmental monitoring and protection will be continued.
The staff concludes that there will be no significant impacts associated with the proposed action.
The staff does recommend, however, that: (1) CNFP report semiannual effluent results in accordance with Section 5 of Regulatory Guide 4.16; (2) CNFP set an action level for liquid effluents, based on gross alpha, of 2.5 percent of the MPC (uranium) in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, that if exceeded will trigger an investigation of the source and corrective action if necessary; (3) CNFP shall inform the NRC within 30 days if the State permitting agency revokes, supersedes, conditions, modifies, or otherwise nullifies the effectiveness of the State-issued NPDES permit for the discharge of liquid
7 tk,.
4 agency revokes, supersedes, conditions, modifies, or otherwise nullifies the effectiveness of the State-issued NPDES permit for the discharge of liquid effluents; (4) CNFP shall conduct a characterization survey and develop an action plan for the cleanup of the contaminated soil from the wet-weather stream ~and submit the plan for NRC review within 9 months of the date of' license renewal; and (5) CNFP shall conduct environmental monitoring in i
accordance with. approved procedures, which requires'the generated data be evaluated against an internal action level.
Upon issuance;of the license, these recommendations.will.be imposed as license conditions.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Alternatives to the proposed action include complete denial of BWFC CNFP's renewal application.
This action would result in CNFP ceasing all operations at the. facility that involve licensed material.
This alternative would be considered only.if issues'of public health and safety could not be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC.
The only benefit to be gained would be the cessation of the environmental impacts from operation at the CNFP site.
These impact.s wooM, however, be transferred to the facility. sites that increased their operations; therefore, there would be no net benefit to the environment.
Impacts from past cperations have been minor.
i.
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
Staff utilized t'ne application dated June 21,
_1989, and additional information dated June.21, August 10, and December 19, 1989.
Discussions were held with the VirgiM6 State Water Control Board on February 9 and 12, 1990.
1 Finding of No Significant Impact:
The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to the renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No.
On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts that would be created by the proposed licensing action would not be significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.
y x
5
=The Environmental Assessment and the above documents related to this proposed action are available for public inspection and copying at the Comission's Public Document Room at the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment may be obtained by calling (301)-
4 492-3358 Lor-by writing to the Fuel Cycle Safety Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC j
-20555.
- 0PPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING s
Any person whose interest may be affected by the issuance of this amendment may file a request for a hearing. Any request for hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, within-30 days of the publication of this notice'in the Federal Regis'ter; be served on the NRC staff (Executive Director for Operations, One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852); on the licensee
-(B&W: Fuel Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, P.O. Box 11646, Lynchburg, 3
Virginia 24506-1646); and must comply with the requirements for' requesting a-hearing set forth in the Comission's regulation,10 CFR-Part 2, Subpart L,
" Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materialf. Licensing-Proceedings."
(Subpart L of 10 CFR Part 2, which became effective March 30, 1989, was published in the Federal Register on February 28,1989.)
These requirements, which the requestor must describe in detail, are:
'The-interest of the requestor in the proceeding; 1.
'2.
How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing;.
3.
The. requestor's areas of concern about the-licensing activity that is the C
subject matter of the proceeding; and 4.
The circumstances establishing that the request of hearing is timely, that is, filed within 30~ days of the date of this notice.
1 U -;c 7
!<l..i>
"D,m,,
' 1.
l s )
_ f' 6
,In addressing how the requestor's interest may be affected by.the proceeding, the request should describe the nature of the requestor's right under the-Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to be made a party to the proceeding, the nature and exte'nt of the requestor's' property, financial or other (i.e.,
health, safety) interest in the proceeding, and the possible effect of any-order i
that may be entered in the proceeding upon'the requestor's interest.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this
/b day.of May, 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
M SM BY:
Charles J. Haughney, Chief Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS a
l l
1 0FC:IMUF:
IMUF:
IMUF IMSB:
c..............N:f......OGC:
NAME:MH h:
V Tharpe:
GHBidinger:
g CHa ney:
DATE:5//f/90:
Sh/90:
5/ lb/90:
5/l 90:
5/)h90:
i 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY