Text

Rev 12 to Environ Rept
	ML20057F567
Person / Time
Site:	Claiborne
Issue date:	10/12/1993
From:	; LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES
To:	;
Shared Package
ML20057F563	List: ML20057F561; ML20057F565; ML20057F567; ML20057F569;
References
	ENVR-931012, NUDOCS 9310180193
	Download: ML20057F567 (150)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. I Page 1 of 2 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES Environmental Report l Push-Pull Instructions Revision 12, October 12, 1993 i Remove Insert " Table of Contents" from ER " Table of Contents" into ER + Volume I Volume I -pages i through vi -pages i through vi " Table of Contents" from ER " Table of Contents" into ER + Volume II Volume II -pages i through vi -pages i through vi " Table of Contents from ER " Table of Contents" into + Volume III Volume III -pages i through vi -pages i through vi " List of Effective Pages" " List of Effective Pages" + -pages 1 through 22 -paa.s 1 through 21 pages 3.3-i through 3.3-32 pages 3.3-i through 3.3-32 + Table 4.1-1 Table 4.1-1 + pages 4.4-i through 4.4-19 pages 4.4-i through 4.4-19 + Tables 4.4-1 (2 pages) Tables 4.4-1 (2 pages) + through 4.4-2 through 4.4-2 pages 6.1-i through 6.1-17 pages 6.1-i through 6.1-17 + Tables 6.1-1 through 6.1-4 Tables 6.1-1 through 6.1-4 + pages 6.2-i through 6.2-7 pages 6.2-i through 6.2-7 + Tables 6.2-1,(6 pages) Tables 6.2-1 (6 pages), + 6.2-2, 6.2-4, 6.2-5, 6.2-6 6.2-2, 6.2-4, 6.2-5, 6.2-6, and 6.2-7 NOTES: 1) Each page affected by this revision has the month and year of the revision printed in the lower right hand corner of the page. 2) The " List of Effective Pages" contains the latest revision and date of the revision affecting the page. 3) All changes or additions to text of each document are indicated by a sidebar (l ) in the right hand margin. In the case of deletion of

text, the sidebar appears in the right hand margi2 wi th a perpendicular line towards the text (d) indicating where material was deleted.

9310180193 931012 4 DR ADOCK 070030 0

i Page 2 of 2 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES Environmental Report i Push-Pull Instructions Revision 12, October 12, 1993 Remove Insert pages 8.1-i through 8.1-5 pages 8.1-i through.8.1-5 Tables 8.1-1 through 8.1-2 Tables 8.1-1 through 8.1-2 i i NOTES: 1) Each page affected by this revision has the month and year of the revision printed in the lower right hand corner of the page. 2) The ' List of Effective Pages" contains the latest revision and date of the revision affecting the page. 3) All changes or additions to text af each document are indicated by a sidebar (l) in the right hand margin. In the case of deletion of

text, the sidebar appears in the right hand margin with a perpendicular line towards the text (d) indicating where material was deleted.

)

.... ~. 1 LOUISIANA ENERGY. SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT l O. . l TABLE OF CONTENTS. Section Patre ' Number ~ j .s Volume I l 1.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.0-1 1.1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1-1 1.2 NEED FOR FACILITY 1.2-1 l 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 1.3-1 1.4 DRAWING SYMBOLS 1.4-1 i 2.0 THE SITE 2.0-1 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT 2.1-1 .j 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION 2.1-1 l ~ 2.1.2 SITE LAYOUT 2.1 '! 1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND AND WATER-USE 2.2-1 2.2.1 DEMOGRAPHY 2.2-1 2.2.2 LAND USE 2.2-3' 2.3 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND O NATURAL LANDMARKc' 2.3-1 j 2.3.1 HISTORIC 2.3-1. l 2.3.2 SCENIC 2.3-2 2.3.3 CULTURAL 2.3-2 l 2.3.4 NATURAL 2.3-2 2.4 GEOLOGY 2.4-1 l 2.4.1 AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY 2.4-1 l 2.4.2 SEISMOLOGY 2.4-3 l 2.5 HYDROLOGY 2.5-1~ { 2.5.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2 GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5 ! 2.6 METEOROLOGY 2.6-1 2.6.1 ON-SITE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-1 2.6.2 EXISTING LEVELS OF AIR POLLUTION AND THEIR EFFECTS ON PLANT OPERATIONS 2.6-8 i I () i October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT g' TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 2.6.3 THE IMPACT OF THE LOCAL TERRAIN AND LARJE LAKES AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER ON METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-12 2.7 ECOLOGY 2.7-1 2.7.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: PLANT COMMUNITIES 2.7-2 2.7.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: WILDLIFE 2.7-9 2.7.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY 2.7-18 Volume II

3.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0-1 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE 3.1-1 3.2 PLANT OPERATION 3.2-1 3.2.1 FEED SYSTEM 3.2-2 3.2.2 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 3.2-4 O 3.2.3 PRODUCT TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2-5 3.2.4 PRODUCT LIQUID SAMPLING SYSTEM 3.2-6 3.2.5 PRODUCT BLENDING SYSTEM 3.2-7 3.2.6 PRODUCT STORAGE AND SHIPPING SYSTEM 3.2-8 3.2.7 TAILS TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2-8 3.2.8 TAILS STORAGE SYSTEM 3.2-9 3.2.9 AUXILIARY SERVICES 3.2-9 3.2.10 DECONTAMINATION 3.2-18 3.2.11 CONTAMINATED LAUNDRY SYSTEM 3.2-19 3.2.12 PLANT EFFLUENTS 3.2-20 3.2.13 DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE LES FACILITY 3.2-23 3.2.14 RADIOACTIVITY OF CEC EFFLUENTS 3.2-23 3.3 WASTE CONFINEMENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL 3.3-1 3.3.1 CONTROL AND CONSERVATION 3.3-1 3.3.2 EFFLUENT SYSTEMS 3.3-4 3.3.3 EFFLUENT QUANTITIES 3.3-29 t i i

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Section Page Number Volume III 4.0 ENVIRONMENTA'L EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION 4.0-1 4.1 EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4.1-1 4.1.1 LAND USE 4.1-1 4.1.2 WATER USE 4.1-11 4.1.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 4.2-1 4.2 EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 4.2-1 4.2.1 EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION 4.2-1 4.2.2 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DISCHARGES 4.2-13 4.2.3 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATICN SYSTEM 4.2-19 4.2.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES 4.2-20 ] 4.2.5 OTHER EFFECTS 4.2-21 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED 4.3-1 4.3.1 ON-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.3.2 OFF-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING 4.4-1 4.4.1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND POLICIES 4.4-2 4.4.2 DECOMMISSIONING STEPS 4.4-5 4.4.3 DECOMMISSIONING RESULTS 4.4-12 4.4.4 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS AND FUNDING 4.4-14 4.5 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 4.5-1 4.5.1 URANIUM FEED 4.5-1 4.5.2 URANIUM PRODUCT 4.5-1 4.5.3 URANIUM WASTES 4.5-1 4.5.4 TRANSPORTATION 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 5.0-1 j 5.1 URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY ACCIDENTS 5.1-1 5.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1-1 iii October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES i ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT i j TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 5.1.2 POTENTIAL UFs ACCIDENTS 5.1-3 5.1.3 POTENTIAL UFs ABNORMAL EVENTS 5.1-12 5.1.4 POTENTIAL EVENTS IINOLVING MATERIALS OTHER THAN UFs 5.1-26 5'1.5 URENCO UFs RELEASES 5.1-34 5.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS 5.2-1 5.2.1 URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (UF6) 5.2-1 5.2.2 DIESEL FUEL 5.2-2 5.2.3 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 5.2-3 5.2.4 WELDING GASES 5.2-3 5.2.5 SODIUM FLUORIDE 5.2-3 5.2.6 CITRIC ACID 5.2-4 5.2.7 CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) 5.2-4 6.0 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAM 6.0-1 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 6.1-1 6.1.1 WATER 6.1-1 6.1.2 AIR 6.1-3 6.1.3 LAND 6.1-6 6.1.4 BIOTA 6.1-7 6.1.5 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1-12 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING 6.2-1 6.2.1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MONITORING 6.2-2 6.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 5.2-4 6.2.4 BIOTA 6.2-6 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT / MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.3-1 l j ,() iv October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES n ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number i 7.0 PLANT SITING AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.0-1 7.1 FACILITY SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-1 7.1.1 COARSE SCREENING REGIONAL SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-2 7.1.2 INTERMEDIATE SCREENING 7.1-5 7.1.3 FINE SCREENING 7.1-9 7.2 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.2-1 7.2.1 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.2 SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.3 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.4 SEPARATIONS BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.5 GASEOUS EFFLUENT VENT SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.6 UF6 PROCESS SYSTEMS 7.2-3 '.2.7 OTHER SYSTEMS 7.2-3 ) BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 8.0-1 U.1 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.1 QUANTITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COSTS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS-COST: SITE i SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-3 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT / COST FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.2-1 8.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT / COST FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.2-1 8.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS / COST FACTORS: PLANT OPERATION 8.2-3 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 9.0-1 9.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 9.1-1 () v October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES h ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT f\\., TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page thimber 9.2 STATE AGENCIES 9.2-1 9.3 LOCAL AGENCIES 9.3-1 9.4 STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS / AUTHORIZATIONS 9.4-1 9.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - INFORMATION MEETINGS 9.5-1 9.5.1 LIST OF MEETINGS 9.5-1

10.0 REFERENCES

10.0-1 i i O l vi October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES EINIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Patre Nuznber s Volume I 1.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.0-1

1.1 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION 1.1-1 1.2 NEED FOR FACILITY 1.2-1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 1.3-1 1.4 DRAWING SYMBOLS 1.4-1 2.0 THE SITE 2.0-1 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT 2.1-1 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION 2.1-1 2.1.2 SITE LAYOUT 2.1-1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND AND WATER USE 2.2-1 2.2.1 DEMOGRAPHY 2.2-1 2.2.2 LAND USE 2.2-3 () 2.3 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND NATURAL LANDMARKS 2.3-1 2.3.1 HISTORIC 2.3-1 2.3.2 SCENIC 2.3-2 2.3.3 CULTURAL 2.3-2 2.3.4 NATURAL 2.3-2 2.4 GEOLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.? AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.2 SEISMOLOGY 2.4-3 2.5 HYDROLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2 GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5-13 2.6 METEOROLOGY 2.6-1 2.6.1 ON-SITE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-1 2.6.2 EXISTING LEVELS OF AIR POLLUTION AND THEIR EFFECTS ON PLANT OPERATIONS 2.6-8 () i tetober 1993

e LOUISIMIA ENERGY SERVICES ^^g ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 2.6.3 THE IMPACT OF THE LOCAL TERRAIN AND LARGE LAKES AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER ON METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-12 2.7 ECOLOGY 2.7-1 2.7.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: PLANT COMMUNITIES 2.7-2 2.7.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: WILDLIFE 2.7-9 2.7.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY 2.7-18 Volume II

3.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0-1 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE 3.1-1 3.2 PLANT OPERATION 3.2-1 3.2.1 FEED SYSTEM 3.2-2 3.2.2 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 3.2-4 [) 3.2.3 PRODUCT TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2-5 ~' 3.2.4 PRODUCT LIQUID SAMPLING SYSTEM 3.2-6 3.2.5 PRODUCT BLENDING SYSTEM 3.2-7 3.2.6 PRODUCT STORAGE AND SHIPPING SYSTEM 3.2-8 3.2.7 TAILS TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2-8 3.2.8 TAILS STORAGE SYSTEM 3.2-9 3.2.9 AUXILIARY SERVICES 3.2-9 3.2.10 DECONTAMINATION 3.2-18 3.2.11 CONTAMINATED LAUNDRY SYSTEM 3.2-19 3.2.12 PLANT EFFLUENTS 3.2-20 3.2.13 DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE LES FACILITY 3.2-23 3.2.14 RADIOACTIVITY OF CEC EFFLUENTS 3.2-23 3.3 WASTE CONFINEMENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL 3.3-1 3.3.1 CONTROL AND CONSERVATION 3.3-1 3.3.2 EFFLUENT SYSTEMS 3.3-4 3.3.3 EFFLUENT QUANTITIES 3.3-29 (< m ii October 1993 9

l LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES f3 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT \\d TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number Volume III 4.0 ENVIRONMENTA'L EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION 4.0-1 4.1 EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4.1-1 4.1.1 LAND USE 4.1-1 4.1.2 WATER USE 4.1-11 4.1.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 4.2-1 4.2 EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 4.2-1 4.2.1 EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION 4.2-1 4.2.2 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DISCHARGES 4.2-13 4.2.3 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 4.2-19 4.2.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES 4.2-20 4.2.5 OTHER EFFECTS 4.2-21 () 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED 4.3-1 4.3.1 ON-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.3.2 OFF-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING 4.4-1 4.4.1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND POLICIES 4.4-2 4.4.2 DECOMMISSIONING STEPS 4.4-5 4.4.3 DECOMMISSIONING RESULTS 4.4-12 4.4.4 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS AND FUNDING 4.4-14 4.5 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 4.5-1 4.5.1 URANIUM FEED 4.5-1 4.5.2 URANIUM PRODUCT 4.5-1 4.5.3 URANIUM WASTES 4.5-1 4.5.4 TRANSPORTATION 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 5.0-1 5.1 URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY ACCIDENTS 5.1-1 5.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1-1 () iii October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES i ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT / TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 5.1.2 POTENTIAL UF ACCIDENTS 5.1-3 6 5.1.3 POTENTIAL UF, ABNORMAL EVENTS 5.1-12 5.1.4 POTENTIAL EVENTS INVOLVING MATERIALS OTHER 5.1-26 THAN UF, 5;1.5 URENCO UFs RELEASES 5.1-34 l 5.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS 5.2-1 5.2.1 URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (UFG) 5.2-1 5.2.2 DIESEL FUEL 5.2-2 5.2.3 SODIUM HYDROIDE 5.2-3 5.2.4 WELDING GASEJ 5.2-3 5.2.5 SODIUM FLUORIDE 5.2-3 5.2.6 CITRIC AC1D 5.2-4 5.2.7 CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) 5.2-4 () 6.0 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAM 6.0-1 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 6.1-1 6.1.1 WATER 6.1-1 6.1-3 6.1.2 AIR 6.1-6 6.1.3 LAND 6.1.4 BIOTA 6.1-7 6.1.5 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1-12 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING 6.2-1 6.2.1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 6.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MONITORING 6;2-2 i 6.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 6.2 6.2.4 BIOTA 6.2-6 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT / MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.3-1 () iv October 1993 i

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ,f ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number o 7.0 PLANT SITING AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.0-1 7.1 FACILITY SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-1 7.1.1 COARSE SCREENING REGIONAL SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-2 7 1.2 INTERMEDIATE SCREENING 7.1-5 7.1.3 FINE SCREENING 7.1-9 7.2 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.2-1 7.2.1 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.2 SEWAGF, TREATMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.3 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.4 SEPARATIONS BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.5 GASEOUS EFFLUENT VENT SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.6 UF6 PROCESS SYSTEMS 7.2-3 7.2.7 OTHER SYSTEMS 7.2-3 O 8.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 8.0-1 8.1 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.1 QUANTITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COSTS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS-COST: SITE SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-3 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT / COST FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.2-1 8.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT / COST FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.2-1 8.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS / COST FACTORS: PLANT OPERATION 8.2-3 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 9.0-1 9.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 9.1-1 ] i V October 1993 ..m.. r

I LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES -j """ """"'^' ""' "' CJ TABLE OF CONTENTS i Section Page Number 9.2 STATE AGENCIES 9.2-1 9.3 LOCAL AGENCIES 9.3-1 9.4 STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS / AUTHORIZATIONS 9.4-1 9.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - INFORMATION MEETINGS 9.5-1 9.5.1 LIST OF MEETINGS 9.5-1

10.0 REFERENCES

10.0-1 1 f i e t l i () vi October 1993

b LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT p., Q TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number ~ Volume I 1.0 PROPOSED ACTIVITIES 1.0-1

1.1 BACKGROUND

INFORMATION 1.1-1 1.2 NEED FOR FACILITY 1.2-1 1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE 1.3-1 1.4 DRAWING SYMBOLS 1.4-1 2.0 THE SITE 2.0-1 2.1 SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT 2.1-1 2.1.1 SITE LOCATION 2.1-1 2.1.2 SITE LAYOUT 2.1-1 2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND AND WATER USE 2.2-1 2.2.1 DEMOGRAPHY 2.2-1 2.2.2 LAND USE 2.2-3 O 2.3 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND NATURAL LANDMARKS 2.3-1 2.3.1 HISTORIC 2.3-1 2.3.2 SCENIC 2.3-2 2.3.3 CULTURAL 2.3-2 2.3.4 NATURAL 2.3-2 2.4 GEOLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.1 AREA AND SITE GEOLOGY 2.4-1 2.4.2 SEISMOLOGY 2.4-3 2.5 HYDROLOGY 2.5-1 I 2.5.1 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5-1 2.5.2 GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY 2.5-13 2.6 METEOROLOGY 2.6-1 2.6.1 ON-SITE METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-1 2.6.2 EXISTING LEVELS OF AIR POLLUTION AND ] THEIR EFFECTS ON PLANT OPERATIONS 2.6-8 () i October 1993 i

l 1 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES O ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS l Page Number Section 2.6.3 THE IMPACT OF THE LOCAL TERRAIN AND LARGE LAKES AND OTHER BODIES OF WATER ON METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS 2.6-12 2.7-1 2.7 ECOLOGY 2.7.1 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: PLANT COMMUNITIES 2.7-2 2.7.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY: WILDLIFE 2.7-9 2.7-18. 2.7.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY Volume II

3.0 INTRODUCTION

3.0-1 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE 3.1-1 l 3.2 PLANT OPERATION 3.2-1 3.2.1 FEED SYSTEM 3.2-2 3.2.2 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 3.2-4 3.2.3 PRODUCT TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2-5 () 3.2.4 PRODUCT LIQUID SAMPLING SYSTEM 3.2-6 3.2.5 PRODUCT BLENDING SYSTEM 3.2-7 3.2.6 PRODUCT STORAGE AND SHIPPING SYSTEM 3.2-8 3.2.7 TAILS TAKE-OFF SYSTEM 3.2 3.2.8 TAILS STORAGE SYSTEM 3.2-9 3.2.9 AUXILIARY SERVICES 3.2-9 3.2.10 DECONTAMINATION 3.2-18 3.2.11 CONTAMINATED LAUNDRY SYSTEM 3.2-19 i 3.2.12 PLANT EFFLUENTS 3.2-20 3.2.13 DESIGN CAPACITY OF THE LES FACILITY 3.2-23 3.2.14 RADIOACTIVITY OF CEC EFFLUENTS 3.2-23 l 3.3 WASTE CONFINEMENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL 3.3-1 j 3.3.1 CONTROL AND CONSERVATION 3.3-1 3.3.2 EFFLUENT SYSTEMS 3.3-4 3.3.3 EFFLUENT QUANTITIES 3.3-29 ii Octobe.: 1993 i

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number Volume III 4.0 ENVIRONMENTA'L EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION, [ PLANT CONSTRUCTION, AND OPERATION 4.0-1 4.1 EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 4.1-1 4.1.1 LAND USE 4.1-1 4.1.2 WATER USE 4.1-11 4.1.3 AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 4.2-1 4.2 EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION 4.2-1 4.2.1 EFFECTS OF IONIZING RADIATION 4.2-1 4.2.2 EFFECTS OF CHEMICAL DISCHARGES 4.2-13 4.2.3 EFFECTS OF OPERATION OF HEAT DISSIPATION SYSTEM 4.2-19 4.2.4 EFFECTS OF SANITARY AND OTHER WASTE DISCHARGES 4.2-20 4.2.5 OTHER EFFECTS 4.2-21 () 4.3 RESOURCES COMMITTED 4.3-1 4.3.1 ON-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.3.2 OFF-SITE RESOURCES 4.3-1 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING 4.4-1 i 4.4.1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND POLICIES 4.4-2 4.4.2 DECOMMISSIONING STEPS 4.4-5 4.4.3 DECOMMISSIONING RESULTS 4.4-12 4.4.4 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS AND FUNDING 4.4-14 4.5 RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL MOVEMENT 4.5-1 4.5.1 URANIUM FEED 4.5-1 l 4.5.2 URANIUM PRODUCT 4.5-1 4.5.3 URANIUM WASTES 4.5-1 4.5.4 TRANSPORTATION 4.5-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 5.0-1 5.1 URANIUM ENRICHMENT FACILITY ACCIDENTS 5.1-1 5.

1.1 INTRODUCTION

5.1-1 () iii October 1993

1 LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES [ ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 5.1.2 POTENTIAL UFs ACCIDENTS 5.1-3 5 5.1.3 POTENTIAL UFs ABNORMAL EVENTS 5.1-12 5.1.4 POTENTIAL EVENTS INVOLVING MATERIALS OTHER THAN UF, 5.1-26 5'.1.5 URENCO UF RELEASES 5.1-34 6 5.2 TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENTS 5.2-1 5.2.1 URANIUM HEXAFLUORIDE (UF6) 5.2-1 5.2.2 D.'9SEL FUEL 5.2-2 5.2.3 SODIUM HYDROXIDE 5.2-3 5.2.4 WELDING GASES 5.2-3 l 5.2.5 SODIUM FLUORIDE 5.2-3 5.2.6 CITRIC ACID 5.2-4 5.2.7 CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS (CFCs) 5.2-4 1 6.0 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS AND MONITORING PROGRAM 6.0-1 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 6.1-1 6.1.1 WATER 6.1-1 6.1.2 AIR 6.1-3 6.1.3 LAND 6.1-6 6.1.4 BIOTA 6.1-7 6.1.5 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1-12 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING 6.2-1 j 6.2.1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 { 6.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MONITORING 6.2-2 6.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 6.2-4 3.2.4 BIOTA. 6.2-6 'l 6.3 RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENT / MONITORING ] PROGRAMS 6.3-1 iv October 1993 )

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES ( EINIRONMENTAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS t Section Page Number 7.0 PLANT SITING AND DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.0-1 t 7.1 FACILITY SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-1 7.1.1 COARSE SCREENING REGIONAL SITE SELECTION ALTERNATIVES 7.1-2 7.1.2 INTERMEDIATE SCREENING 7.1-5 7.1.3 FINE SCREENING 7.1-9 7.2 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 7.2-1 7.2.1 ENRICHMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.2 SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.3 LIQUID WASTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 7.2-1 7.2.4 SEPARATIONS BUILDING VENTILATION SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.5 GASEOUS EFFLUENT VENT SYSTEM 7.2-2 7.2.6 UF6 PROCESS SYSTEMS 7.2-3 7.2.7 OTHER SYSTEMS 7.2-3 8.0 BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS 8.0-1 8.1 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.1 QUANTITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COSTS-SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 8.1.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS-COST: SITE l SITE PREPARATION AND PJ JONSTRUCTION 8.1-3 8.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT /C R FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION, PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 8.2-1 8.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFIT / COST FACTORS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.2-1 8.2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS / COST FACTORS: PLANT OPERATION 8.2-3 9.0 ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 9.0-1 9.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 9.1-1 v October 1993

LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES / EINIRONMENTAL REPORT (, TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Number 9.2 STATE AGENCIES 9.2-1 9.3 LOCAL AGENCIES 9.3-1 9.4 STATUS OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PERMITS / AUTHORIZATIONS 9.4-1 9.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - INFORMATION MEETINGS 9.5-1 9.5.1 LIST OF MEETINGS 9.5-1

10.0 REFERENCES

10.0-1 %.) o (,r) vi October 1993

i Page 1 of 21 Louisiana Energy Services Environmental Report List of Effective Pages October 12, 1993 Page/ Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision Table of Contents i

12, 10/12/93 ii 12, 10/12/93 iii 12, 10/12/93 iv 12, 10/12/93 v 12, 10/12/93 vi 12, 10/12/93 i Chapter 1 p 1.0-i original, 1/31/91 p 1.0-1 original, 1/31/91 p 1.1-i 11, 07/30/S3 p 1.1-ii 11, 07/30/93 p 1.1-1 11, 07/30/93 p 1.1-2 11, 07/30/93 () p 1.1-3 11, 07/30/93 1 F 1.1-1 original, 1/31/91 F 1.1-2 original, 1/31/91 p 1.2-i original, 1/31/91 p 1.2-ii original, 1/31/91 p 1.2-1 original, 1/31/91 T 1.2-1 original, 1/31/91 p 1.3-i 11, 07/30/93 p 1.3-1 11, 07/30/93 p 1.4-i original, 1/31/91 p 1.4-ii original, 1/31/91 p 1.4-1 original, 1/31/91 F 1.4-1 (1 of 4) original, 1/31/91 F 1.4-1 (2 of 4) original, 1/31/91 F 1,4-1 (3 of 4) original, 1/31/91 F 1.4-1 (4 of 4) original, 1/31/91 F 1.4-2 original, 1/31/91 l F 1.4-3 (1 of 3) original, 1/31/91 i F 1.4-3 (2 of 3) original, 1/31/91 F 1.4-3 (3 of 3) original, 1/31/91

Note:

p=page A= Appendix 0 F= Figure T= Table i i

....~ f Page 2 of 21- .? Rev. 10/12/93 Page/ Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision Chapter 2 p 2.0-i

. original, 1/31/91 p 2.0-l' original, 1/31/91 p 2.1-i original, 1/31/91 p 2.1-ii 1, 08/16/91 p 2.1-1 1, 08/16/91 p 2.1-2 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-1 original', 1/31/91 F 2.1-2 original', 1/31/91 F 2.1-3 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-4 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-5 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-6 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-7 4, 03/31/92 F 2.1-8 original, 1/31/91 F 2.1-9 1, 08/16/91 p 2.2-i 4, 03/31/92 p 2.2-ii 1, 08/16/91 p 2.2-iii 8, 10/16/92 p 2.2-1 1, 08/16/91 p 2.2-2 original, 1/31/91-I O p 2.2-3 4, 03/31/92 p 2.2-4 4, 03/31/92 p 2.2-5 4, 03/31/92 T 2.2-1 original,-1/31/91 T 2.2-1 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-1 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-2 original,.1/31/91 T 2.2-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-3 original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-3 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 j T 2.2-3 (cont'd) original, 1/31/41 T 2.2-4 original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-4 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-4 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91-T 2.2-5 original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-5 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-5 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 1 T 2.2-6 original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-6 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-6 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O' F= Figure T= Table p vg.

s r-

..,s-w e

b Page 3 of 21 ~ Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of' Revision T 2.2-7 original, 1/31/91 T 2.2-8 1, 08/16/91 T 2.2-9 1, 08/16/91 T 2.2-10 1, 08/16/91 F 2.2-1 original, 1/31/91 F 2.2-2 original, 1/31/91-F 2.2-3 original,,1/31/91 F 2.2-4 original, 1/31/91 F 2.2-5 original, 1/31/91 F 2.2-6 1, 08/16/91 F 2.2-7 4, 03/31/92 1

F.2.2-8 4, 03/31/92 F 2.2-9 8, 10/16/92 F 2.2-9a 8, 10/16/92 p 2.3-i original, 1/31/91 i p 2.3-1 original, 1/31/91 p 2.3-2 1, 08/16/91 l p 2 3-3 1, 08/16/91 p 2.4-i original, 1/31/91 p 2.4-ii original, 1/31/91 p 2.4-iii original, 1/31/91 original, 1/31/91 O p 2.4-l' p 2.4-2 original,.1/31/91 p 2.4-3 original, 1/31/91 p 2.4-4 original, 1/31/91 i p 2.4-5 original,-1/31/91-T 2.4-1 original, 1/31/91 T 2.4-2 original, 1/31/91 T 2.4-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-1 4, 03/31/92 F 2.4-2 original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-3 original, 1/31/91 i F 2.4-4 original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-5 original,.1/31/91 F 2.4-6 original, 1/31/91-F 2.4-7 original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-8 original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-9 original, 1/31/91 F'2.4-10 original, 1/31/91 F 2.4-11 original, J/31/91 p 2.5-i 4, 03/31/92 ~ p 2.5-ii original,-1/31/91 i p 2.5-ii (cont'd) 4, 03/31/92 p 2.5-iii 4, 03/31/92 I p 2.5-1 1, 08/16/91 .i 'j O 1 i -l

Note:

p=page A= Appendix ] F= Figure T-Table 1 m y

~ ~ Page 4.of 21 [ ) Rev 10/12/93 i Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision l

.p 2.5-2 1, 08/16/91 p'2.5-3 original, 1/31/91 i p 2.5-4 original, 1/31/91 k p 2.5-5 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-6 original, 1/31/91~ p 2.5-7 original, 1/31/91 p-2.5-8 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-9 4, 03/31/92 p 2.5-10 4, 03/31/92 p 2.5-11 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-12 original,.1/31/91 p 2.5-13 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-14 original, 1/31/91 ^ p 2.5-15 original,-1/31/91 l p 2.5-16 4, 03/31/92 l p 2,5-17 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-18 4, 03/31/92,

l p 2.5-19 original,'1/31/91 l

p 2.5-20 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-21 original, 1/31/91 p 2.5-22 original, 1/31/91-t p 2.5-23 original, 1/31/91 O. p 2.5-24 4, 03/31/92 p 2.5-25 4, 03/31/92 l p 2.5-26 original, 1/31/91-p 2.5-27 original, 1/31/91-p 2.5-28 4,.03/31/92 p 2.5-29 4, 03/31/92 -l p.2.5-30 4, 03/31/92 ~ p 2.5-31 4, 03/31/92 l T 2.5-1 original, 1/31/91 + T 2.5-1 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 i T 2.5-2' original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-3 original,'1/31/91-T 2.5-3 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-4 original, 1/31/91 i T 2.5-5 original, 1/31/91 l T 2.5-6 original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-7 original, 1/31/91 i T 2.5-8 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-8 (cont'd) 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-9 original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-10 4, 03/31/92 ?

Note:

p=page-A= Appendix O F= Figure i T= Table i

Page 5 of 21 [} Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision 1

T 2.5-10 (cont'd) 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-11 4, 03/31/92-T 2.5-11 (cont'd) 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-12 4, 03/31/92 T 2. 5 -13 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-14 original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-15 original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-16 original, 1/31/91 T 2.5-17 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-18 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-19 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-20 (1 of 4) 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-20 (2 of 4) 4, 03/31/92 T 2.5-20 (3 of 4) 4, 03/31/92 T 2 5-20 (4 of 4) 4, 03/31/92 1 F 2.5-1 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-2 original, 1/31/91. F 2.5-3 original,'1/31/91 F 2.5-4 original, 1/31/91-F 2.5-5 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-6 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-7 original,-1/31/91-O F 2.5-8 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-9 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-10 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-11 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-11(a') 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(b) 4, 03/31/92. F 2.5-11(c) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(d) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(e) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(f) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(g) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-11(h) 4, 03/31/92 F 2.5-12 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-13 original,.1/31/91-j F 2.5-14 original, 1/31/91 F 2.5-15 original, 1/31/91-1 F 2.5-16 original, 1/31/91 F-2.5-17 1, 08/16/91' p 2.6-1 2, 03/13/92 p 2.6-ii original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-iii original, 1/31/91 i

Note:

p=page A= Appendix 0 F= Figure .i T= Table .. u. . u......

i Page 6 of.21 j ( Rev. 10/12/93 J Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 2.6-1 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-2 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-3 original, 1/31/91 I'

p 2.6-4 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-5 2, 03/13/92 l p 2.6-6 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-7 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-8 original,f1/31/91 p 2.6-9 original, 1/31/91 i p 2.6-10 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-11 original, 1/31/91 p 2 6 original, 1/31/91 p 2.6-13 2, 03/13/92 p 2.6-14 2, 03/13/92 j T 2.6-1 original, 1/31/91 T 2.6-2 original, 1/31/91 T 2.6-3 original, 1/31/91 l T 2.6-4 original, 1/31/91 T 2.6-5 2, 03/13/92 T 2.6-5 (cont'd) 2, 03/13/92 T 2.6-5 (cont'd) 2, 03/13/92 T 2 6-5 (cont'd) 2, 03/13/92 l O. T 2.6-6 original, 1/31/91 T 2.6-7 original, 1/31/91 T 2.6-7 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91-l T 2.6-7 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 l T 2.6-8 original, 1/31/91 F 2.6-1 original, 1/31/91: l F 2.6-2 original,.1/31/91 F 2.6-3 original,.1/31/91 F 2.6-4 2, 03/13/92 F 2.6-5 original, 1/31/91 F 2 6-6 original, 1/31/91 F 2 6-7 original, 1/31/91 i F 2.6-8 2, 03/13/92 1 F 2.6-9 original, 1/31/91: l F 2.6-10 original, 1/31/91 1 F 2.6-11 original,. 1/31/91 i F 2.6-12 original,-1/31/91 l F 2.6-13 original, 1/31/91. F 2.6-14 original, 1/31/91 F 2.6-15 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-i original, 1/31/91 i

Note:

p=page A= Appendix .i O F= Figure j T= Table

s ? Page 7 of 21-Rev. 10/12/93 i Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision' Number, Date of Revision p 2.7-ii original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-iii original, -~ 1/31/ 91.

I p 2.7-1 original, 1/31/91 l p 2.7-2 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-3 original,.1/31/91 p 2.7-4 original, 1/31/91-p 2.7-5 original, 1/31/91' p 2.7-6 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-7 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7 original',.1/31/91 i p 2.7-9 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-10 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-11 original, 1/31/91 p.2 7-12 original, 1/31/91' p 2.7-13 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-14 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-15 , original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-16 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-17 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-18 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-19 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-20 original, 1/31/91 O. p 2.7-21 original, 1/31/91 i p 2.7-22 original, 1/31/91 p 2.7-23 original, 1/31/91 p '2.7-24 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-1 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-1 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-1 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-1 (cont'd) original,-1/31/91-T 2.7-2 original,.1/31/91 T 2.7-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91' T 2.7-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 j T 2.7-2 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 .i T 2.7-3 original, 1/31/.91 T 2.7-3 (cont'd) ' original, 1/31/91 i T 2.7-4 original, 1/31/91-T 2 7-4 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91-l T 2.7-5 original, 1/31/91 1 T.2.7-5 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-5 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-6. original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-7 original, 1/31/91 1 ) L

Note:

p=page j A= Appendix o O F= Figure T= Table i

Page 8 of.21 Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table /Fioure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision T 2.7-8

~ original, 1/31/91-T 2.7-8 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-8-(cont'd) original, 1/31/91 i T 2.7-8 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 i T 2.7-8 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91-I T_2.7-9 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 1 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 j T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 i T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 i T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, _1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 j T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original,.1/31/91 T 2.7-9 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-10 original,-1/31/91 T 2.7-10 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 s T 2.7-10 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-11 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-12 original, 1/31/91 L T 2.7-13 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-13 (cont'd) original, 1/31/91 't T 2.7-14 original, 1/31/91 T 2.7-15 original, 1/31/91 1 T 2.7-16 original, 1/31/91 li T 2.7-16 (cont'd) original,-1/31/91 F 2.7-1 original, 1/31/91 Chapter 3 i p 3.0-i original, 1/31/91 p 3.0-1 original, 1/31/91 J p 3.1-i original, 1/31/91 p 3.1-ii original, 1/31/91- -i p 3.1-1 original, 1/31/91 F 3.1-1 original, 1/31/91 i F 3.1-2 4, 03/31/92 F 3.1-3 original, 1/31/91 i F 3.1-4 original, 1/31/91

Note:

p=page l A= Appendix j F= Figure T= Table .j ,--r- -r p -r---

t Page 9 of 21' Rev. 10/12/93 .Page/ Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 3.2-i 6, 06/30/92

( p 3.2-1 (cont'd) 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-11 6, 06/30/92' p 3.2-lii 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-1 original, 1/31/91 4 p 3 2-2 original, 1/31/91-p 3.2-3 original, 1/31/91 p 3.2-4 original, 1/31/91-p 3.2-5 original, 1/31/91 p 3.2-6 original, 1/31/91 p 3.2-7 original', 1/31/91 p 3.2-8 original, 1/31/91 p 3.2-9 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-10 6, 06/30/92 .p 3.2-11 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-12 original, 1/31/,91 p 3.2-13 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-14 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-15 6, 06/30/92 i p 3.2-16 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-17 original, 1/31/91 O p 3.2-18 6, 06/30/92 + p 3.2-19 6, 06/30/92 j p 3.2-20 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-21 6, 06/30/92 r p 3.2-22 6, 06/30/92 p 3.2-23 6, 06/30/92 i p 3.2-24 6, 06/30/92 I p 3.2-25 4, 03/31/92 T 3.2-1 original,~1/31/91 T 3.2-2 original, 1/31/91 T 3.2-3 original,>1/31/91 T 3.2-4 original, 1/31/91-T 3.2-5 4, 03/31/92 T 3.2-6 4, 03/31/92 i T 3. 2-7 4, 03/31/92 i F 3.2-1 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-2 (1 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-2 (2 of 2). original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-3 (1 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-3 (2 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-4 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-5 (1 of 2) original, 1/31/91'

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure T= Table a.

l .I -i i Page 10 of 21 Rev. 10/12/93 i Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision F 3.2-5 (2 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-6 (1 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-6 (2 of 2) original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-7 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-8 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-9 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-10 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-11 original,-1/31/91 F 3.2-12 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-13 original, 1/31/91 F~3.2-14 original, 1/31/91-F 3.2-15 original,'1/31/91 F 3.2-16 original, 1/31/91 F 3.2-17 original, 1/31/91 i

F 3.2-18 original, 1/31/91 l F 3.2-19 4, 03/31/92 F 3.2-20 (1 of 2) 6, 06/30/92 F 3.2-20 (2 of 2) 6, 06/30/92 p 3.3-i 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-ii 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-iii 12, 10/12/93 O p 3.3-1 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-2 12, 10/12/93 i p 3.3-3 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-4 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-5 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-6 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-7 12, 10/12/93-i p 3.3-8 12, 10/12/93 i p 3.3-9 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-10 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-11 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-12 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-13 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-14 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-15 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-16 12, 10/12/93 i p 3.3-17 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-18 12, 10/12/93 i p 3.3-19 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-20 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-21 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-22 12, 10/12/93 . i

Note:

p=page A= Appendix 0. F= Figure ] T= Table i ,im .~. n- ~ 1

I t i -Pagel11 of 21 Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 3.3-23 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-24 12, 10/12/93

'{ p 3.3-25 12, 10/12/93 .j p 3.3-26 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-27 12, 10/12/93 p'3.3-28 12,.10/12/93 p 3.3-29 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-30 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-31 12, 10/12/93 p 3.3-32 12, 10/12/93 T 3.3-1 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-2 11,-07/30/93 T 3.3-3 11, 07/30/93 3 T 3.3-4 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-5 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-6 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-7 11, 07/30/93 i T 3.3-8 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-9 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-10 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-11 11, 07/30/93 T 3.3-12 11, 07/30/93 O F 3.3-3 original, 1/31/91 F.3.3-4 original, 1/31/91 F 3.3-5 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-6 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-7 (1 of 4) 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-7 (2 of 4) 6, 06/30/92 l F 3.3-7 (3 of 4) 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-7 (4 of 4) 6, 06/30/92' l F 3.3-8 (1 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 s F 3.3-8 (2 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-8 (3 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 i F 3.3-8 (4 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 j F 3.3-8 (5 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-8 (6 of 6) 6, 06/30/92 j F 3.3-9 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-10 original, 1/31/91 j F 3.3-11 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-12 6, 06/30/92 F 3.3-13 6, 06/30/92 ] Chapter 4

Note:

p=page A= Appendix 0 F= Figure T= Table

l .i Page 12 of 21 1 Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 4.0-1 original, 1/31/91 p 4.0-1 original, 1/31/91 4

p 4.1-i 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-ii 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-iii 11,'07/30/93 p 4.1-1 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-2 11 1, 07/30/93 p 4.1-3 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-4 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-5 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-6 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-7 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-8 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-9 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-10 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-11 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-12 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-13 11, C7/30/93 p 4.1-14 11, 07/30/93 p 4.1-15 11, 07/30/93 C p 4.1-16 11, 07/30/93 1 p 4.1-17 11, 07/30/93 l O p 4.1-18 11, 07/30/93 i p 4.1-19 11, 07/30/93 l p 4.1-20 11, 07/30/93 ~ p 4.1-21 11, 07/30/93 i p 4.1-22 11, 07/30/93 T 4.1-1 12, 10/12/93-T 4.1-2 -11, 07/30/93 T 4.1-3 11, 07/30/93 T 4.1-4 11,- 07/30/93 t T 4.1-5 11, 07/30/93 T 4.1-6 11, 07/30/93 T 4.1-7 11, 07/30/93 ~ F-4.1-1 original, 1/31/91-1 F 4.1-2 original, 1/31/91 r F 4.1-3 original, 1/31/91 i F 4.1-4 original, 1/31/91 l F 4.1-5 original, 1/31/91 F 4.1-6 4, 03/31/92 A-1 4, 03/31/92 A-2 4, 03/31/92 l A-3 4, 03/31/92 j l

Note:

p=page j A= Appendix i O F= Figure 1 T= Table l i 1

~... -I i Page 13'of 21 i Rev. 10/12/93 Page/ Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of' Revision l

'A-4 4, 03/31/92 A-5 4, 03/31/92 T-A-1 '4,'03/31/92 j T-A-2 4, 03/31/92 .T-A-3 4, 03/31/92 T-A-4 4, 03/31/92 T-A-5 4, 03/31/92 i B-1 4, 03/31/92 B-2 4, 03/31/92' B-3 4, 03/31/92 B-4 4, 03/31/92 i B-5 4, 03/31/92 B-6 4, 03/31/92 l B-7 4, 03/31/92 B-8 4, 03/31/92 B-9 4, 03/31/92 -j B-10 4, 03/31/92 1, B-11 4, 03/31/92 l B-12 4, 03/31/92 f B-13 4, 03/31/92 B-14 4, 03/31/92 B-15 4, 03/31/92 O B-16 4, 03/31/92 B-17 4, 03/31/92 B-18 4, 03/31/92 B-19 4, 03/31/92 B-20 4, 03/31/92 T B-1 4, 03/31/92 T B-2 4, 03/31/92 T B-3 4, 03/31/92 T B-3 (continued) 4, 03/31/92 T B-4 4, 03/31/92 j T B-5 4, 03/31/92 ) F B-1 4, 03/31/92 j F B-2 4, 03/31/92 -l p 4.2-i 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-ii 11, 07/30/93 1 p 4.2-iii 11, 07/30/93 1 p 4.2-iv 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-1 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-2 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-3 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-4 11, 07/30/93

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O-F= Figure T= Table

'Page.14 of 21 Rev. 10/12/93 { Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number,'Date of Revision j

p 4.2-5 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-6 11, 07/30/93 l ~ p 4.2-7 11, 07/30/93 I p 4.2-8 11, 07/30/93 .p 4.2-9 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-10 11, 07/30/93 i p 4.2-11 11, 07/30/93 l p 4.2-12 11, 07/30/93 t p 4.2-13 11, 07/30/93 j p 4.2-14 11, 07/30/93 p.4.2-15 11, 07/30/93 l p-4.2-16 11, 07/30/93 -[ p 4.2-17 11, 07/30/93 j p 4.2-18 11, 07/30/93 -{ p 4.2-19 11, 07/30/93 p 4.2-20 11, 07/30/93' p 4.2-21 11,'07/30/93 t p 4.2-22 11,.07/30/93 i p 4.2-23 11, 07/30/93 A-1 2, 03/13/92 A-2 2, 03/13/92 i A-3 2. 03/13/92 l O A-4 2, 03/13/92-l A-5 2, 03/13/92 A-6 2, 03/13/92 t -A-7 2, 03/13/92 A-8 2,- 03/13/92 A-9 2, 03/13/92 l A-10 2, 03/13/92 j A-11 2, 03/13/92 .)' A-12 2, 03/13/92 A-13 2, 03/13/92 A-14 2, 03/13/92 i A-15 2, 03/13/92 A-16 2, 03/13/92 ll A-17 2, 03/13/92 -l A-18 2, 03/13/92 Ei A-19 2, 03/13/92 A-20 2, 03/13/92 T 4.2-1 11, 07/30/93 i T 4.2-2 (page 1 of 2) 9, 01/11/93 i T.4.2-2 (page 2 of 2) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-3 9, 01/11/93 j j

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure l T= Table i I i .1 1

-l l Page 15 of 21 Rev. 10/12/93 Page/ Table /Ficure Number

Revision' Number, Date of Revision l

T 4.2-4 (page 1 of 2) 9,.01/11/93 T 4.2-4 (page 2 of 2) .9, 01/11/93 i T 4.2-5 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-6 9, 01/11/93. ~j T 4.2-7 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93~ j T 4.2-7 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-7 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-8 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 l T 4.2-8 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-8 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-9 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 i T 4.2-9 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-9 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 2 of-3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-12 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-12 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-12 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 i O T 4.2-13 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93. T 4.2-13 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-13 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 4 T 4.2-14 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-15 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-16 9, 01/11/93 1 T 4.2-17 9, 01/11/93 l T 4.2-18 9, 01/11/93 l p 4.3-i original, 1/31/91 l p 4.3-ii original,-1/31/91 p.4.3-iii original, 1/31/91 p 4.3-1 original, 1/31/91 p 4.3-2 1, 08/16/91 T 4.3-1 original, 1/31/91 i F 4.3-1 original, 1/31/91 l p 4.4-i 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-ii 12, 10/12/93 I p 4.4-iii 12, 10/12/93 i I p 4.4-1 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-2 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-3 12, 10/12/91 j

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure T= Table i ~. -, - U

Page 15 of~21 Rev. 10/12/93. Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision 1

T 4.2-4 (page 1 of 2) 9,. 01/11/93 T 4.2-4 (page 2 of 2) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-5 9, 01/11/93 ( T 4.2-6 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-7 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-7 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-7 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-8 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-8 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 ~ T 4.2-8 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 ~ T 4.2-9 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-9 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-9 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-10 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-11 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 i T 4.2-12 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-12 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-12 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 O T 4.2-13 (page 1 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-13 (page 2 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-13 (page 3 of 3) 9, 01/11/93 I T 4.2-14 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-15 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-16 9, 01/11/93 T 4.2-17 9., 01/11/93 T 4.2-18 9, 01/11/93 p 4.3-i original, 1/31/91 p 4.3-ii original, 1/31/91 i p 4.3-iii original, 1/31/91 . 3 p 4.3 original, 1/31/91 l p 4.3-2 1, 08/16/91 T 4.3-1 original, 1/31/91 l F 4.3-1 original, 1/31/91 i p 4.4-i 12, 10/12/93 p'4.4-ii 12, 10/12/93 'l p 4.4-iii 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4.1 12, 10/12/93' i p 4.4-2 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-3 12, 10/12/93

Note:

p=page l A= Appendix F= Figure T= Table j l ? ,y r .m.. y _,p / p y. -.r

Page 16 of 21 ' i Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 4.4-4 12, 10'/12/93 p 4.4-5 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-6 12, 10/12/93-p 4.4-7 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-8 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-9 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-10 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-11 12, 10/12/93.

( p 4.4-12 12, 10/12/93 i p 4.4-13 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-14 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-15 12, 10/12/93 .i p 4.4-16 12,_10/12/93 i p 4.4-17 12, 10/12/93 p 4.4-18 12, 10/12/93 i p 4.4-19 12, 10/12/93 j T 4.4-1 (1 of 2) 12, 10/12/93 -l T 4.4-1 (2 of 2) 12, 10/12/93 T 4.4-2 12, 10/12/93 F 4.4-1 original, 1/31/91 p 4.5-i 6, 06/30/92 p 4.5-ii 6, 06/30/92 O p 4.5-1 6, 06/30/92 p 4.5-2 original, 1/31/91 T 4.5-1 6, 06/30/92 Chapter 5 p 5.0-i original, 1/31/91 p 5.0-1 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-i 6, 06/30/92 p 5.1-ii 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-1 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-2 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-3 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-4 4, 03/31/92 r I p 5.1-5 6, 06/30/92 p 5.1-6 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-7 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-8 original,'1/31/91 p 5.1-9 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-10 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-11 original, 1/31/91 j i

Note:

p=page i A= Appendix O F= Figure T= Table l 1 l es

Page 17 ot'21-l Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision j

p 5.1-12 4, 03/31/92 i p 5.1-13 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-14 original,'1/31/91 p 5.1-15 original, 1/31/91 1 p 5.1-16 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-17 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-18 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-19 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-20 original, 1/31/91 p 5.1-21 original, 1/31/91 p.5.1-22 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-23 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-24 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-25 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-26 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-27 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-28 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-29 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-30 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-31 4, 03/31/92 p 5.1-32 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-1 original, 1/31/91 O T 5.1-2 ' original, 1/31/91 T 5.1-3 original, 1/31/91 T 5.1-4 original, 1/31/91 T 5.1-5 original, 1/31/91 T 5.1-6 (1 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-6 (2 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-6 (3 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-6 (4 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-6 (5 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 T 5.1-6 (6 of 6) 4, 03/31/92 p 5.2-i original,. 1/31/91 p 5.2-ii_ original, 1/31/91 p 5.2-1 original, 1/31/91 p 5.2-2 original, 1/31/91 p 5.2-3 4, 03/31/92 p 5.2-4 original, 1/31/91 p 5.2-5 4, 03/31/92 T 5.2-1 original, 1/31/91 T 5.2-2 original, 1/31/91 Chapter 6

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure T= Table

'Page 18 of 21 Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 6.0-1 original, 1/31/91 p 6.0-1 original, 1/31/91 l

p 6.1-1 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-ii 12, 10/12/93-I p 6.1-1 12, 10/12/93 i p 6.1-2 12,.10/12/93 l p 6.1-3 12, 10/12/93 [ p 6.1-4 12, 10/12/93 l p 6.1-5 12, 10/12/93-p 6.1-6 12, 10/12/93-p 6.1-7 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-8 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-9 12, 10/12/93 i p 6.1-10 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-11 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-12 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-13 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-14 12, 10/12/93 9 p 6.1-15 12, 10/12/93 p 6.1-16 12, 10/12/93 i p 6.1-17 12, 10/12/93 J T 6.1-1 12, 10/12/93 () T 6.1-2 12, 10/12/93 l T 6.1-3 Page 1 of 6 12, 10/12/93 T 6.1-3 Page 2 of 6 12, 10/12/93 i T 6.1-3 Page 3 of 6 12, 10/12/93 i T 6.1-3 Page 4 of 6 12, 10/12/93 j T 6.1-3 Page 5 of 6 12, 10/12/93 1 T 6.1-3 Page 6 of 6 12, 10/12/93 [ T 6.1-4 Page 1 of 3 12, 10/12/93 T 6.1-4 Page 2 of 3 12, 10/12/93 T 6.1-4 Page 3 of 3 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-i 12, 10/12/93 i p 6.2-ii 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-iii 12, 10/12/93 l p 6.2-1 12, 10/12/93 i .p 6.2-2 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-3 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-4 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-5 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-6 12, 10/12/93 p 6.2-7 12, 10/12/93 T 6.2-1 Page 1 of 6 12, 10/12/93 j

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure i T= Table 1

y. !ti d Page 19'of 21' .Rev.:10/12/93 Page/ Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision i

T 6.2-1 Page.2 of 6 12, 10/12/93' l T 6.2-1 Page 3 of 6 12, 10/12/93 j T 6.2-1 Page.4 of 6 12, 10/12/93 j T 6.2-1 Page 5 of 6 12, 10/12/93 t T 6.2-1 Page 6 oi 6 12, 10/12/93: T 6.2-2 12, 10/12/93 T 6.2-3 Page 1 of 2 11, 07/30/93 i T 6.2-3 Page 2 of 2 11, 07/30/93 T 6.2-4 12, 10/12/93 T 6.2-5 12, 10/12/93 T 6.2-6 12, 10/12/93 T 6.2-7 12, 10/12/93-F 6.2-1 original, 1/31/91 F 6.2-2 6, 06/30/92 i F 6.2-3 original, 1/31/91 p 6.3-i original, 1/31/91 p 6.3-1 5, 05/22/92 .i Chapter i p 7.0-1. original, 1/31/91 -1 p 7.0-1 4, 03/31/92 l O p 7.0-2 4, 03/31/92 p 1.1-i 4, 03/31/92 p 7.1-ii 4,- 03/31/92 1 p 7.1-1 original, 1/31/91 l p 7.1-2 original, 1/31/91 p 7.1-3 4, 03/31/92 p 7.1-4 4, 03/31/92 p 7.1-5 original, 1/31/91 p 7.1-6 4, 03/31/92 l p 7.1-7 original, 1/31/91 i p 7.1-8 4, 03/31/92 p 7.1-9 4, 03/31/92 p 7.1-10 original, 1/31/91 l p 7.1-11 original, 1/31/91 4 p 7.1-12 4, 03/31/92 j F 7.1-1 original, 1/31/91 F 7.1-2 original, 1/31/91 F 7.1-3 original, 1/31/91 F' -4 original, 1/31/91 .i 4a 4, 03/31/92 T original, 1/31/91 l

Note p=page A= Appendix O

F= Figure c T= Table 4 l 4 ) J

~ I .Page 20 of 21 l } Rev. 10/12/93 Pace / Table / Figure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision F 7.1-6 original, 1/31/91 F-7.1-6a 4,

03/31/92 F 7.1-6b 4, 03/31/92 F 7.1-7 4, 03/31/92 3 F 7.1-8 original,'1/31/91 F 7.1-8a 4, 03/31/92. F 7.1-9 original,-1/31/91 4 p 7.2-i original, 1/31/91' p 7.2-1 6, 06/30/92-p 7.2-2 original, 1/31/91' p 7.2-3 original, 1/31/91 p 7.2-4 original, 1/31/91 l 1 Chapter B p 8.0-i original, 1/31/91 p 8.0-1 original,.1/31/91 p 8.1-i 12, 10/12/93 p 8.1-ii 12, 10/12/93 [ p 8.1-1 12, 10/12/93 p 8.1-2 12, 10/12/93 p 8.1-3 12, 10/12/93' O p 8.1-4 12, 10/12/93 l p 8.1-5 12, 10/12/93-T 8.1-1 12, 10/12/93 i T 8.1-2 12, 10/12/93 'l p 8.2-i original, 1/31/91 p 8.2-1 original, 1/31/91 p 8.2-2 original,- 1/31/91 p 8.2-3 original, 1/31/91 p 8.2-4 6, 96/30/92 p 8.2-5 original, 1/31/91 B. 2 -6 original, 1/31/91 ,u2pter 9 p 9.0 i original, 1/31/91 l p 9.0-1 original, 1/31/91 i p 9.1-i original, 1/31/91 p 9.1-1 original, 1/31/91 p 9.1-2 original, 1/31/91 p 9.2-i original, 1/31/91 p 9.2-1 original, 1/31/91

Note:

p=page A= Appendix O F= Figure T= Table j l l 4

Page 21-of 21-Rev. 10/12/93 ' Pace / Table /Ficure Number

Revision Number, Date of Revision p 9.2-2 original, 1/31/91 p 9.3-1 original, 1/31/91 p 9.3-1 original,11/31/91 p 9.4-i original, 1/31/91' p 9.4-ii original, 1/ 31/ 91~ -

p 9.4-1 original, 1/31/91 T S.4-1 (1 of 2) 11,-07/30/93-T 9.4-1 (2 of 2) 11, 07/30/93 p 9.5-i original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-1 original,11i31/91 p 9.5-2 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-3 original, 1/31/91-p 9.5-4 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-5 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-6 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-7 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-8 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-9 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-10 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-11 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-12 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-13 original, 1/31/91 O p 9.5-14 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-15 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-16 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-17 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-18 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-19 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-20 original, 1/31/91 p 9.5-21 original, 1/31/91 Chapter 10 p 10.0-i original, 1/31/91 p 10.0-1 original, 1/31/91

Nota:

p=page A= Appendix O ."= Figure T= Table

i .j i TABLE OF CONTENTS i 3.3 WASTE CONFINEMENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL 3.3 t .3.3.1 CONTROL AND CONSERVATION 3.3-1 -f 3.3.1.1 Equipment and Design Features 3.3-1 3.3.2 EFFLUENT SYSTEMS 3.3-4 j 3.3.2.1 Ventilation and off-cas Systems 3.3-4 3.3.2.2 Liquid Wastes and Effluent Handlina 3.3-8 l 3.3.2.3 Solid Waste Handlina 3.3-14 3.3.2.4 Reprocessing and Recovery Systems 3.3-23 t 3.3.3 EFFLUENT QUANTITIES 3.3-29 'l P l 1 l [ L -I t 'r l .i 3.3-i October 1993

'i 1 -) l 1 LIST OF TABLES- -i 3.3-1 Gaseous Effluent Vent' System Filter Specifications -j 3.3-2 Radioactive Limits for Liquid Effluent. Released to the i Hold-Up BasinLand Bluegill Pond t 3.3-3 Radioactive Limits for Liquid Effluent Released to the Sewage Treatment System 3.3-4 Water Quality Limits for Liquid Effluent Releases j 3.3-5 Estimated Annual Liquid Effluent i 3.3-6 Estimated Annual Gaseous Effluent l 3.3-7 Estimated Annual Non-Radiological Wastes l 3.3-8 Estimated Annual Radiological and Mixed Wastes i 3.3-9 Estimated Annual Radiolog! cal Wastes From Aqueous Liquids { 3.3-10 Radioactivity Concentration Limits for Gaseous Effluent Releases 3.3-11 URENCO Waste and Effluent Experience Almelo, The l Netherlands 3.3-12 URENCO Waste and Effluent Experience Gronau, Germany e l 9 i l I i 3.3-ii October 1993 l

v ~ LIST OF FIGURES i 3.3-1 Separations Building ventilation Zones, EL 100'-6" ] 3.3-2 Separations' Building Ventilation Zones,,EL 115'-6" 1 3.3-3 Flow Diagram - TSA HVAC System 3.3-4 Flow Diagram - Gaseous Effluent Vent System 3.3-5 Summary Diagram of Liquid. Effluent System 3.3-6 Flow Diagram of Yard Drains System 3.3-7 Flow Diagram of Sewage Treatment System _(4' Sheets) j 3.3-8 Flow Diagram of Liquid Waste Disposal System i (6 Sheets) 3.3-9 Separations Building Floor Flan 3.3-10 Logic Diagram - Fomblin Oil Recovery System 3.3-11 Logic Diagram - Decontamination System j 3.3-12 Flow Diagram of Decontamination System ,i 3.3-13 Flow Diagram of Contaminated Laundry System i t i i f i i i 1 t 1 i i 3.3-iii October 1993- { a

h + t 3.3 WASTE CONFINEMENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL j i The CEC, as a Itsult'of the enrichment. process, produces small l quantities of westes and effluent which are controlled to protect the health and safety of the public and the environment. This 1 section describes the' equipment rnd the. design features incorporated into the plant which confine and. control wastes and effluent, and which conserve depletable resources. 'A description i of the wastes and effluent produced is provided, along with l estimates of;the quantities released or disposed of. L 3.3.1 CONTROL AND CONSERVATION l Of primary importance to the CEC is the control of_ uranium -i hexafluoride (UF ). The UF, which is the material processed _to 6 6 achieve enrichment, readily reacts with air, moisture, and-some other materials. The most significant reaction produccs in-this plant are hydrogen fluoride (HF), uranyl fluoride (UO2F2), and i small amounts of uranium tetrafluoride (UF ). Of these, HF is 6 the most significant hazard, being toxic to humans. l{ The features and systems described below serve to limit, collect, j confine, and treat wastes and effluent which result from the UF. enrichment process. A number of chemicals and processes are used in fulfilling this function. As with any chemical / industrial facility, a wide variety of waste types result. The control of all types of wastes and effluent is addressed below. i Additionally, the features and systems used for conservation of depletable resources are also described below. l 'I 3.3.1.1 Equipment and Desion Features The equipment and design features incorporated in the CEC are selected to keep the release of gaseous and liquid effluent l contaminants as low as practicable, and within regulatory limits. They are also selected to minimize the use of depletable i resources. 3.3.1.1.1 Limiting Effluent Releases Equipment and design features for limiting effluent releases during normal operation are described below. Potential effluent l releases due to postulated accidents are shown to be limited in Section 5.1. a. The process systems which handle UF operate almost entirely l 6 at sub-atmospheric pressures. Such operation results in no l outward leakage of UF to any effluent stream. 6 ? b. The one location where UF pressure is raised above atmospheric pressure is in the piping and cylinders inside the autoclave. The pressure is still very low (26.1 psia). The i O 3.3-1 October 1993 i

.' j i l piping and cylinders inside the autoclaves confine.the UFs. In ( the event of leakage, the autoclave provides secondary 1 containment of UFs. The higher pressure piping also is separated from the remainder of the piping by a fail-closed valve. i c. Cylinders of UF, are transported only when cool and when the i UFs is in solid form. This minimizes risk of inadvertent. release due to mishandling. t d. Process off-gas, from UFs purification and other operations, is discharged through desublimers to solidify and reclaim as much~ UF, as possible. Remaining gases are discharged through high-efficiency filters and chemical adsorbent beds. The filters and 4 adsorbents remove HF and uranium compounds left in the gaseous effluent stream. e. Liquids and solids in the process systems collect uranium compounds. When these liquids and solids (e.g. oils, damaged piping, or equipment) are removed for cleaning or maintenance, portions end up in wastes and effluent. Different processes are i employed to separate uranium compounds and other materials (such as various heavy metals) from the resulting wastes and effluent. These processes are described in Section 3.3.2 below. I f. Processes used to clean up wastes and effluent create their own wastes and effluent as well. Control of these is also ~' accomplished by liquid and solid waste handling systems and techniques, which are described in detail in Section 3.3.2 below. In general, careful application of basic principles for waste handling are followed in all of the systems and processes. Different waste types are collected in separate containers to minimize contamination of one waste type with another. Materials which can cause airborne contamination are carefully packaged; ventilation and filtration of the air in the area is provided as necessary. Liquid wastes are confined to piping, tanks, and other containers; curbing, pits, and sumps are used to collect and contain leaks and spills. Hazardous wastes are stored in designated areas in carefully labeled containers; mixed wastes are also contained and stored separately. Strong acids and [ caustics are neutralized before entering an effluent stream. Radioactively contaminated wastes are decontaminated insofar as possible to reduce waste volume. g. Following handling and treatment processes to limit wastes f and effluent, sampling and monitoring is performed to assure regulatory limits are not exceeded in effluent streams. Gaseous effluent is monitored for HF and is sampled for radioactive contamination before release; liquid effluent is sampled and/or monitored in liquid waste and sewage treatment systems; solid i wastes are sampled and/or monitored prior to offsite treatment and disposal. Samples are returned to their source where f feasible to minimize input to waste streams. 3.3-2 October 1993 ) ~

1 3.3.1.1.2 Conserving Depletable Resources The CEC design serves to minimize the use of depletable resources. Water is the primary depletable resource used at the i facility. Electric power usage also depletes fuel sources used i in the production of the power. Other depletable resources are used only in small quantities. Chemical usage is minimized not only to conserve, but to preclude excessive waste production. Recyclable materials are used and recycled wherever practicable. The main feature incorporated in the CEC to limit water consumption is the use of closed-loop cooling systems. The Main Plant Cooling Water System provides cooling to all operations requiring cooling in the Separations Building and the Standby Diesel Generator Building. This closed-loop cooling water system l discharges its heat to the atmosphere via air-cooled chillers. Water for this system is only needed for fill and make-up; no continuous water supply is required. Two other major systems cooled by this system are also closed-loop, including Machine Cooling Water and Spray Cooling Water. The Machine Cooling Water l System serves to maintain the centrifuges within a specified operating temperature for maximum efficiency. The Spray Cooling Water System provides cooling water used for desubliming UFs in product, blending, tails, and purification cylinders. The potable water system is by far the largest user of water. Section 3.5 of the CEC Safety Analysis Report (Reference 3.3-1) demonstrates that plant water usage is low relative to other users in the area and has no adverse impact on the area water supply. A water balance diagram is provided in Figure 3.2-20, i Water Balance Diagram. Power usage is minimized by efficient design of lighting systems, l selection of high efficiency motors, use of appropriate building insulation materials, and other good engineering practices. The demand for power in the process systems is a inajor portion of plant operating cost; efficient design of components is incorporated throughout the process systems. i 3.3.1.1.3 Prevention and Control of Oil Spi!.ls i i The CEC will implement a spill control program for accidental oil spills. The purpose of the spill control program will be to reduce the potential for the occ'trrence of spills, reduce the risk of injury in che case of a spill, minimize the impact of a spill, and to provide a procedure for the cleanup and reporting of spills. The oil spill control program will be established to comply with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 112, Oil Pollution Prevention. As required by Part 112, a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan will be prepared prior to the start of operation of the facility or prior to the storage of 3.3-3 October 1993

I oil on-site in excess of the de minimis quantities established in-40 CFR Part ll2.l(d). The SPCC Plan will be reviewed and certified by a Professional Engineer and will be maintained on - [ site. 3 As a minimum the SPCC Plan will contain the following l information: i i Identification of potential significant sources of spills a.and a prediction of the direction and quantity of flow that would i result from a spill from each source, i b. Identify the use of containment or diversionary structures such as dikes, berms, culverts, booms, sumps, and diversion ponds used at the facility where appropriate to prevent discharged oil from reaching navigable waters; Procedures for inspection of potential sources of spills and l c. spill containment / diversion structures; and d. Assigned responsibilities for implementing the plan, inspections, and reporting. l In addition to preparation and implementation of the SPCC Plan, l the facility will comply with the specific spill prevention and control requirements contained in 40 CFR Part ll2.7 (e) such as drainage of rain water from diked areas, containment-of oil in i bulk storage tanks, above ground tank integrity testing, and oil i transfer operational safeguards. 3.3.2 EFFLUENT SYSTEMS 4 The following paragraphs provide a comprehensive description of the CEC systems which handle wastes and effluent. The effectiveness of each system for effluent control is discussed 6 for all systems which handle and release effluent. 3.3.2.1 Ventilation and Off-cas Systems i Ventilation and of f-gas systems in the CEC assure UF, and its reaction products are contained and controlled. The following systems are used in the plant. i 5 3.3.2.1.1 UF Vent Systems 6 l It is important to maintain the purity of UF throughout the [ 6 enrichment process. The UF, Feed, Product, and Blending systems are provided with means to vent impurities from UF cylinders. 6 (The Tails system shares the Feed vent system as needed.) When i the impure UFs is vented, the gas' passes through cold desublimers, which solidify and re-capture the UFs for reuse. Almost all of the UF is solidified in the desublimers. Traces 6 3.3-4 October 1993 i i

of UF may be carried further downstream, along with the reaction 6 products HF and UO2F2. Downstream of the desublimers, the vent systems are equipped with traps to collect the HF, UO2F2, any back-diffusing vacuum pump oil, and the traces of carried-over UF. Chemical traps contain 6 both activated carbon and activated alumina, an oil trap also contains activated alumina, and another oil trap contains activated carbon. Gases passed through these traps are cleaned and discharged to the Gaseous Effluent Vent System (also described below), and the contaminants (UF, UO2F2, HF, and oil) 6 are retained in the traps. (When the traps are loaded, they are handled as solid wastes, as described in Section 3.3.2.3 below.) In the entire plant, the Feed systems have three vent trains, the Product systems have nine vent trains, and the Blending system has one vent train. The Feed, Product, and Blending systems along with their vent systems are illustrated schematically in the figures included with Section 3.2. The vent systems effectively contain effluent contaminants since almost all vented UF is collected in the desublimers. The traps 6 are also designed to efficiently collect any remaining contaminants. Finally, the Gaseous Effluent Vent System provides final assurance of contaminant control by filtering the vent gases through very high efficiency HEPA and activated carbon filters before release to the atmosphere. () 3.3.2.1.2 Mobile Pump Sets Several mobile pump sets are provided throughout the plant for UF system venting needs due to maintenance, operation, and 6 sampling activities. These systems are very similar in principle to the UF vent systems described immediately above. The design 6 of the pump set systems varies according to the application. The systems may consist of nitrogen cold traps for UF capture and 6 re-use, as well as traps to collect HF, vacuum pump oil, and traces of UF. As with the UF vent systems, traps contain 6 6 activated carbon and/or activated alumina. Gases passed through these traps are cleaned and discharged to the Gaseous Effluent Vent System, and the contaminants (UF, UO2F2, HF, and oil) are 6 retained in the traps. Whea the traps are loaded, they are handled as solid wastes, as described in Section 3.3.2.3 below. Similarly to the UF vent systems, the Mobile Pump Sets utilice 6 efficient traps to contain the effluent contaminants. The gases discharged from these pump sets also are filtered in very high efficiency HEPA and activated carbon filters in the Gaseous Effluent Vent System, prior to discharge to the atmosphere. 3.3-5 October 1993

i 3.3.2.1.3 Contingency Dump System i The Contingency Dump System provides a means-to remove the contents of the Centrifuge Enrichment System-cascades when other-means of evacuation are unavailable. The system is not expected. to operate for the entire life of the plant. This dump system pulls the cascade contents through a sodium fluoride (NaF) trap' to remove UF, and any HF contaminant. The gases are then pumped through an activated alumina oil trap and on to the Gaseous Effluent Vent System. The NaF and activated alumina traps retain UFs, HF, UO2F2, and oil. Loaded traps are handled as solid waste, as described in Section 3.3.2.3 below. One NaF trap is provided for each cascade, and one of two activated alumina traps are shared by the seven cascades of an assay unit. The traps in this system are sized and designed to efficiently l contain effluent contaminants. Most of the UFs is collected before HF and UO2F2 can form. Vent gases are filtered in the Gaseous Effluent Vent System prior to release to the atmosphere. 3.3.2.1.4 Fortable Ventilation. Units 'I i Portable ventilation units do not actually discharge effluent from the CEC, but are described since they do treat air which is eventually discharged. The units provide local filtration of air primarily during maintenance activities. They consist of a blower, a HEPA filter, and a flexible hose, conveniently grouped O on a portable cart. Typical use is for-local filtraticn during. t change-out of filters contaminated with UO2F2 dust. The UO2F2 and any other contaminants are collected in the HEPA filter, and the cleaned air is exhausted to the room. When the filte'rs are loaded they are handled as solid waste, as described in Section 3.3.2.3. 1 These units are used for air with very low amounts of i contamination. The efficient HEPA filters provide added assurance of worker protection from local airborne contaminants. i 3.3.2.1.5 Building Ventilation, i i A number of self-contained HVAC systems serve the various areas of the Separations Building. Areas which normally have a potential for release of UFs are maintained under slightly i negative pressure. This assures that the air flow direction is D from areas of little or no potential for radioactive i contamination to areas of higher potential for contamination. These areas are illustrated in Figure 3.3-1, Separations Building Ventilation Zones, EL 100'-6", and Figure 3.3-2, Separations Building Ventilation Zones, EL 115'-0". Only one ventilation system (described below) filters air for UFs and its reaction products. It serves a portion of the Technical Services Area, and exhausts through the plant stack after filtration for l O 3.3-6 October 1993 -l 1 ~

contamination. All other HVAC systems circulate air directly I from and to the environment, with only particulate' filtration incorporated for air cleaning. i The TSA HVAC System filters air from potentially contaminated I areas of the TSA, such as the Decontamination Workshop, the Contaminated Workroom, the Radioactive Waste Storage Area, and other areas. The TSA HVAC System is illustrated schematically in i Figure 3.3-3, Flow Diagram - TSA HVAC System. The' system incorporates standard particulate filters, activated carbon filters, and HEPA filters to remove UO2F2, UF, HF, and trace 4 uranium compounds from the air. No contaminated air is returned ( through cooling coils, so system condensate cannot become contaminated. The cleaned air is discharged to the plant stack, and the contaminants are collected on the filters. The filters l are handled as solid waste, as described in Section 3.3.2.3. j The high efficiency HEPA filters used effectively remove and contain effluent contaminants from the air prior to release. 3.3.2.1.6 Gaseous Effluent Vent System The Gaseous Effluent Vent System performs final monitoring and cleanup of gaseous streams before discharge to the atmosphere. The systems described above, excluding the Portable Ventilation Units and the filtered TSA HVAC System, all. discharge through this system. In addition, fume hoods from the TSA, flexible hose O connections and miscellaneous services throughout the plant tie into this system. After final treatment in this system, gaseous effluent releases are monitored for HF and sampled to_ verify contamination levels are within limits. If limits are exceeded, only an insignificant volume of off-spec air is released. The Gaseous Effluent Vent System is illustrated schematically in Figure 3.3-4, Flow Diagram - Gaseous Effluent Vent System. The system uses five air pre-filters, five HEPA filters, and five activated carbon filters (impregnated with potassium carbonate) for final effluent cleanup. The potassium carbonate increases the activated carbon filter efficiency. Residual UFs, UO2F2, HF, and other contaminants entering the system are retained by the very high efficiency filters. The cleaned air and p..ses are discharged to the atmosphere. (Experience in Urence riants in Europe illustrates that annual uranium discharge-from the Gaseous Effluent Vent System is less than 10 grams / year.) The filters are handled as solid waste, as described in Section 3.3.2.3. Specifications for the filters in this system are provided in Table 3.3-1, Gaseous Effluent Vent System Filter Specifications. l l i 3.3-7 October 1993

1 3.3.2.1.7 Main Plant Cooling Water Chiller Exhaust Air O Plant thermal effluent (heat) is discharged to the atmosphere via the Main Plant Cooling Water System air cooled chillers. The heated air is discharged directly to the environment. 'The i primary sources of thermal effluent are the HVAC systems, the UF 6 centrifuges, and the autoclaves. 3.3.2.2 Liouid wastes and Effluent Handling Liquid wastes and effluent are generated in a' number of processes throughout.the plant. All liquid effluent discharged-from the plant is eventually handled in the Yard Drain System or the Sewage Treatment System. A. noteworthy input to the Sewage Treatment System is discharge from the Liquid Waste Disposal System. Each of these three systems is described in the following sections. .l A diagram summarizing all aqueous liquid waste collection, j treatment, and discharge is provided in Figure 3.3-5, Combined-Diagram of Aqueous Liquid Effluent Systems. Non-aqueous liquid wastes are handled separately on a case-by-case basis, and are not represented on the diagram. j i For a number of systems, steel is specified for piping and component material. However, plastic pipe and components may be i substituted where appropriate. \\ 3.3.2.2.1 Yard Drains System The Yard Drains System collects stormwater runoff from the developed area of the site and directs it to Bluegill Pond at a j controlled rate. The Yard Drains System collects stormwater via yard drains, roadway drains, and roof drains. This includes stormwater drains from the UF, Cylinder Storage Yards. Water expended'during the testing of the Fire Protection System is also collected by the Yard Drains System. Process drains, floor drains, and wastes are excluded from the system. The Yard Drains System is illustrated in Figure 3.3-6, Flow Diagram of Yard Drains System. l The rate of discharge from the system is controlled to minimize i erosion around Bluegill Pond and Cyprus Creek. The Hold-Up Basin is used as the flow control device. During the construction i phase of the facility the basin is used as a sedimentation control basin. A water level of approximately 22 feet is i maintained except during periods of low rainfall. The discharge rate is controlled by the discharge standpipe. An emergency i spillway is provided to prevent breaching of the dmn during unusual stozns. 3.3-8 October 1993' I l =.

r 1 a The standpipe is removed during the operational phase of the. f facility. The rate of discharge is controlled by a flow orifice in the discharge pipe. In periods of heavy rainfall, excess water temporarily collects in the Hold-Up Basin and is contin-i uously discharged. No water accumulation is expected during periods of light rain or no rain. The Hold-Up Basin performs no + isolation of sedimentation functions during normal operation. The Yard Drains System effluent is sampled and analyzed routinely in accordance with the schedule established by the facility NPDES Permit. LES also analyzes these samples for uranium. An administrative limit has been established at 0.5% of the regulatory limit from 10 CFR 520.1302(2). Both administrative and' regulatory limits are listed in Table 3.3-2, Radioactive Limits. I i for Liquid Effluents Released to the Hold-Up Basin and Bluegill Pond. 3.3.2.2.2 Sewage Treatment System The Sewage Treatment System is designed to process domestic { sewage and lightly polluted industrial wastewater generated at the CEC. The system is designed to handle between 6,000 and 8,500 GPD while consistently producing effluents that are released to Bluegill Pond that meet all water quality standards set forth by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All-potentially radioactive wastewaters are pretreated in the Liquid Waste Disposal System to remove uranium compounds before final processing in the Sewage Treatment System. Stormwater is handled _1 by the Yard Drains System that is entirely segregated from the i Sewage Treatment System. The Sewage Treatment System serves all buildings of the CEC. Lift stations are provided as necessary to collect sewage, HVAC l drains, floor and equipment drains, and Liquid Waste Disposal 1 System effluent and transfer it to the Sewage Treatment Plant for l processing. The Sewage Treatment System is illustrated in Figure 3.3-7, Flow Diagram of the Sewage Treatment System. i 7he incoming wastewater flows through a bar screen to remove solids that could adversely affect the process. The wastewater is collected in a surge tank which also acts as a grit chamber to l remove nonorganic solids such as sand. The wastewater is pumped at a relatively constant rate to sewage aeration tank A where it is mixed with the activated sludge recirculation flow and l 4 aerated. The mixed flow then flows to sewage aeration tank B where additional aeration occurs. Two low-pressure blowers provide constant aeration flow to both tanks. The solid material in the wastewater is partially digested during this part of the-l i - process. The aerated wastewater then flows into the sewage settling tank where any non-digested sludge is separated and returned to the sewege aeration tank A. Excess sludge is 3.3-9 October 1993 ~ - - ~ - - ~

') transferred to the aerobic sludge digester where final digestion- '( i takes place. Waste sludge is removed from the aerobic sludge digester periodically for disposal offsite. The quantity of .l waste sludge for disposal is approximately 3000 gpy. j The settled wastewater flows to the sewage filter feed tank where it is pumped to the sewage filters for final solids removal. The Sewage Filters are gravity flow sand filters which.contain layers j of various grades of gravel and sand. The filters are automatically backflushed when the solids loading level affects their processing rate. The backflush water is collected in the mudwell and either re-fed into che sewage settling tank A or [ removed for off-site disposal. The filtered wastewater then flows into the chlorine contact tank where chlorine is added for disinfection. -The wastewater then flows into a cascade of effluent settling tanks. Fourteen tanks are provided to allow ten day holdup of the processed wastewater prior to discharge to Bluegill Pond. The holdup period allows for stabilization of the wastewater chemically snd physically prior to discharge. 3.3.2.2.3 Liquid Waste Disposal System The Liquid Waste Disposal System is provided to handle potentially radioactive and potentially hazardour and mixed wastes and effluents. Various methods are employed for the i treatment and disposal of these materials. Specific methods are designed for each material that are appropriate for the material characteristics, personnel safety, quantity, final disposal location, and applicable regulations. 3.3.2.2.3.1 Liquid Effluents Discharged Onsite All effluents that are potentially contaminated with radioactive materials are collected in tanks in the Liquid Waste Disposal System. The only such effluents at the CEC are found in specific areas of the Separations Building. Uranium is the only radioactive material found in wastes and effluents. The effluents and designated liquid wastes are processed in the [ Liquid Waste Disposal System and sampled to ensure satisfactory removal of all uranium contamination and then discharged to the Sewage Treatment System for final processing. The solid waste l generated by the system is packaged and shipped to a licensed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. The Liquid Waste Disposal System is shown schematically in Figure 3.3-8, Flow Diagram of Liquid Waste Disposal System. All potentially radioactive effluents are collected in tanks that are either part of the Liquid Waste Disposal System or that discharge directly into the Liquid Waste Disposal System. The \\ 3.3-10 October 1993 r i f -i ~

i following collection tanks are part of the system: j TSA Effluent Collection Tanks { Unit.1 Effluent Collection Tanks Unit 2 Effluent Collection Tanks j Unit 3 Effluent Collection Tanks - j Spent Citric Acid Tank Decontamination Effluent Tank j In addition, other systems or areas have their own collection tanks that discharge directly into-the Liquid Waste Disposal j System treatment processes. The laundry tank collects washer effluent, and laboratory tanks collect lab rinse water and j dishwater effluent. Each pair of effluent collection tanks is in a pit. Tank spills or overflows are contained in the pit. The. spent citric. acid I tank (and its associated reaction tank) are inside a curbed area for spill and overflow containment. The curbed area has no drainage provisions. All other collection tanks overflow into the TSA effluent collection tanks via the floor drain system. i All effluent collection tanks are isolated, mixed, and sampled l for uranium content prior to transfer to the dryer feed tank. Additional sampling is performed as necessary to verify. chemical- ] characteristics such as pH. a The contents of the spent citric acid tank are pre-treated to remove the majority of the uranium contamination prior to d transfer to the dryer feed tank. This pre-treatment is performed -l in small batches in the LWD reaction tank by the addition of potassium hydroxide. This process increases the pH of the solution which converts the soluble uranium compounds to insoluble uranium compounds. These compounds precipitate from i the solution and are removed by recirculating the solution through the LWD centrifuge. The precipitate is then collected in criticality safe containers and transferred to the Solid Waste Disposal System for either disposal offsite or reuse in the nuclear fuel cycle. The treated liquids are transferred to the decontamination effluent tank for hold-up. Rinse water from the Decontamination System is transferred directly to the I decontamination effluent tank. Laboratory solutions with high uranic concentrations are pre-treated by the same method in the LWD reaction tank. These solutions are directly transferred from the laboratory to the Liquid Waste Disposal System in criticality safe containers (typically 5 liter plastic bottles). 1 Floor and equipment drains from potentially contaminated areas in l" the Separations Building are collected in the six effluent I collection tanks. Potentially contaminated laboratory rinse i 3.3-11 October 1993

water is collected in the laboratory tanks. O Effluents are pumped through the dryer feed filter to the dryer feed tank in batch form. Batches can be either full tank volumes or partial tank volumes in order to keep the contents of the dryer feed tank chemically uniform from batch to batch. The laundry tank and the laboratory tanks are typically transferred daily while the effluent collection tanks are typically transferred when full. The decontamination effluent tank is transferred in multiple small batches. The dryer feed tank has a capacity of 5,000 gallons and is provided with an agitator to ensure that the contents of the tank are homogenous. Feed to the dryerf is via a recirculation loop that provides a relatively constant feed pressure and a location to constantly measure pH. The 21 of the feed is controlled for corrosion protection of the dryer ~ The LWD dryer is a wiped thin-film evaporator used to separate the wastewater stream into a water vapor stream and a solids stream in one step. Electricity is used as a heat source. The water vapor is then condensed in the LWD dryer condenser and collected in one of the effluent monitor tanks. The solids are collected in the form of a dry powder directly in 30-gallon drums connected below the dryer. When full, the drums are manually removed, allowed to cool, and sealed. Final packaging is performed in the Solid Waste Disposal System in accordance with {~' the specific rules of the Central States Low-Level Waste Compact. s Typical disposal packaging is a carbon steel drum inside a High Integrity Container. The distillate is collected in the effluent monitor tanks and is mixed and sampled for uranium content and pH. Inadequately processed effluent is returned to the dryer feed tank for reprocessing. Mixed bed demineralizers are provided for polishing the effluent if the uranium content is above the administrative limit. Polished effluent is returned to an effluent monitor tank for resampling. Effluents that meet all release criteria are transferred to the Sewage Treatment System ~ for final treatment and release to the environment. Administrative limits for radioactive material concentration in Liquid Waste Disposal System effluents have been established at 5% of the regulatory limits given in 10 CFR 520.1302 (2). These limits are listed in Table 3.3-4, Radioactive Limits for Liquid Effluent ReleaseC to the Sewage Treatment System. 3.3.2.2.3.2 Liquid Wastes Disposed of Offsite Liquid wastes at the CEC are defined as any aqueous or non-aqueous waste liquid that cannot be treated with the effluent stream because of chemical characteristics or disposal regulations. Special treatment and/or disposal methods are 3.3-12 October 1993

i 1 required for these wastes. These wastes are either radioactive, s hazardous, mixed, or have other characteristics requiring special handling. 4 Liquid wastes are generated throughout the plant. These wastes are collected, identified, and temporarily stored in the Waste Storage Area. Appropriate containers are used for storage of all wastes to proclude leakage, intermixing, evaporation, and ~ spillage. The following liquid wastes are collected in the Liquid Waste Disposal System: Lubrication Oils Solvents Laboratory Chemicals Miscellaneous Wastes Lubrication oils consist of various hydrocarbon lubricants collected during maintenance activities of process equipment, plant vehicles, and from workshop activities. A portion of these oils may be contaminated with radioactive material. Waste solvents and solvent sludge consist of material collected from workshops, the Decontamination System, and centrifuge activities. A portion of this material may be contaminated with radioactive material. The wastes are classified as either hazardous waste or mixed waste. Waste laboratory chemicals consist of solutions and samples used in laboratory analyses that cannot be treated in the effluent stream. These wastes typically are either hazardous wastes, mixed wastes, or are not processed due to characteristics unsuitable for the onsite processes. l Miscellaneous wastes consist of special wastes that need special disposal or are recycled as part of good industry practice. Examples of such materials are ethylene glycol coolants, refrigerants, and heavy oils. Liquid wastes are stored in the Waste Storage Area of the TSA or outside the TSA in proprietary storage lockers specially designed for that purpose. All liquid waste storage areas are designed to collect and contain spills and leakage in a safe manner. Radioactive liquid wastes are shipped to a licensed Central Volume Reduction Facility for proper treatment and packaging for disposal in a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility. Typically all such waste generated at the CEC is shipped off-site for treatment, but on-site contracted treatment may be performed when appropriate. O-3.3-13 October 1993

i Hazardous wastes are shipped to a licensed Hazardous Waste j Disposal Facility for proper treatment and disposal. Mixed wastes are shipped to a licensed Mixed Waste Treatment 1 Facility for' treatment and packaging for disposal. Final disposal will be in either a Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal l Facility or a Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility based upon the j characteristics of the treated waste. i Storage of incompatible liquid wastes is in segregatedLstorage areas to preclude the possibility of reaction.. Hazardous wastes are stored separately from radioactive wastes to preclude the possibility of creating additional mixed wastes through spills or leakage. Mixed wastes are stored separately _from both hazardous and radioactive wastes to preclude the possibility of creating j more mixed waste through spills or leakage. 3.3.2.3 Solid Waste Handling Solid wastes are produced in a number of plant activities and require a variety of methods for treatment and disposal. Solid wastes are categorized into wet solid waste and dry solid waste due to differences in storage and disposal requirements found in 40 CFR 264 (Reference 9) and 10 CFR 61 (Reference 3), respectively. Dry wastes are defined as in 10 CFR 61 (Reference 3, Subpart 61.56 (a) (3 ) ), containing "as little free standing and-non-corrosive liquid as is reasonably achievable, but in no case l shall the liquid exceed 1% of the volume." Wet wastes, for this plant, are defined as those which have as little free liquid as reasonably achievable but with no limit with respect.to percent of volume. All solid radioactive wastes _ generated are Class A low-level wastes as defined in 10 CFR 61 (Reference 3). Wastes are + transported offsite for disposal by contract carriers. Transportation is in compliance with 49 CFR 107 through 49 CFR 400 (Reference 2). The Solid Waste Disposal " System" is simply a group of methods and procedures applied as appropriate to the various solid wastes. Each individual waste is handled differently according to its unique combination of characteristics and constraints. Wet and dry waste handling is described separately below. ~ (Wastes produced by waste treatment vendors are handled by the vendors and are not addressed here.) 3.3.2.3.1 Wet Solid Wastes The wet waste portion of the Solid Waste Disposal System handles all radiological, hazardous, mixed, and industrial solid wastes from the plant which do not meet the above definition of dry waste. This portion handles several types of wet waste: wet 3.3-14 October 1993 g a-, o w n

I trash, oil recovery sludge, oil filters, resins, solvent recovery sludge, and uranic waste precipitate. The system collects, identifies, stores, and prepares these wastes for shipment. j Wet solid wastes are segregated into radioactive, hazardous, mixed, or industrial waste categories during collection to minimize disposal ~ problems. Mixed waste is that which includes both radioactive and hazardous waste. Industrial waste does not include either hazardous or radioactive waste. The Solid Waste Disposal System involves a number of manual steps. Handling of each waste type is' addressed below. 3.3.2.3.1.1 Wet Trash In this plant trash typically consists of waste paper, packing material, clothing, rags, wipes, mop heads, and absorption media. Wet trash consists of trash that contains water, oil, or chemical solutions. Generation of radioactive wet trash is minimized insofar as l possible. Trash with radioactive contamination is collected in specially marked plastic-bag-lined drums. These drums are located throughout each Radiation Control Zone. Wet trash is collected in separate drums from dry trash. When the drum of wet trash is full, the plastic bag is removed from the drum and j sealed. The bag is then checked for leaks and excessive liquid, ( and the exterior is monitored for contamination. If necessary, excess liquids are drained and the exterior is cleaned. The-bag is then taken to the Radioactive Waste Storage Area where the waste is identified, labeled, and recorded. Two options are available for onsite handling of wet radioactive trash: i i a. The trash is removed from the plastic bag and the trash is-l placed on a drying rack. This rack allows the free liquid to l drain from the trash and into the floor drain system to the LWD j System. The trash is then collected in another plastic bag and included with dry radioactive trash. j b. If the trash is being shipped to a Central Volume Reduction l Facility (CVRF) that can handle wet trash, the wet trash is not handled separately from dry trash. The CVRF reduces the volume 6 of the trash and then repackages the resulting waste for disposal. The waste package is then shipped to a radioactive waste disposal facility. Collected radioactive trash is stored j in an appropriate container in the Radioactive Waste Storage Area until it can be shipped offsite for treatment or disposal. Trash with hazardous contamination is collected in specially marked plastic bags. Wet trash is collected separately from dry trash. When full, the plastic bag containing wet trash is removed from the drum, sealed, the exterior monitored for 3.3-15 October 1993 j l 4 -w

4 vA2-J 4 -- a*% JJL 43 rJa .me a uw-.-4.3-4 hazardous material, and the exterior cleaned if necessary. The bag is then taken to the Hazardous. Waste Area, identified, labeled, and recorded. All hazardous trash is stored in the Hazardous Waste Area until it is shipped to-a hazardous waste disposal facility. Different types of hazardous materials are not mixed so that accidental reactions will not occur. ~, Empty containers that at one time contained hazardous materials are a special type of hazardous waste, as discussed in 40 CFR 261 (Reference 5, Subpart 261.7). After such a container is emptied,- it is resealed and taken to the Hazardous Waste Area for identification, labeling, and recording. The container is handled as hazardous waste and is shipped to a hazardous waste processing fciility for cleaning and/or dispcsal.. Alternately, the contain n 's used to store compatible hazardous wastes and to-ship those owv as to a hazardous waste processing facility for i processing anc container disposal. " Mixed" trash results from using wipes and rags with solvent on l uranium-contaminated components. It is collected in appropriate i containers and segregated from other trash. The waste is identified, labeled, recorded, and stored in accordance with regulations for both hazardous and radioactive wastes. Mixed waste is shipped to a facility licensed to process mixed waste. i Waste resulting from the processing is then forwarded to a qualified disposal facility licensed to dispose of the particular resulting waste, f Industrial trash is collected in specially marked receptacles in all parts of the plant. Trash that contains free liquids is dewatered before it is put into u receptacle. The trash from Radiation Control Areas is collected in plastic bags and taken to the Radioactive Waste Storage Area of the TSA for inspection to ensure that no radioactive contamination is present. (See Figure 3.3-9, Separations Building Floor Plan, for location of the TSA { and the storage areas.) The inspected trash and the trash from outside Radiation Control Areas are then taken to-one of several dumpsters around the plant. The trash is stored in these dumpsters until it is transported to a local landfill by a contract carrier. t 3.3.2.3.1.2 Oil Recovery Sludge The process for recovering used Fomblin oil generates an oily sludge which must be disposed of. The sludge results from the absorption of hydrocarbons in activated carbon and diatomaceous earth. A contracted radioactive waste processor may solidify the wastes in drums using Portland cement along with a binder. Alternatively, the waste may be shipped offsite to a Central'. l I Volume Reduction Facility for volume reduction. Regulations and technology current at the time of waste production will dictate 3.3-16 October 1993 i 8 .m e

r treatment methods. In either case the waste is finally disposed of at a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. 3.3.2.3.1.3 Oil Filters f Used oil filters are collected from the diesel generators and from plant vehicles. No filters are radioactively contaminated. The used filters are placed in containers and transported to the i waste storage area of the TSA. (See Figure 3.3-9, Separations Building Floor Plan.) There the filters are drained completely and transferred to a drum. (The drained waste oil is combined with other waste oil and handled as described in Section i 3.3.2.2.3.) Once a drum is full, absorbent naterial is added and the drum is sealed and labeled. The drum is then shipped to an offsite hazardous waste disposal contractor for disposal. 3.3.2.3.1.4 Resins Spent resin is collected from the Machine Cooling Water system ~ polishers, from the Utility Water System softener and very small amounts from the laboratory. These resins are not radioactively contaminated. Resin disposal may be handled by a contractor. The resins are dewatered and are disposed of in a landfill. j Radioactively contaminated resin is collected from the Liquid Waste Disposal System demineralizers. Normally, the resin for demineralizer operation is contained in a portable vessel j suitable for disposal. The vessel is disconnected, dewatered, sealed, and stored in the radioactive waste storage area. The resin is shipped for disposal to a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. l A small quantity of resin (<50 pounds) containing hazardous material is discarded after use in the laboratory. This hazardous waste is packaged, labeled, and stored in a separate hazardous waste storage area until it is shipped to a licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. 1 3.3.2.3.1.5 Solvent Recovery Sludge I Solvent is used in degreasers and in the workshops. The degreasers are equipped with solvent recovery stills. The degreaser in the decontamination area and the contaminated workshop area handle radioactive components. Solids and sludge removed from these stills and degreasers are collected, labeled, and stored as mixed waste. The waste is shipped to a facility licensed to process mixed waste. Waste resulting from the processing is then forwarded to a qualified disposal facility licensed to dispose of the particular resulting waste. The UFs Pump Workshop degreaser handles only decontaminated components, so the solids and sludge removed from this degreaser 1 4 3.3-17 october 1993 se e -- w-- m.-.%.

I 4 I (after checking for radioactivity) are collected, labeled, and stored as hazardous waste. This hazardous waste is shipped to a. licensed hazardous waste disposal facility. I 3.3.2.3.1.6 Uranic Waste Precipitate Aqueous uranic liquid waste is processed to remove'most of the uranium prior to evaporation of the liquid stream in-the LWD l Dryer. This aqueous waste is primarily from the decontamination l citric acid baths, and the laboratory. The uranium is precipitated out of solution, and water is removed by centrifuging. The remaining precipitate, potassium diuranate,.is-collected, labeled, and stored in the radioactive waste storage-j area. The waste is disposed of in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. 3.3.2.3.2 Dry Solid Wastes The dry waste portion of the Solid Waste Disposal System handles dry radiological, hazardous, mixed, and industrial solid wastes from the plant. These wastes include: trash, activated carbon, t activated alumina, activated sodium fluoride, HEPA filters, scrap metal, silica gel, _ salt, laboratory waste and dryer concentrate. i The system collects, identifies, stores, and prepares these wastes for shipment. All solid radioactive wastes generated are Class A low-level wastes as defined in 10 CFR 61 (Reference 3). The Solid Waste Disposal' System involves a number of manual steps. Handling for each waste type is addressed below. l l 3.3.2.3.2.1 Trash Dry trash sources are the same as the wet trash sources, and dry trash is handled in much the same way as wet trash. Section 1' 3.3.2.3.1.1 describes the handling of wet trash and should be referred to for details. Only the differences between wet and dry trash handling are provided below. Steps to remove liquids are of course unnecessary for dry trash. The dry waste portion of the Solid Waste Disposal System accepts wet trash that has been dewatered, as well as dry trash. i Radioactive trash is shipped to a Centralized Volume Reduction Facility, (CVRF). The CVRF reduces the volume of the trash and then repackages the resulting waste for disposal. Waste handled by the CVRF will be disposed of in a radioactive waste disposal facility. Trash containing hazardous material is handled as described above l with the wet waste portion of the Solid Waste Disposal System. 3.3-18 October 1993 ,,r-.--. - -, - =, - r-e 2, we - r - -,

e=---

e .e

<0 * /\\\\g f i ,e g Nr i~'g IMAGE EVALUATION / 6% / xN g 't Q?! TEST TARGET (MT-3) j ? ~ 0' 4* ess //// g *4,. ff4'}p l.0 v m Rm t... l,l .., = ll 1.8 u== 1.2 5 l 1.4 ij l.6 n== l W _ _ _ _. --- 150mm Ik y, \\ w@s se. + sp. 4 o w g ,, 5 sp a,pg , y_ o g, _m.. 6 A 6', 4 Q. 7/ r / q@ 44 qe

8* d A> Q'b q, V @A ;4q, IMAGE EVALUATION b A Q, 0, 'b [ J D /g, \\//g/ q'# it;he TEST TARGET (MT-3) ~ qfgt If& $f / + <a 1.0 2* a a ;; 32 [ ; 2.2 t_ cu==e ,.,3 L. ((4 =$_ I.l

== ~ j ts I 'I.25 1.4 l =1.6 i l 150mm 4 6" 4. /A 4);3$.['

Qf' he g,r x

/j 4> .o+ / I

]

E ,4 ,k + '.& ~* w: t &s?'[f* jg//jf B 1 IMAGE EVALUATION ['hf if x \\; /g//p/ 1 *' 9 {%,,,

f'4 TEST TARGET (MT-3) gy/,,+,

<4 l M @'s B 1.0 U M1 L~ j lt 2.0 Ihrm j,l !j !Di.8

g=*

1.25 11.4 y i.6 l=== m 150mm 4 4__ 6" A %g.

+,s+s

%l a m //// A /r/s 3,/,/\\ y g,y 9 g:; <r, e f <,g&s4 A;, ,/ ,y;- rf,; n+ Kg a e l 7 2

/, ,.o ,A // j ' N e'f,? ~'4' /e e 'T+ 'O 4 ' IMAGE EVALUATION \\[ yh? TEST TARGET (MT-3) %/ ? dh \\ Eg Y s '%Ry 4k 4r v l.0 L ?" - '"p22 a,--721 I !! 2.0 l,l l l!e=n !!!! l.8 llM=< ll I.25 l.4 ll== l,== ![l 1.66 4. - - -- - - - 150mm 4.___ 6" , /' [ \\\\ /$ ^k$P <;((%Np ,"* 1 47p ./p> o g ;,;y ff s;w; />,,//ag n. o rp g,. y v sp 'b a _ _ gff []

F ns t 3 1 e cL Aerosol spray ~ cans may be disposed of as trash if they are first I sf totally; discharged and then punctured. Special receptacles for j CN. ' spray.canc used.in'the Separations Building arey?rovided and each ?l.L can is inspected for~ radioactive contamination, total' discharge,- H and puncture before it can be included with.industrisl trash. - ~ " Mixed" trash is handled as described above with the. wet waste .j portion of the Solid Waste Disposal System. ' Mixed trash results from use of rags:and wipes, with solvent, on radioactively l contaminated components. l t 3.3.2.3.2.2 Activated Carbon ] i Activated carbon.is used in a number of systems to remove uranium compounds and HF from exhaust gases. Due to the potential hazard of airborne contamination, personnel respiration equipment 19- -l used during activated carbon handling to prevent inhalation of j -material by. plant personnel. ' Spent or aged carbon is carefully removed, immediately packaged to prevent the' spread of 1 contamination, and. transported to the Radioact.ive Waste Storage Area of the TSA. 'There the activated carbon ia removed and placed in an appropriate container to preclude efiUIcality. The contents of the containers are sampled to determine the quantity [ of-HF'and quantity of U235 present. The container is then I sealed, monitored for external contamination, and properly l labeled. It it then temporarily stored with radioactive trash. (~N A container with a large mass of U235 is shipped directly to a-l t low-level radioactive waste disposal' facility. Containers with .relatively little U235 are sent to a CVRF to reduce the volume of the waste, and the CVRFLthen' repackages the resulting waste for I shipment 1to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. l t Carbon filters are also used in the laboratories where they can. a become. contaminated with hazardous as well as radioactive if material..The filters are handled according to their knewn service. Those potentially hazardous are handled as hazardous, .and those potentially containing both hazardous and' radioactive material are handled as mixed wastes. Each type of waste is j collected, labeled, stored, and recorded, and is then shipped to an appropriately licensed facility for processing / disposing of l hazardous and/or mixed waste. i 3.3.2.3.2.3 Activated Alumina Activated alumina in used in a nunber of systems to remove l hydrogen fluoride.(HF) and. UFs from exhaust gases. Spent or aged l alumina is carefully removed from system components, packaged to i prevent the spread of contamination, and. transported to the-I Radioactive Waste-Storage AreE of the TSA. There the activated alumina is removed and placed in an appropriate container. The l contents of a full container are sampled to determine the ~ fquantity of U235 present. The container is then sealed,-the ~ L JL,,,, I4 3.3-19 October 1993 l 1 1

,=.. _ i i i exterior is monitored ~for contamination,.and the container is Il properly labeled. It is. stored in the Radioactive Waste Storage \\#

Area until it~is shipped to a radioactive waste disposal facility.

-j Activated alumina is also used as a desiccant in the Plant / Instrument Air System. This alumina is not radioactively ~ contaminated and is non-hazardous. It is disposed of in a landfill. 3.3.2.3.2.4 Activated Sodium Fluoride' l Activated sodium fluoride (NaF) is used in the Contingency Dump i System to remove UF, and HF frcm exhaust gases. The Contingency Dump System is not expected to operate except during transient j conditions which occur during a power failure. The NaF is not expected to saturate during the life of the plant. However, if .the system is used often cnd the NaF saturates, the NaF is removed by personnel wearing respirators and using special i procedures for personnel protection. A plastic bag is placed l over the vessel and sealed, and the vessel is turned upside down l to empty the NaF. Spent contaminated NaF, if ever produced, is l processed by a contractor to remove uranium so the wastes may be disposed of. It is expected that NaF will not require treatment and disposal until decommissioning. (UFs reacts with sodium fluoride to form sodium octofluor uranate (Na2UF8). The contractor would be expected to use one of two methods for l uranium removal. One heats the Na2UF8 to 750 F, reversing the reaction of NaF and UFe. The other hydrolyzes the compound, filters out sodium fluoride, and precipitates uranium with ammonia. The precipitate is removed by filtration, and the waste solution is neutralized, sampled, analyzed, and released.) j l 3.3.2.3.2.5 Filter Elements l 'i Prefilters and HEPA filters are used in several places throughout the plant to remove dust and dirt, uranium compounds, and hydrogen fluoride. I Filters in the Centrifuge Assembly Building are used to remove dost and dirt from the incoming air to ensure the cleanliness of i the centrifuge assembly operation. When removed from the housing, the filter elements are wrapped in plastic to prevent i the loss of particulate matter. These filter elements are not contaminated with radioactive or hazardous materials so disposal is with industrial trash. Filters used in the Gaseous Effluent Vent System and the TSA HVAC l System are used to remove HF and trace uranium compounds from the exhaust airstream. When the filter elements become loaded, they are removed from the housings and wrapped in plastic bags to prevent the spread of radioactive contamination. Due to the 3.3-20 October 1993

~. f a hazard of airborne contamination, either portable ventilation equipment or personal respiration equipment is used during filter element handling to prevent the intake of material by plant personnel. The filter elements are.taken to the Radioactive Was'te Storage Area of the TSA where a sample is taken to determine the quantity of U235 present. The exterior of the bag is monitored for contamination and the package is properly marked. The filter elements are sent to a CVRF for processing 1 and shipped to a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. Portable ventilation units are used to remove radioactive particles from the air during maintenance activities. The filter i elements used in these units are handled as described immediately r above for the Gaseous Effluent Vent System filter elements. l Portable ventilation units are also used to remove welding fumes. The filter elements are handled as industrial trash unless the i ventildtion unit is used in a Radiation Control Area or a Radiation Control Zone. These filter elements are removed from { the unit, wrapped in plastic, and taken to the Radioactive Waste Storage Area to be sampled for uranium compounds. If they are found to be non-contaminated they are handled as industrial trash. If they are found to be contaminated they are handled as described above for the Gaseous Effluent Vent System filter elements. Air filters from the Plant / Instrument Air system and the Diesel 7 Generators are handled as industrial waste. 3.3.2.3.2.6 Scrap Metal Metallic wastes are generated during routine and abnormal maintenance operations. The metal can be either clean, can be contaminated with radioactive material, or can contain hazardous material. Radioactive contamination of metal is always in the form of surface contamination caused by uranium compounds adhering to the metal or caught in cracks and crevices. No process in this facility results in activation of any materials. Clean scrap metal is collected in bins located outside the Technical Services Area of the Separations Building. This material is transported by contract carrier to a local scrap l l metal vendor for disposal. Items collected outside of Radiation Control Areas or Radiation Control Zones are disposed of as industrial scrap metal unless there is reason to suspect it contains hazardous material. j Scrap metal is monitored for contamination before it leaves the site. Metal found to be contaminated is either decontaminated or disposed of as radioactive waste. When feasible, decontamination is the preferred method. 3.3-21 October 1993 i t I 1

1 i Decontamination is performed in situ for large items and in the Decontamination Workshop for smaller items. Decontamination of j large items should not be required until the end of plant life. If onsite decontamination is not feasible the item is usually shipped offsite to a decantamination vendor who decontaminates the item and returns it to the plant. After decontamination, the i item is inspectea again for radioactive contamination and handled i as industrial scrap metal if the contamination has been removed. I Items that are not suitable for decontamination are inspected to determine the quantity of uranium present, packaged, labeled, and j shipped either to a CVRF or a radioactive waste disposal facility. i Metallic items containing hazardous materials (as defined in 40 CFP. 261 (Reference 5)) are collected at tim location of the hazardous material. The items are wrapped to contain the material and taken to the Hazardous Waste Area. The items are then cleaned onsite if practical. If onsite cleaning cannot be performed then the items are sent to a hazardous waste processing { facility for offsite treatment or disposal. 3.3.2.3.2.7 Silica Gel l Silica gel desiccants are used in driers in various refrigerant i systems throughout the plant. The deLiccants do not become radioactively contaminated. When spent, the silica gel is i disposed of in a landfill. ) 1 3.3.2.3.2.8 Salt Brine is rejected from the Utility Water System water softeners. The water softeners use resin to remove calcium from the well-I water. Spent resin is regenerated with a strong solution of sodium chloride (Nacl). The brine replaces the calcium collected i by the resin with sodium. Following resin regeneration, the l brine is evaporated to extract the salt as a solid. The remaining salt (sodium chloride and calcium chloride (CaC12)) is non-hazardous and non-contaminated. It is packaged and disposed of in a landfill. l i 3.3.2.3.2.9 Laboratory Waste { i Small quantities of dry solid hazardous wastes are generated in laboratory activities, including small amounts of unused materials are collected, sampled, and stored in the Hazardous l chemicals and materials with residual hazardous compounds. These Waste Area of the TSA. Precautions are taken when collecting, packaging, and storing to prevent accidental reactions. These { materials are shipped to a hazardous waste processing facility i where the wastes will be prepared for disposal. l [ f 3.3-22 October 1993 I

] J Some of the hazardous laboratory material is radioactively contaminated, and is collected, labeled, stored, and recorded as mixed waste.. This-material is shipped to a' licensed facility l qdalified to process inixed waste for ultimate disposal. 3.3.2.3.2.10 Dryer Concentrate Potentially radioactive aqueous waste is evaporated in the LWD .j Dryer to remove effectively all remaining uranium prior to l release to the Sewage Treatment System. The LWD Dryer discharges dry concentrate directly into drums. These. drums are checked for U235 content, labeled, and stored in the radioactive waste storage area. The concentrate is shipped to a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. l 3.3.2.4 Reprocessino and Recovery Systems j Systems used to allow recovery or reuse of materials are described below. j 3.3.2.4.1 Fomblin Oil Recovery System j Fomblin oil is an expensive, highly fluorinated, inert oil j selected especially for use in uranium hex 4 fluoride (UFs) systems j to avoid reaction with UFs. The Fomblin 0;.1 Recovery System i recovers used Fomblin oil from pumps used in UF, systems. All i Fomblin oil is recovered; none is normally released as waste or j O effluent. l Used Fomblin oil is recovered by removing impurities that inhibit the oil's lubrication properties. The impurities collected are _j primarily uranyl fluoride (UO2F2) and uranium tetrafluoride (UF ) 4 particles. The recovery process also removes trace amounts of j hydrocarbons, which if left in would react with UFs. The Fomblin Oil Recovery System components are located in the Contaminated l Equipment Workshop'in the TSA. T'e total annual volume of oil to

j be processed in this system is approximately 56 gallons.

l The Fomblin oil recovery process consists of oil collection, [! uranium precipitation, trace hydrocarbon removal, oil sampling, and storage of cleaned oil for re-use. Each step is performed manually. A diagram demonstrating the process is~provided in i Figure 3.3-10, Logic Diagram - Fomblin Oil Recovery System. I Fomblin oil is collected in the Contaminated Equipment Workshop f as part of the pump disassembly process. The oil is transferred for processing to the Decontamination Workshop in plastic containers. The containers are labeled so each can be tracked through the process. Used oil awaiting processing is stored in .l" the Fomblin oil storage array to eliminate the possibility of accidental criticality. 3.3-23 October 1993 l l f k l

Uranium compounds are removed from:the Fomblin oil in the Fomblin oil fume hood to minimize personnel exposure to airborne e contamination. -Dissolved uranium compounds are removed by the i addition of anhydrous sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) to the oil container which causes the uranium compounds to precipitate into sodium uranyl carbonate ((Na2)4UO2(CO3)3). The mixture is agitated and then filtered through a coarse screen to remove metal particles and small parts such as screws and nuts. These are transferred to the Solid Waste Disposal System. The oil is then heated to 210-220 F and stirred for 90 minutes to speed the reaction. The oil is then centrifuged to remove UF, sodium j uranyl carbonate, and various metallic fluorides. The j particulate that is removed from the oil is collected and transferred to the Solid Waste Disposal System for subsequent offsite disposal. } Trace amounts of hydrocarbons are removed in the Fomblin oil fume i hood next by adding activated carbon to the Fomblin oil and l heating the mixture at 215-200 F for two hours. The activated carbon absorbs the hydrocarbons, and the carbon in turn is removed by filtration through a bed of 30-80 mesh diatomaceous earth. The resulting sludge is transferred to the Solid Waste Disposal System for disposal. Recovered Fomblin oil is sampled. Using an extraction process with carbon tetrachloride (CCl4), the samples are analyzed in the Chemical Laboratory to determine if the criteria for purity have been met. Oil that meets the criteria can be re-used in the system while oil that does not meet the criteria will be i reprocessed. The following limits have been set for recovered i Fomblin oil purity for re-use in the plant: Uranium - 50 ppm by volume or 30 ppm by weight l Hydrocarbons - 3 ppm by volume or 2 ppm by weight Used CCl4 is separated, collected, and transferred to the LWD { System for disposal. Waste CCl4 quantities are included with other laboratory analysis waste totals provided in Table 3.3-7, Estimated Annual Non-Radiological Wastes, and Table 3.3-8, Estimated Annual Radiological and Mixed Wastes. l i Recovered Fomblin oil is stored in plastic containers in the Chemical Storage Area. No precautic..a are required to prevent criticality accidents during the handling and storage of clean Fomblin oil. l 3.3-24 October 1993

l 1 i i 3.3.2.4.2 Refrigerant Recovery { ges - 6]. i The refrigerant systems ~do not normally discharge any refrigerant -l to the environment. The Refrigerant Supply System incorporates a two-stage vapor recovery unit which serves all refrigerant system i expansion _and storage vessels. f The vapor recovery unit accepts refrigerant from the expansion or storage vessels during any off-normal operating mode which causes ^ vessel venting. In the first stage of the unit, vented refrigerant is condensed, and in the second stage it is subcooled. The first stage (vapor condenser) employs circulating-cooling water for desuperheating and condensation. The second-stage (condensate subcooler) uses cold refrigerant to effect the subcooling. j 3.3.2.4.3 Decontamination System i The Decontamination System is designed to remove radioactive contamination from contaminated materials and equipment. It is i described here with other recovery systems since it allows some equipment and materials to be reused rather than discarded. i The only significant forms of radioactive contamination found in j the plant are uranium hexafluoride (UFs), uranium tetrafluoride (UF ), and uranyl fluoride (UO2F2). These ara removed from items 4 in the Decontamination System. Most of the process of i decontamination is performed in the Decontamination Workshop of j the TSA. (See Figure 3.3-9, Separations Building Floor Plan, for i the location.) The Decontamination System consists of a series of steps j including equipment disassembly, degreasing, decontamination, drying, and inspection. Items from UFs systems, waste handling [ systems, and miscellaneous other items are-decontaminated in this system. Components commonly decontaminated include pumps, i valves, piping, instruments, sample bottles, tools, and scrap metal. Sample bottle decontamination is handled under a special I procedure due to the difficulty of handling the specific shape of t the bottle. The decontamination process for most plant i components is described immediately below. Following the general -l process description, sample bottle decontamination is addressed i separately. Two diagrams are provided to illustrate the L decontamination process, in Figure 3.3-11, Logic Diagram - l Decontamination System, and Figure 3.3-12, Flow Diagram - Decontamination System. i 3.3.2.4.3.1 General Decontamination i Disassembly of contaminated equipment is performed in the { Contaminated Equipment Workshop in the TSA. During disassembly, Fomblin oil, hydrocarbon oil, and contaminated solids may be l 3.3-25 October 1993 I I

. ~ = -i i I removed from equipment. These are, collected separately and- / transferred to the Fomblin Oil Recovery System and the waste ~ l \\ storage area. Components are-also degreasedias'necessary. -Those 1 needing degreasing are cleaned manually or are immersed in'a j solvent vapor degreasing unit. Degreased components are inspected and forwarded.-.to be decontaminated. l [ The degreasing solvent is selected to be compatible with Fomblin i oil, UF, and the component material. Vapor recovery and solvent i distillation are provided to minimize solvent use. Once uranium-content in the solvent reaches specified limits, the solvent is i distilled. Solvent residue is collected manually and transferred i to the LWD system. Decontamination follows disassembly and degreasing. Decontamination is accomplished by manual cleaning or by immersion into a citric acid bath. The baths are provided with ultrasonic agitation capability. Typically, citric acid bath immersion is preferrable to manual cleaning. After a 15 minute immersion, the component is. removed, and is flushed with water to remove the citric acid. A rinse water bath follows to remove l residual citric acid. Ultrasonic agitation is used to help remove stubborn contamination. i Spills and overflows from the citric and rinse baths are i collected in a curbed area. The curbs completely contain the i liquid; no curb drains are provided. A separate curb is provided for the degreaser. j l The baths are sampled periodically to determine the condition:of i the solution. The citric acid baths areLanalyzed for U235 j concentration and citric acid concentration. Additional citric acid is added as necessary to keep the citric acid concentration 't between 5% and 7%. Spent solutions, consistingfof citric acid,. I uranyl citrates, and metallic citrates are transferred to the spent citric acid tank in the LWD System. The rinse water baths i are checked for U235, cleanliness, and satisfactory pH levels; i spent rinse water is transferred to the decontamination effluent tank in the LWD system. All components are dried after decontamination. This is l performed either manually or in a drying cabinet The drying cabinet is normally not required due to rapid evaporaticn following component removal from the heated rinse baths. The decontaminated components are inspected prior to f i unconditional release. The quantity of contamination remaining must be "as low as reasonably achievable". Components released for unrestricted use do not have removable contamination 2 exceeding 1000 dpm/100cm beta-gamma. 3.3-25 October 1993 r i

a ~=n ~ 1 3.3.2.4.3.2 Sample Bottle Decontamination j O Sample bottle decontamination is handled somewhat differently than the'above general process. For the 1S' type sample bcttles, I a separate area is dedicated for sample bottle storage, disassembly, and decontamination. Used 1S sample bottles are weighed to confirm the bottles are empty. The' valves are loosened, and then the remainder of the decontamination process [ is performed in the sample bottle decontamination fume hood. The i valves are removed inside the fume hood. Any loose material inside the bottle or valve is dissolved in an ammonium carbonate solution. Spent solution is collected for eventual transfer to i the LWD Reaction Tank in the LWD system. l Sample bottles and valves are flushed with a 10% ammonium carbonate solution. Ammonium carbonate reacts with UFs and UO2F2 to form ammonium uranyl carbonate and hydrogen fluoride. The I l bottles and valves are then rinsed with demineralized water. The procedure is repeated with a 5% ammonium carbonate solution and a j small amount of hydrogen peroxide, followed by another rinse. l The used solutions are collected with that mentioned above for j eventual transfer to the TSA effluent collection tank. The l bottles and valves are then flushed with acidic solutions and rinsed with demineralized water. This used acidic solution is l collected separately, but will also eventually be added to the TSA ef fluer.t collection tank. Acetone is used for purging; the r acetone is collected in its own container and transferred to'the O mixed waste storage area. This waste acetone will be handled in accordance with the regulations for both hazardous and [ radioactive wastes. The bottles and valves are dried and inspected for contamination and rust. The cleaned components are l transferred to the UF Equipment Workshop for reassembly and 6 pressure testing. l i Decontamination of " finger" sample bottles, when required, is accomplished in a similar manner using sodium carbonate, hydrogen i peroxide, and nitric acid solutions. Most finger bottles do not require cleaning; they are re-used after' removal of the UFs i f sample. Only about 5 to 10% will require cleaning. Effluent from finger bottle cleaning is collected and eventually I transferred to the TSA effluent collection tank. 3.3.2.4.3.3 Decontamination Equipment e The following major components are included in the i Decontamination System: l a. Citric Acid Baths: Two citric acid baths are provided for l the primary means of removing radioactive contamination. One of i the baths has a minimum liquid capacity of 450 gallons, and the other has a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The baths drain to j the spent citric acid tank. Bath vents exhaust to Gaseous O f 3.3-27 October 1993 i r i =_.

Effluent Vent System ductwork to assure airborne contamination is controlled, b. Rinse Water Baths: Two rinse water baths are provided to rinse excess citric acid from decontaminated components. _One of the baths has a minimum liquid capacity of 450 gallons, and the other has a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The baths drain to the decontamination effluent tank. Bath vents exhaust to Gaseous Effluent Vent System'ductwork to assure airborne contamination is controlled. c. Decontamination Degreasing Unit: One decontamination degreasing unit is provided to remove grease and oil from contaminated ccmponents. The unit is equipped with a vapor recovery unit and distillation still. d. Drying Cabinet: One drying cabinet is provided to dry components after decontamination. 3.3.2.4.4 Contaminated Laundry System The Contaminated Laundry System cleans contaminated and soiled clothing and materials which have been used in Radiation Control Zones (RCZs) of the plant. It is described here with other -recovery systems since it allows the reuse of clothing which otherwise would be discarded as radioactive waste. This system is not designed to handle contaminated rags, or clothing used in non-contaminated areas of the plant. The Contaminated Laundry System components are located in the Laundry Room of the TSA, which is shown on Figure 3.3-9, Separations' Building Floor Plan. The Contaminated Laundry System collects, cleans, dries, and inspects clothing and materials used in Radiation Control' Zones (RCZs). Waste water is analyzed and' transferred for treatment as necessary. The system consists of one washer, one dryer, one tank for washer effluent, and associated piping and controls. -Expected contaminants on the laundry include UO2F2 and small amounts of UF. 4 The laundry normally handled by this system consists of the following: a. Anti-contamination clothing used by plant personnel while working in RCZs (Anti-contamination clothing typically consists of coveralls, gloves, and shoe covers.) b. Air suits used by plant personnel in RCZs with potentially high airborne contamination levels The cleaning process uses 180 F minimum water, detergents, and non-chlorine bleach for dirt removal, odor removal, and 3.3-28 October 1993

I disinfection of the laundry. The laundry is then dried with hot air. No " dry cleaning" solvents are used. ] Contaminated laundry is collect'ed in designated containers as personnel exit an RCZ. The collection containers are lined with plastic bags.. When a container is full, its plastic bag is l sealed, removed from the container and taken to the Laundry Room. The contaminated laundry is removed from the bag and placed into the washing machine and washed. The washed laundry is dried in the dryer and then is inspected for excessive wear. (Since i contamination levels are very low, and since the primary j contaminant, UO2F2, is water-soluble, monitoring of cleaned i clothing for radioactive contamination is not performed.) Usable clothing is folded and returned to storage for reuse. Unusable clothing is sent to the Solid Waste Disposal System. 6 Waste water from the washer is discharged to the laundry tank in j the LWD system. The contaminated laundry dryer is vented to TSA HVAC system ductwork. Controlled discharge from the dryer helps control humidity, airborne particulate, and airborne i contamination in the laundry room. j Clothing containing excess quantities of oil or chemicals (as l defined by administrative procedures) are collected separately .i This clothing, if not easily cleaned or treated, may simply be disposed of. Specified containers and procedures are used for collection, storage, and transfer of these items to the Solid Waste Disposal System. The Contaminated Laundry System is illustrated schematically in l Figure 3.3-13. l f 3.3.3 EFFLUENT QUANTITIES Quantities of radioactive and non-radioactive wastes and effluent. are estimated in the tables following.this section. The tables ' include quantities and average uranium concentrations. Portions of the vaste considered hazardous or mixed are identified. l The first two tables for this section address effluent: Table 3.3-5, Estimated Annual Liquid Effluent, and Table 3.3-6, Estimated Annual Gaseous Effluent. The next two address wastes: Table 3.3-7, Estimated Annual Non-Radiological Wastes, and Table 3.3-8,-Estimated Annual Radiological and Mixed Wastes. The final table describes the characteristics of aqueous effluent and the j waste resulting from processing this effluent: Table 3.3-9, i Estimated Annual Radiological Wastes From Aqueous Liquids. t The waste and effluent estimates described above were developed j specifically for the CEC. Each system was analyzed to determine l the wastes and effluents generated during operation. These i values were analyzed and a waste disposal path was developed for j 3.3-29 October 1993 5 o t . i 1 i

... - - ~ ~ - P each._'LES considered the facility site, facility operation, applicable URENCO experience, applicable regulations, and the existing U.S. waste processing / disposal infrastructure during the development of the paths. The Liquid Waste Disposal System, Solid Waste Disposal System, and the Sewage Treatment System were designed-to meet these criteria. Applicable experience was used from each of the three URENCO l enrichment facilities. The majority of the wastes and effluents l from the facility are from auxiliary systems and activities _and not from the enrichment process itself. Waste and effluent 1 quantities of specific individual activities were used in the development of CEC estimates instead of scaled site values. An example is the CEC laboratory waste and effluent estimate which was developed by determining which analyses would be performed at s the CEC and using URENCO experience with that anlaysis to determine the resulting wastes and effluents. The cumulative wastes and effluents values were then compiled. l The customs of URENCO as compared to LES also affects the i resultant wastes and effluents. An example is in Europe,, exployers typically provide work clothes such as coveralls and lab coats for their employees. These are typically washed onsite with the resulting effluent sent to the municipal sewage treatment system. LES provides only protective clothing for employees and the small volume of effluents that results has a j higher quantity of contaminants which must be treated onsite. Each of the URENCO facilities has different wastes and effluents depending on the specific site activities, the type of auxiliary equipment installed, and the specific national. regulations. Each: of the URENCO facilities is located either in an industrial or municipal area so that the facility water supply and the sewage treatment is performed by municipal systems. The CEC provides its own water supply system and sewage treatment system. LES also performs no cylinder washing activities like~the URENCO facilities which produces significant quantities of uranic -i wastewater. Specific operational differences between_the CEC and the URENCO facilities that affect waste and effluent comparisons i are described in the following paragraphs. The URENCO facility at Capenhurst, UK is operated by BNFL which operates multiple fuel cycle facilities. Wastes with high uranic content are typically recycled at another facility in lieu of j disposal. Small or unique waste streams can be shipped to another BNFL facility for efficient treatment in lieu of onsite treatment. An onsite incinerator is provided for disposal of low-level combustible wastes. The site consists of a commercial centrifuge enrichment plant, a military enrichment plant, and a_ gaseous diffusion plant in process of being decommissioned that share the plant infrastructure. Decommissioning decontamination solutions greatly af fect the total uranic content of effluents-3.3-30 October 1993 i 1 e

and the volume of wastes. The wastes and effluents attributable 7-to the commercial centrifuge enrichment plant is difficult to '\\- quantify. No Capenhurst data is provided. The URENCO facility at Almelo, the Netherlands, has old centrifuge cascade halls in the process of being decommissioned. Decommissioning decontamination solutions greatly affect the total uranic content of effluents and the volume of wastes. Most pumps which of the cascades at this facility do not utilize UF6 are a major source of uranic contamination in effluents. Wastes with high uranic content are typically recycled at another facility in lieu of disposal. Almelo waste and effluent data is shown in Table 3.3-12. The URENCO facility at Gronau, Germany, has significantly smaller capacity than the LES facility. None of the cascades at this facility utilize UFs pumps which are a major source of uranic contamination in the effluents. Wastes with high uranic content ~ are typically recycled at another facility in lieu of disposal. Gronau waste and effluent data is shown in Table 3.3-13. The gaseous effluent treatment system at the CEC (i.e., Gaseous t Effluent Ventilation System - GEVS) is similar to the systems at the Almelo and Gronau facilities. Based upon an evaluation performed (Reference 10) for the CEC it is expected that uranium discharged via the GEVS will be approximately 15 grams per year for the 1.5 million SWU per year CEC facility. This is O, approximately the same amount discharged from the URENCO facilities on a per SWU basis. l i ( 3.3-31 October 1993 l

) 1 n i -REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3.3 ~ i 1. 'Claiborne Enrichment Center Safety Analysis Report, Louisiana Energy Services, January, 1991. 2. Title 49,' Code of Federal Regulations, Part 107 through Part. 400,.(Hazardous materials sections), 1989. 3. Title 10, Code of Federal'Reculations, Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal-of Radioactive Waste, 1989. t 4.- Title 49, Code of Federal Reculations,~Part 173, Shippers - I General Requirements for Shipments and Packages, 1989. 5. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 1989. j 6. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 262, Standar'ds [ Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste, 1989. 4 7. Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 179, 1989. 8. Title 10, Code-of Federal Regulations, Part 20, Standards for i Protection Against Radiation, 1989. 9. Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 264, Standards j \\ for Owners and Operators of. Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, 1989, j

10. C A. Andrews, Estimate of Gaseous Uranium Discharges from the j

LES Plant, August 1991. l ii 1 -i-; I r ? q i i l 3.3-32 October 1993 l -f I l i I

.I ~ Table 4.1-1 CEC Construction & Operation Schedule 'I Milestone Plant Plant Plant l Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 .i i Receive 0 months

O months *'

'0 months' Construction / Operation Permit (12/94) (12/94) (12/94) s l Break Ground 8 months 8 months 8 months (8/95) (8/95) (8/95) Start Concrete Foundation 12 months 12 months 12 months i (12/95) (12/95) (12/95) i Complete Test Plan 24 months 38 months 46 months l (12/96) (2/98) (10/98) Begin Preoperational Tests 30 months 44 months 53 months (6/97) (8/98) (5/99) ] Receive Centrifuge Machine 31 months 48 months 57 months (7/97) (12/98) (9/99) l 1 Start Installation of 37 months 51 months 60 months l 4 Centrifuge Machines (1/98) (3/99) (12/99) Operational Test 38 months 48 months 57 months C. (2/98) (12/98) (9/99) f Receipt of UF6 40 months (4/98) Begin Operational Tests 42-months 51 months 60 months i (6/98) (3/99) '(12 / 99 ) l Production Begins (as 45 months 54 months 63 months cascades are brought on line individually) (9/98) (6/99) (3/2000) l Commercial Operation at 54 months 63 months 72 months Nominal Rated Output (6/99) (3/2000) (12/2000)

This schedule is based on fixed intervals beginning with receipt j

of the Construction / Operation permit. If the permit date is 1 revised, subsequent dates are also revised by the number of months indicated for each milestone. Dates shown in parentheses are based on the scheduled permit receipt date of December 1994. J

- Not Applicable

{ October 1993 )

-n TABLE OF CONTENTS ,. /* - 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING 4 -. 4 -1: ^ 4.4.1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND POLICIES 4.4-2 4.4.1.1 Decommissioning Desion Features-4.4-2 4.4.1.2 Administrative Policies 4.4 - I 4.4.2 DECOMMISSIONING STEPS 4.4-5 4.4.2.1 Overview 4.4-5 4.4.2.2 Decontamination Facility Construction 4.4-6 4.4.2.3 System Cleaning -4.4-7 4.4.2.4 Dismantlinq ~4.4-7 1 4.4.2.5 Decontamination 4.4-7 4.4.2.6 Sale /Salvace '4.4-10 4.4.2.7 Disposal 4.4-11 4.4.2.8 Final Radiation Survey 4.4-12 4.4.3 DECOMMISSIONING EESULTS 4.4-12' k 4.4.3.1 ' Environmental Consecuences 4.4-12 l 4.4.3.2 Post-Decommissioning Site and-Facilities 4.4-14 { 4.4.3.3 Lona Term Land Use 4.4-14 4.4.4 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS AND FUNDING 4.4-14 i 4.4'4.1 Decommissioning Costs 4.4-15 4.4.4.2 Fundinc Arrangements 4.4-18 l .t I t f ~! i i i f I 4.4-i October 1993 l

4 . LIST OF TABLES l 4. 4 -1. Items for Decontamination at Decomtnissioning -4.4-2 Estimated Decommissioning and Tails Disposition Costs 5 & Duration ' i i l I I 2 a i i - t - 1 I m

LIST OF FIGURES. O i i 4.4-1 Radiation. Control 2.ones -j I 2 J l .4.j i 'I 1 e I 4 4' e I I t -- l i f ? i } i .i i l l l l J J l ? i l .4.4-iii October 1993 1 I

4.4 DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING ./ At the end of useful plant life, the LES Claiborne Enrichment Center (CEC) will be decommissioned such that the site and facilities may be released for unrestricted use. Enrichment equipment will be removed; only building shells and the site i infrastructure will remain. All remaining facilities will be decontaminated where needed to acceptable levels for unrestricted use. Confidential and Secret Restricted Data material, components, and documents will be destroyed / disposed of in accordance with the LES CEC Security Plan for the Protection of Classified Matter and Information. Depleted UF (tails), if not 6 already sold or disposed of prior to decommissioning, will be sold, or will be converted to a stable, non-volatile uranium compound and disposed of in accordance with regulatory requirements. Radioactive wastes will be disposed of in licensed low-level waste disposal sites. Hazardous wastes will be treated or disposed of in licensed hazardous waste facilities. Neither tails conversion (if done', nor disposal of radioactive or hazardous material will occur at the plant site, but at licensed facilities located elsewhere. Following decommissioning, no part of the facilities or site will remain restricted to any specific type of use. l Activities required for decommissioning have been identified, and decommissioning costs have been estimated. Activities and costs are based on actual operating experience. Urenco has a fully operational dismantling and decontamination facility at its Almelo plant; data and experience from this operating facility have allowed a very realistic estimation of decommissioning requirements. Using the cost data as a basis, financial arrangements are made to cover all costs required for returning the site to unrestricted use. Updates on cost and funding will be provided periodically. A more detailed LES CEC plan for completion of decommissioning will be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR Part 70.38 at or about the time of license termination. The remaining subsections describe decommissioning plans and policies, steps to be taken at the end of plant life, the results of decommissioning, and the overall decommissioning costs and funding. The information here was developed in connection with the decommissioning cost estimate and is provided for information. Specific elements of the planning may change with the submittal of the decommissioning plan required at the tipe of license termination. ) 4.4-1 October 1993

J r i 4.4.1 DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND POLICIES ( l The plan for decommissioning is to promptly decontaminate or remove all materials from the site which prevent release of the facility for unrestricted use. This approach, referred to in the industry as DECON, avoids long-term storage'and monitoring of wastes on site..For this reason it is the preferred alternative for decommissioning. (The other industry methods, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB, require storage and monitoring of wastes, primarily due to highly radioactive materials left on site. The type and. i amount of wastes produced at the CEC do not warrant delays in j waste removal.) This section provides details of implementing the DECON approach. Decommissioning planning begins with incorporating special design i features into the plant. These features will simplify eventual dismantling and decontamination. The plans are implemented using proper management and health and safety programs. I Decommissioning policies _also address radioactive and hazardous waste management, physical security, and material control and accountability. Each of these planning and policy areas is j discussed in the-remainder of this section. 4.4.1.1 Decommissioning Desian Features Specific features are incorporated into the facility design which accommodate decontamination and decommissioning required to implement DECON. The major features are described below. l 4.4.1.1.1 Radioactive Contamination Control l The following features minimize _the spread of radioactive contamination during operation and therefore simplify' eventual I plant decommissioning. (As a result, worker exposure to radiation, and radioactive waste volumes are minimized as well.) a. Certain activities during normal operation are expected to result in surface and airborne radioactive contamination. Specially designed rooms are provided for these activities to preclude contamination spread. These rooms are isolated from l other areas and are provided with ventilation and filtration. A Pump Disassembly Room and a Contaminated Workroom meet these specific design requirements. (See Figure 3.3-9, Separations Building Floor Plan, for room locations.) i b. All areas of the plant are-sectioned off into clean areas and potentially contaminated areas. The potentially contaminated .l areas are called Radiation Control Areas (RCAs) and have access control requirements. Areas actually contaminated are called { Radiation Control Zones (RCZs). These RCZs have additional i access controls, and a number-of requirements are imposed on work procedures for contamination control. The boundaries of 4.4-2 October 1993

s permanent RCAs and RCZs in the Separations Building are shown in l . / Figure 4.4-1, Radiation Control Zones. All procedures for these areas fall under the health physics program, and serve to i minimize the spread of contamination and simplify eventual' decommissioning. l c. Non-radioactive process equipment and systems are minimized-i in locations subject to contamination. This limits the size of the RCZs, and limits the activities occurring inside these areas. t d. Local air filtration is provided for areas with potential airborne contamination to preclude its spread. Portable ventilation units and fume hoods filter contaminated air in these areas. e. Curbing, pits, or other barriers are provided around tanks i and components which contain radioactive wastes. These serve to control contamination spread in case of a spill. { 4.4.1.1.2 Worker Exposure and Waste Volume Control l The following features help minimize worker exposure to radiation 1 and minimize radioactive waste volumes during decontamination -i activities. (As a result, the spread of contamination is minimized as well). a. During construction, a washable epoxy coating is applied to j -floors and walls that are expected to be radioactively i contaminated during operation. The coating will serve to lower l waste volume during decontamination and simplify the decontamination process. The coating is applied to all floors and walls in the Radiation Control Areas. (See Figure 4.4-1 for the Separations Building RCA boundaries). I b. Sealed nonporous pipe insulation is used in areas likely to j be contaminated. This will reduce waste volume during [ decommissioning. c. Ample access is provided for efficient equipment dismantling j and removal of equipment that may be contaminated. This minimizes the time of worker exposure. i d. Tanks are provided with accesses for entry and t decontamination. Design provisions are also made to allow complete draining of the wastes contained in the tanks. l f e. Connections in the process systems are provided for thorough purging at plant shutdown. This will remove a significant portion of radioactive contamination prior to disassembly. I 4 4.4-3 October 1993 l t i 9

.) 1 1 f. Design drawings, produced for all areas of_the plant, will. simplify the planning and implementing of decontamination procedures. This in turn will shorten the durations that wori-Je .c are exposed to radiation. l g. Worker access to contaminated areas is controlled to assure I that workers wear proper protective equipment and limit their. time in the areas. j l 4.4.1.2 Administrative Policies } 4.4.1.2.1 Management / Organization j Management of the decommissioning program will assure that proper j training and procedures are provided to assure worker health and safety. The programs will focus heavily on minimizing waste i volumes and worker exposure to hazardous or radioactive materials. Qualified contractors assisting with decommissioning will likewise be subject to CEC training requirements and procedural controls. I 4.4.1.2.2 Health and Safety f 9 As with normal operation, the policy during decommissioning shall be to keep individual and collective occupational radiation -j exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). A health physics program will identify and control sources of radiation, establish worker protection requirements, and direct the use.of survey and monitoring instruments. l i 4.4.1.2.3 Waste Management j I Rad 1 active and hazardous. wastes produced during decommissioning will be collected, handled, and disposed of_in accordance with j regulations applicable to the CEC at the time of decommissioning. Generally, procedures will be similar to those required for wastes produced during normal operation. These wastes will. l ultimately be disposed of in licensed radioactive or hazardous waste disposal facilities located elsewhere. Non-hazardous and I non-radioactive wastes will be disposed of in a manner' consistent with good industrial practice, and in accordance with applicable j regulations. l 4.4.1.2.4 Security / Material Control l i Requirements for physical security and for material control and accountability will be maintained as required during decommissioning in a manner similar to the programs in force during operation. The LES CEC plan for completion of i decommissioning, submitted near the end of plant life, will 'l provide a description of any necessary revisions.to these programs. 4.4-4 October 1993 -I 1

4.4.1.2.5 Record Keeping ) "UI Records importsut foi safe and ef 2ective decutignissioning of the facility shall be kept in LES files. Information maintained in these records includes: a. Records of spills or other unusucl occurrences involving the j spread of contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or

site, b.

As-built drawingc and modifications of structures and j equipment in areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored, including locations which possibly could be inaccessible, and j c. Records of the cost estimate performed for the l decommissioning funding plan, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds. 4.4.2 DECOMMISSIONING STEPS Implementation of the DECON alternative for decommissioning may begin immediately following final shutdown, because only low radiation levels exist at this facility. Overall, the DECON alternative is estimated to require approximately seven years l l from plant shutdown to completion of the final radiation survey. The order of activities to support decommissioning will generally ) O, be: installation of decontamination facilities, process system purging, equipment dismantling and removal, decontamination, i destruction of Confidential and Secret Restricted Data material,- l sale of salvage, disposal of wastes, and completion of a final radiation survey. The next paragraphs provide an overview and i explanation of each of the steps in more detail. i 4.4.2.1 Overview i Decommissioning, using the DECON approach, requires residual i radioactivity to be reduced below acceptable levels so the facilities may be released for unrestricted use. Current Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards guidelines for release serve as the basis for decontamination costs estimated herein. Portions of the facility which do not exceed contamination limits may remain as is. The intent of decommissioning the CEC is to remove all enrichment-related equipment from the buildings such that only the building shells and site infrastructure remain. The removed equipment includes: all piping and components from systems providing UF containment, systems in direct support of i 6 enrichment (such as refrigerant and chilled water), radioactive and hazardous waste handling systems, contaminated HVAC t i-filtration systems, etc. The remaining site infrastructure will include services such as electrical power supply, treated water, l t 4-4 4.4-5 October 1993 t i t

1 I fire protection, HVAC, plant cooling water, communications, and ) sewage treatment. Decontamination of plant components and structures will require installation of two new facilities dedicated for that purpose. j Existing plant buildings are assumed to house the facilities. One facility will be capecially designed to accommodate repctitive cleaning of thousands of centrifuges, and the other will serve as a general purpose facility used primaril'y for larger components. The two new facilities will be the primary location for decontamination activities. The small i decontamination area in the Separations Building TSA, used during normal operation, may also handle small items at decommissioning. Decontaminated components may be reused or sold as scrap. All equipment that is to be reused or sold as scrap will be decontaminated to a level at which further use is unrestricted. Table 4.4-1, Items for Decontamination at Decommissioning, lists all major items on the site expected to require decontamination. Materials which cannot be decontaminated will be disposed of in a radioactive waste disposal facility. tails still on site will be removed from the site at Any UF6 decommissioning. Depending on technological developments occurring prior to plant shutdown, the tails may have become marketable for further enrichment or other processes.

However,

(~ funding provisions are made to dispose of the tails should that become necessary. Contaminated portions of the buildings will be decontaminated as

required, Structural contamination should be limited to the l

areas indicated on Figure 4.4-1 as being inside the Radiation Control Zones of the plant. The remainder of the site, including the Hold-Up Basin and all land area, is not expected to require decontamination. (Good housekeeping practices during normal operation will maintain the other areas clean.) When decontamination is complete all areas and facilities on the site will be surveyed to verify further decontamination is not required. Decontamination activities will continue until the entire site is demonstrated to be suitable for unrestricted use. 4.4.2.2 Deconts.mination Facility Construction New facilities for decontamination can be installed in existing plant buildings to avoid unnecessary expense. Estimated time for installation is approximately one year following plant shutdown. Details of the facilities are provided below in Section 4.4.2.5 with the discussion of the decontamination process. 4.4-6 October 1993 4

=. _. _ f 4.4.2.3 System Cleanina At the end of the useful life of the facility, the enrichment l process is shutdown and UFs is removed to the fullest extent l possible by normal process operation. This is.followed by evacuation and purging with nitrogen. This shutdown and purging portion of the decommissioning process is estimated to take i approximately three months. l f 4.4 2.4 Dismantlina j Dismantling is simply a matter of cutting out, disconnecting, etc., all components requiring removal. The operations I themselves are simple but very labor intensive. They generally require the use of protective clothing. The work process will be optimized, considering the following: l I a. Minimizing contamination spread and the need for protective

clothing, b.

Balancing the number of cutting and removal operations with the resultant decontamination and disposal requirements, l c. Optimizing the rate of dismantling with the rate of decontamination facility throughput, l d. Providing storage and laydown space required, as impacted by retrievability, criticality safety, security, etc., and l e. Balancing the cost of decontamination and salvage with the cost of disposal. Details of the complex optimization process will necessarily be decided near the end of plant life, taking into accc.mt apcpific contamination levels, market conditions, and available waste disposal sites. To avoid laydown space and contamination problems, dismantling should be allowed to proceed generally no faster than the downstream decontamination process. The time frame to accomplish both dismantling and decontamination is estimated to be approximately three years. 4.4.2.5 Decontamination i The facilities, procedures, and expected results of decontamination are described in the paragraphs below. Table 4.4-1 lists major components and structures expected to need decontamination on site. Complete decontamination of the plant is estimated to require three years to complete. Since reprocessed uranium will not be used as feed in the CEC, no consideration of U232, transuranic alpha-emitters and fission product residues is necessary for the decontamination process. 4.4-7 October 1993- ~

Only contamination from U238, U235, U234, and their' daughter products will require handling by decontamination processes. The 1 \\- primary contaminant throughout the plant will be in the form of UO F, with much-smaller amounts of UF, and other compounds. [ 2 2 4.4.2.5.1 Facilities i i Two decontamination facilities will be required to accommodate. I decommissioning. A specialized facility is needed for optimal handling of the thousands of centrifuges to be decontaminated, } along with the UFs pumps and valves. Additionally, a general f purpose facility is needed for handling the remainder of the i various plant components. These facilities are assumed to be installed in existing plant buildings (such as the Centrifuge Assembly Building). The specialized facility will have four functional areas: a-disassembly area, a buffer stock area, a decontamination area, and a scrap storage area for cleaned stock. The general purpose facility may share the specialized facility decontamination area. However, due to handling needs for various sizes and shapes of i other plant components, the disassembly area, buffer stock areas and scrap storage areas may not be shared. i Equipment in the decontamination facilities is assumed to l include: a. Transport and maaipulation equipment, { b. Dismantling tables, for centrifuge externals, j c. Sawing machines, d. Dismantling boxes and tanks, for centrifuge internals, 3 e. Degreasers, ) f. Citric acid and demineralized water baths, 1 g. Contamination monitors, 4 h. Wet blast cabinet, i. Crusher, for centrifuge rotors, i j. Smelting and/or shredding equipment, and k. Scrubbing facility. The decontamination facilities provided in the Technical Services Area for normal operational needs would also be available for cleaning small items during decommissioning. 4.4-8 October 1993 l .m -.e, -m .y- .-t- '7T- ++

4.4.2.5.2 Procedure Procedures.for decontamination will be developed and approved by plant managerant to minimize worker exposure and waste volumes, and to assure that work is carried out in a safe manner. The experience of decommissioning European gas centrifuge enrichment facilities will be incorporated extensively into.the procedures. 1 At the end of plant life, some of the equipment, most of the buildings, and all of the outdoor areas should already be acceptable for release for unrestricted use. If they are accidentally contaminated during normal operation they would be cleaned up when the contamination is discovered. -This limits the scope of necessary decontamination at the time of decommissioning. { Contaminated plant components will be cut up or dismantled and j processed through the decontamination facilities. Contamination of site structures will be limited to specific Radiation Control Zones in the Separations Building, and will be maintained at low I levels throughout plant operation by regular cleaning. Included j as permanent RCZs are the Contaminated Equipment Workshop, the i Decontamination Workshop, the Contaminated Workroom, and a j portion of the Laundry Room. Due to applied coatings and good j housekeeping practices, final decontamination of these areas is j assumed not to require significant removal of surface concrete or j other structural material. { l The centrifuges will be processed through the specialized facility with the following operations performed: j a. Removal of external fittings, b. Removal of bottom flange, motor and bearings, and collection j of contaminated oil, i I c. Removal of top flange, withdrawal and disassembly of internals, i I d. Degreasing of items as required, i e. Decontamination of all recoverable items for smelting, and f. Destruction of other classified portions by shredding, crushing, smelting, etc. J 4.4.2.5.3 Results i As Urenco plant experience in Europe has demonstrated, conventional decontamination techniques are entirely effective for all plant items. All recoverable items will be decontaminated and suitable for reuse except for a very small 4.4-9 October 1993

Ig amount of intractably contaminated material. Material requiring j disposal will primarily'be centrifuge rotor fragments,. trash, and i residue from the effluent treatment systems. No problems are anticipated which will prevent the site from being released-for unrestricted use. 4.4.2.6 Sale /Salvace 1 Items to be removed from the facilities can be categorized ~as i potentially re-usable equipment, recoverable scrap,.and wastes. I However, based on a.30-year facility operating life, operating-equipment is not assumed to have reuse value. Wastes will also have no salvage value. j i With respect to scrap, a significant amount of aluminum will be l recovered, along with smaller amounts of steel, copper, and other j metals. For security and convenience'these materials will likely j be smelted into standard ingots, then sold at market price. j Estimated salvage recovery values total $7.9 million (1996 l dollars). This total is based only on the large amount of aluminum which will be recovered from centrifuges and UFs pipework. Salvage of aluminum contrasts with salvaging more specialized assets of decommissioned facilities subject to obsolesence, such as various items of operating equipment. j fa Urenco experience at their Almelo facility justifies the O inclusion of salvage value for the CEC. Aluminum has been reclaimed from the-decommissioning of two pilot plants. j Centrifuges and other equipment containing aluminum were dismantled, further cut up into small pieces, decontaminated, and l sent off-site to a smelter. Of 798 tons of aluminum delivered to the smelter, 710 tons were suitable for resale. (The remaining i . Slag was disposed of as non-radioactive waste.) -The aluminum for resale contained between 2 and 4 ppm uranium. The sale price of j the aluminum has generally been between 75% and 85% of the j European spot market price. In 1990, in The Netherlands, the i price was approximately 2.5 guilders ($1.39) per kilogram of aluminum. i It is intended that recovered aluminum from the CEC will be i decontaminated, processed through a smelter, and sold as secondary aluminum ingots on the market. Decontamination and smelting is a simple and relatively inexpensive process, the cost of which is not significantly affected by normally changing economic conditions. Hence, the cost of processing the aluminum for sale should not result in a situation in which expected salvage credits are not fully realized. 1 O 4.4-10 October 1993 i

i f Additionally, secondary aluminum is consistently sellable in U.S. .[4 - and worldwide markets. U.S. Department of Interior data shows a T steady trend of secondary aluminum taking a larger and larger i share of' aluminum production, from 4 - 5% in the 1960s to over 15% in the latter 1980s. Additionally, in 1988, U.S. aluminum f supply / consumption data shows over two mf' lion metric tons of secondary aluminum consumed in the U.S., with over a million tons' of this from "old scrap" aluminum. (Reference 4) This data, as well as other information in the reference, also demonstrates 4 that allowing for the salvage value of aluminum will not result l in a situation in which expected salvage credits are not fully realized. Nevertheless, no credit for salvage value is presently taken in the decommissioning cost estimate. (See also Reference 7). l d 4.4.2.7 Disposal I All wastes produced during decommissioning will be collected, handled, and disposed o# in a manner similar to that described l for those wastes produced during normal operation. Wastes will i consist of normal industrial trash, non-hazardous chemicals and fluids, small amounts of hazardous materials, and radioactive wastes. The radioactive waste will primarily be crushed centrifuge rotors, trash, and citric cake. Citric cake consists of uranium and metallic compounds precipitated from citric acid decontamination solutions. It is estimated that approximately 100 cubic meters of radioactive waste will be generated over the five-year decommissioning operation. (This waste is subject to further volume reduction processes prior to disposal.) l P Radioactive wastes will ultimately be disposed of in licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Hazardous i wastes will be disposed of in hazardous waste disposal facilities. Non-hazardous and non-radioactive wastes will be disposed of in a manner consistent with good industrial practice and in accordance with all applicable regulations. A' complete estimate of the wastes and effluent to be produced during i decommissioning will be provided in the LES CEC plan for completion of decommissioning, to be submitted near the end-of license termination. f Any UF tails still on site will be removed from the site at I decommissioning. Depending on technological developments prior to plant shutdown, the tails may have become marketable for further enrichment or other processes. Since this is not { assured, funding arrangements have been made to dispose of the i tails. Tails disposal would be accomplished in accordance with all applicable regulations. The UFs conversion and disposal j options will vary. Conversion and disposal would be accomplished i at non-LES facilities elsewhere. The UF would be converted to a 6 stable, non-volatile uranium compound prior to disposal. i i \\ 4.4-11 October 1993

i Confidential and Secret Restricted Data components and documents { O on site shall be disposed of in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part.05. Such classified portions of the centrifuges. will be destroyed, piping will likely be smelted, documents will be destroyed,-and other items will handled in an appropriate manner. Details will be provided in the LES CEC Security Plan i for the Protection of Classified Matter and Information, submitted separately in.accordance with 10 CFR Part 95. 4.4.2.8 Final Radiation Survey A final radiation survey must be perforraed to verify proper decontamination to allow the site to be released'for unrestricted i use. The evaluation of the final radiation survey is based in + part on an initial radiation survey performed prior to operation. l The initial survey determines the natural background radiation of' the area; therefore it provides a datum for measurements which determine any increase in levels of radioactivity. The final survey will systenatically measure radioactivity over the entire site. The intensity of the survey will vary depending on the location (i.e., the buildings, the immediate area around the buildings, the controlled fenced area, and the remainder.of the site). The survey procedures and results will be documented in a report. The' report will include, among other things, a map of the survey site, measurement results, and the site's relationship to the surrounding area. The results will be analyzed and shown to be below allowable residual radioactivity i limits, o) 'arther decontamination will be performed. 4.4.3 DECOMMISSIONING RESULTS The results of decommissioning are presented below, including the impact on the environment, the final condition of the land and facilities, and the long-term use of the land. j 4.4.3.1 Environmental Consecuences The impact of lecommissioning on the environment can best be understood j omparing decommissioning activities with operating i activiti ,m ay noting the condition of.the site and surround a lead when decommissioning is complete. ag differs from operation in areas of resource Decommis; e consumption, type and amount of effluents and wastes, and duration of activities. a The consumption of electric power and water changes significantly once decommissioning begins. Electric power usage drops i dramatically due to plant shutdown, and water usage will increase to accommodate decontamination processes. The increase in water ( usage will occur primarily during years two through four of the five-year decommissioning program, when decontamination is-4.4-12 October 1993 i k i

t 1 i performed. (See Table 4.4-2, Estimated-D'ecommissioning Costs and I Duration, for.an estimated schedule for each major decommissioning step. The first year is taken with shutdown, facility installation, and dismantling and the final year is spent' performing the final radiation survey). Plant thermal, liquid, and gaseous effluents also change significantly during decommissioning. The thermal effluents.will become insignificant once the plant is shut down. On the other hand, the portion of liquid effluent resulting from decontamination processes will show a marked increase. Primarily f this effluent will result from use of citric acid baths for decontamination. (Once citric acid bath solution is spent, the 1 uranium, heavy metals, and other contaminants are removed as required. Evaporation or other processing of the liquid effluent will assure radioactivity is within 5% of the 10 CFR 20 liquid effluent discharge limits.) Gaseous effluent volume drops slightly during decommissioning since the process off-gas inputs to the stack are shut down. Since no UFs is being processed during decommissioning, there are no longer trace amounts of UFs or HF in the effluent stream.- The only significant amount of gaseous effluent during decommissioning is clean air from HVAC systems. Waste production during decommissioning will change as well. The most significant waste categories during decommissioning will O include crushed centrifuge rotors, normal trash, and uranium-containing " citric cake" from the citric acid baths. Annual radioactive solid waste volumes produced.during the decontamination phase of decommissioning (years two through four) have been estimated. The volume of total radioactive waste these three years is found to be roughly equal to radioactive solid waste volumes produced during normal operation. Radioactive wastes in the first and last year of decommissioning should be much lower than during normal operation. At the close of decommissioning the site and surrounding land is returned to unrestricted access. During the course of operation l the land area will have returned to its natural state. This will be an improvement for plant and animal life since prior to operation the land had been regularly logged. Wildlife and l natural vegetation should be abundant. Plant decommissioning will leave behind an excellent industrial facility-surrounded by several hundred acres-of land in its natural state. l t 4.4.3.2 Post-Decommissionino Site and Facilities The LES property, which is approximately 442 acres, is divided [ into two areas. The CEC facility is located on a 70-acre section, and the remainder of the acreage is restricted for C public access with no industrial use. l 4.4-13 October 1993 l i l

J 'Following decommissioning,.the_70-acre area will retain its .[- infrastructure and will serve as an ideal facility for another i industry. The site buildings and roads will_be retained for~ reuse. A number of systems will remain as well to support the facility. These systems include treated water, fire protection, .HVAC,-plant cooling water, sewage treatment, communications, and electrical power supply. However, a majority of the systems and equipment in the CEC facilities is uniquely.related to the enrichment process, and will be removed. Removed items will include the centrifuges, all UF, process piping and equipment, [ certain cooling water systems, refrigeration systems, radioactive and hazardous waste handling equipment and piping,. contaminated i HVAC filtration systems, UFs cylinder handling equipment, and. other miscellaneous systems and components. All hazardous and i radioactive materials will-be removed from the site. The lake i and pond on the site will be clean and will support populations. of fish and other wildlife in the area. Overall, the decommissioned facility will be in excellent condition and will I be an asset to the area. l The land surrounding the 70-acre CEC site will have restricted public access during normal operation, and so will return to its natural state. As discussed in the previous section, the land will have improved over the course of plant operation such that wildlife should be abundant and the natural vegetation should be [ thriving. 4.4.3.3 Lona Term Land Use Following decommissioning, no restrictions will exist on the long l term use of the land. Operation of the CEC will not cause any [ land to be irretrievably committed for any specific use. Residual radioactive contamination will be within the safe limits specified in applicable regulations for the protection of the health and safety of the'public and the environment. Specific l plans for lease, sale, or other use'of the land will be determined near the end of plant life. 1 4.4.4 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS AND FUNDING l This section provides an estimation of decommissioning costs, and j explains the arrangements made.to assure funding is available to l cover these costs. j 4.4.4.1 Decommissioninc Costs a Table 4.4-2, Estimated Decommissioning Costs and Duration, provides a summary listing of the costs of the major decommissioning activities described above in Section 4.4.2. All a costs are in 1996 dollars. As shown in the table, the estimated l total cost is $518.34 m!.llion. Costs rre anticipated to change l 4.4-14 October 1993 ~ t

'I k between the time of license application and decommissioning. The cost estimate will be adjusted periodically consistent with the \\ requirements of 10 CFR Part 70.25 (e) and the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.159. Louisiana Energy Services' evaluation of decommissioning costs included an evaluation of current experience by one of the general partners in the project, Urenco, Ltd., at similar facilities in Europe. Appropriate adjustments have been made to account for cost differences associated with the performance of .i specific activities in the. United States and escalated to $1996.- l-Costs are estimated as explained below: } Facility and Site Characterization 0.22 million This is based upon Urenco's on-going experience in the decommissioning of gaseous centrifuge enrichment facilities. l NRC Review of Facility and Site Characterization 0.05 million j This is based upon the costs incurred to date by the NRC to review the LES license application. Decommissioning Plan Development 0.22 million i gerience in developing and This is based upon LES' submitting NRC required information. 1 NRC Review and Approval of f Decommissioning Plan 0.05 million l i This is based upon the costs incurred to date by the l NRC to review the LES license application. i Idle Time Before Decommissioning $ 1.0 million This is based on a 6-month delay between cessation of operations and start of decommissioning activities. 1 i Decontamination Facility Installation + System Cleaning i Dismantling r Decontamination $ 23.1 million [ i This is based upon over ten year's of Urenco experience decommissioning two pilot uranium enrichment centrifuge facilities at the Almelo enrichment facility in the -Netherlands. 4.4-15 October 1993 f i 1

i Decontamination / Decommissioning of Decontamination Facility 1.9 million This is based upon the size of the decontamination facility and an independent estimate provided by Naylor Industrial Services, Inc., transmitted by letter dated September 11, 1990. t I Radioactive Waste Disposal $ 1.4 million l - t This assumes 100 m' O $350 per f t', in 1992 dollars escalated in 1996 dollars. This cost of disposal is l estimated specifically for radioactive waste disposal i in the Central States Compact. (References 5 and 6) (The Urenco estimate of 200 m of low-level waste in 3 the cited reference was reduced by half due to a closer i look at solid arisings from the decontamination process. A facsimile from Urenco's Almelo facility, 23 August, 1990, provides an estimate of 2 m' of " citric cake" arisings. This " citric cake" was considered in the Urenco cost estimate as a major portion of the low-l level solid wastes from decommissioning; thus, it was l 2 concluded the estimate of 200 m was high.) i Hazardous / Mixed Waste Disposal 0.1 million l j ) Decontamination and decommissioning processes, as described in this section, do not result in the i production of hazardous or mixed wastes for disposal. l Normal accumulation of hazardous and mixed wastes will occur during the final months of CEC operation. The - i volume of these final wastes, not due to D&D activities, are estimated to be approximately l equivalent to the annual amounts listed in the CEC Environment Report, Table 3.3-8. Tails Disposal $ 485.3 million The annual tails disposal cost is estimated to be $16.175 million. This is multiplied by 30 years to arrive at the $485.3 million figure. Costs are based on converting UF, to U 0, with subsequent disposal in a 3 facility under cognizance of the NRC. Uf 0, conversion-l 3 costs are based on estimates by a vendor.which could- ) make this service available to LES. Disposal costs'are: l based on References 8 & 9. The conversion and disposal i costs are added and escalated to 1996 dollars. The disposition of tails from the CEC, including potential disposition at the end of facility operation, is an element of authorized normal operating 4.4-16 October 1993 l ,v r w -,e,w-r- + -, ~ - w

P activities. It involves neither decommissioning waste (~ nor is it a part of decommissioning activities. The \\s)} disposal of these tails is analogous to the disposal of l radioactive materials generated in the course of normal operations (even including spent fuel in the case of a power reactor), which is authorized by the operating' license and subject to separate disposition requirements (i.e., requirements such as reflected ini 10 CFR Part.20). Such costs are not appropriately included in decommissioning costs'(this principle (in the Part 50 context) is discussed in Regulatory Guide l 1.159, Section 1.4.2, page 1.159-8). Further, the " tails" products from the CEC are not mill tailings, as regulated pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act, as amended (42 USC 7901, et seq) e and 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, and are not' subject to e the financial requirements applicable to mill tailings. j Nevertheless, LES intends to provide during facility life for expected tails disposition costs (even assuming ultimate disposal as waste). Funds to cover these costs, estimated at $16.175 million per equivalent years of tails production, will be set aside during the operating life of the CEC. Accordingly, l tails disposition costs are now explicitly reflected in i the funding table (SAR Table 11.8-2, ER Table 4.4-2), which reflect both decommissioning funding and the separate matter of contingent end-of-life tails. disposition funding. i Final Radiation Survey $ 1.5 million l This figure was estimated by two methods, as follows: 1) The first method is by extrapolation from ' Technology and Cost of Termination Surveys Associated i With Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities", NUREG 6 2241, February, 1982. The 1980 costs of decommissioning a fuel fabrication facility and a UFs j production facility were escalated at 5% per year to 1990. The higher of the two costs, fealculated for-a 1 [ mrem and a 5 mrem dose to the public), were selected and then averaged, for a total of $750,000. Further escalation brings the cost to-$950,000. l 2) The second estimate was roughly approximated at f $725,000 in 1990 dollars, and is escalated to 1996 dollars. The estimate was based on experience, using the following assumptions: j 12,000 hours for grid of property and gamma count i $23,000 for soil sampling 4.4-17 October 1993 e i

i 1 150 core holes for depth profile . Building' size of 750' x 380'- Workhour rate, including per diem, $60/ hour Extensive use'of swipes: Final analyses and report included Based upon the costs incurred to date to review the LES license application, the cost of the NRC's confirmatory { survey of the facility and site following the final radiation survey is $0.5 million. i i Contingency 3.5 million j i A contingency of $ 3.5 million has been added to the estimate to account for. unanticipated costs. This is i based on the fact that LES will be updating the decommissioning cost estimate at least once every five years. Therefore, a larger contingency is not l warranted. Total Estimate $ 518.34 million l 4.4.4.2 Funding Arrangements The funds for decommissioning the facility will be provided in the form of a surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method as required by 10 CFR Part 40.36 (e) and 10 CFR Part 70.25 (f). The selected guarantee method is described in the decommissioning funding plan which is presented in the CEC License Application. i As a part of this plan, methods are described for periodic ) adjustments in the cost estimate, and resulting necessary i adjustments to the funding method. l t Y

i

!y r 6 i l 4.4-18 October 1993 l l i

i REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.4 f (, ) 1. LES CEC Depleted UF, Disposition Study, September, 1990, prepared by Duke Engineering and Services, Inc. l 2. Depleted' Uranium Hexafluoride Management Study, October 1, 1991, prepared by Duke Engineering and Services, Inc. 3. Decommissioning and Decontamination of a USJVC Plant, USPDC -l (89)97, 27 April, 1989, prepared by Urenco, j r 4. Minerals Yearbook, Volume I, " Metals and Minerals," U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Published annually. 5. Duke Engineering & Services, Inc. Telephone Conversation. f Report, John Etheridge of Entergy, June 17, 1992, DE&S File l No. 6046-00-1901.00. 6. Duke Engineering & Services, Inc., Telephone Conversation Report, Rich Patton of US Ecology, June 18, 1992, DE&S File No. 6046-00-1901.00. 7. .LES letter to NRC (P. 7 LeRoy to John W.N. Hickey) dated j June 30, 1993, " Disp.ition of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride," DE&S 'le No. 6046-00-2001.01. 8. NRC letter to LES (John W.N. Hickey to W.H. Arnold) dated j June 14, 1993, DE&S File No. 6046-00-2001.01. 9. "The Ultimate Disposition of Depleted Uranium," Martin j Marietta, December 1990. 10. Decommissioning, letter from F.A. Stockschlader, Urenco Netherlands to P.C. Upson, Urenco Ltd., June 3, 1993. DE&S File No. 6046-00-2002.02, received September.14, 1993. i 11. NRC letter to LES (John W. N. Hickey to Peter G. LeRoy) dated September 27, 1993. DE&S File No. 6046-00-2001.01. 12. LES letter to NRC (Peter G. LeRoy to John W. N. Hickey) l dated September 30, 1993. DE&S File No. 6046-00-2001.01. l O 4 4-19 October 1993 j i

i TABLE 4.4-1 (Page 1 of 2) ~ Itams for Decontzmination at Decommissioning 4 Category Description Quantity Pumps Vent vacuum pumps 43 Process vacuum pumps 198 Waste disposal pumps 18 I Centrifuges Aluminum (tons) 5000 Piping Aluminum, some steel 280 (tons) Gaseous Diameter 2 14" (ft) 700 effluent Diameter 8 to 12" (ft) 500 piping /ductwork Diameter 5 6" (ft) 10,000 HVAC TSA ductwork (length, ft) 400 Filter housing (7'x7'x17') 3 f () Bldg surfaces Floors and walls ( f t') 10,000 Valves Process valves 2500 Traps Chemical traps 28 Carbon traps 15 Activated alumina traps 61 Oil traps 49 ^ Sodium fluoride traps 42 Tanks Liquid waste tanks 18 Decontamination baths 4 i Effluent pits Plant unit and TSA pits 4 l i s \\- October 1993

TABLE 4.4-1 (Page 2 of 2) Items for Decontamination at Decommissioning Category Description Quantity Other equipment Desublimers 13 Cont. dump surge vessels 42 UFs sample rigs 6 Clothes washer 1 Clothes dryer 1 Degreasing units 2 Fomblin oil fume hood 1 Fomblin oil centrifuge 1 LWD dryer package 1 Dryer feed filter 1 LWD precipitation 1 () centrifuge Stillage 48" stillage 26 assembly 30" stillage 26 Final Centrifuge transporter 2-3 decontamination facility Centrifuge manipulator 2-3 F Centrifuge dismantling eq 1 (table /saw/ tank / box) Sawing machines 4 Degreasers 2 Decontamination tanks 6 Wet blast cabinet 1 Crusher 1 Smelter 1 i O October 1993 f

TABLE 4.4-2 i Estimated Decommissioning and Tails Disposition Costs & Duration Cost (Millions, Time Activity 1996 $s) _j[ (Yrs) Characterize CEC facility / site $ 0.22 0.50 NRC Staff review of 0.05 0.33 facility / site characterization ? Develop and submit to NRC 0.22 3.50 detailed decommissioning plan (c) NRC Staff review and approval of 0.05 0.33 decommissioning plan Idle time between cessation of 1.0 0.50 operations and start of decommissioning activities Decontamination Facility 23.10 4.00 Installation, System Cleaning, t Dismantling, Decontamination i Decontamination / Decommissioning 1.90 (a) O of Decontamination Facility Sale / Salvage 0.00 (a) j Radioactive Waste Disposal 1.40 (a) Hazardous / Mixed Waste Disposal 0.10 (a) Tails Disposition (b) 485.3 (a) LES Final Radiation Survey and 1.50 1.25 l NRC Confirmatory Survey Contingency 3.50 N/A [ t TOTALS $ 518.34 7.1 For related information, reference also the decommissioning funding plan contained in i the CEC License Application. (a) To be performed along with dismantling and decontamination. (b) Tails disposal costs are estimated to be $16.175 million per year of tails production. (c) Four months overlaps with NRC review of characterization. O October 1993 l

~ i TABLE OF' CONTENTS l q -l 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 6.1-1 { 6.1.1 WATER 6.1-1 i 6.1.1.1 Onsite Lakes and Ponds 6.1-1 ~ 6.1.1.2 Streams 6.1-2 -4 t 6.1.1.3 Groundwater .6.1-2 6.1.2 AIR 6.1-3 6.1.2.1 Meteorolooical Data 6.1-4 l 6.1.2.2 Air Ouality Data 6.1-5 6.1.3 LAND 6.1-6 6.1.3.1 Geoloav and soils 6.1-6 6.1.3.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys 6.1-6 6.1.4 BIOTA 6.1-7 6.1.4.1 Preoperational Programs--Vegetation 6.1-8 6.1.4.2 Preoperational Procram--Birds 6.1-9 j 6.1.4.3 Preoperational Procrams--Mammals 6.1-10 '6.1.4.4 Preoperational Procrams--Reptiles and Amphibians 6.1-10 l 6.1.4.5 Preoperational Procrams--Aguatics 6.1-10 6.1.5 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1-12 g 6.1.5.1 Summary of Baseline Radiological Data 6.1-12 .} 6.1.5.2 Overview of the Preoperational Radiological Monitorina Procram 6.1-12 i 6.1.5.3 Preoperational Radiological j j Monitoring Program 6.1-12 4 l -i .) ($) 6.1-1 October 1993 l 1

.m.. i 1 LIST-OF TABLES l t u 6.1-1 Major and Minor Habitats at the LES Site as Determined During Onsite Avian Surveys 6.1-2 Summary of Radiological Conditions Found at the Claiborne Parish Enrichment Site When Screening Measurements Were Performed Prior to the Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program 6.1-3 Preoperational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program 6.1-4 Lower Limits of Detection (LLD) For Radiological Environmental Monitoring Analyses 6.1-5 Reporting Levels for Environmental Analyses 6 i i i t ? l I i t O 6.1-ii October 1993 i I

~. -. i 6.1 APPLICANT'S PREOPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS } The purpose of the pre-operational ~ program was to identify the l physical, chemical and biological variables which were likely to l affect, or be affected by, the construction or operation of the l CEC. 6.1.1 WATER -i 6.1.1.1 Onsite Lakes and Ponds Physicochemical data were obtained from the centers of both Lake i Avalyn and Bluegill Pond during two sampling rounds (January 20, 1990 and May 23, 1990). Dissolved oxygen concentrations were measured at 1-ft intervals using a Yellow Springs Instrument (YSI) polarographic oxygen probe and meter (Model 54). Conductivity and temperature also were obtained at 1-foot intervals with a YSI S-C-T meter (Model 33). Water. samples for all other measurements were obtained from the surface only. l Total alkalinity was determined by titration with a weak acid j (Reference 1), pH was measured with an Orion portable pH meter, i and turbidity with a Hach ratio turbidimeter. During the first sampling event, total hardness was measured with a Hach portable hardness kit. During the second sampling event a 25 cm Secchi Disk was used to determine water transparency, and surface and l bottom samples were collected and analyzed for additional inorganic water chemistry parameters. The bottom samples were l collected using an acid-washed polypropylene horizontal water sampler. With the exception of the samples which were to be analyzed for nutrient and mineral content, all of.the water samples were treated with 5% acid solutions (either nitric or sulfuric acid) for preservation. The samples were subsequently analyzed using standard methods. For the purpose of qualitative analysis, four sediment samples were collected from both Lake Avalyn and Bluegill Pond. These were obtained from evenly spaced locations down the centers of the ponds using a Ponar Sediment Sampler. Each sample was described and photographed. 3 Bathymetric surveys were performed on. Lake Avalyn and Bluegill Pond in order to obtain volume estimates of these bodies of J water. Prior to the surveys, aerial photographs were studied and significant bank features were. identified. These features were l used as guides in establishing transects at approximately 200-I and 100-ft intervals across the.iidth of Lake Avalyn and Bluegill Pond, respectively. These transects were run using a Lawrence Model X15 depth recorder device attached to a boat. In addition, one length-wise transect was run along the center of both Lake Avalyn and the Bluegill Pond. Volume estimates were made between adjacent transects by averaging the cross sectional areas of the transects and then multiplying that by their 6.1-1 October 1993 i l

~' distance apart. The volume of the individual segments were then-added.to obtain a total volume estimate. Measurements of specific conductance, temperature., dissolved oxygen, pH, alkalinity and water level will be made onia-quarterly schedule of Lake Avalyn amd Bluegill Pond to'do'cument seasonal fluctuations prior to plant operation. 6.1.1.2 Streams Two rounds of stream monitoring were performed on and in the vicinity of the site (May 23, 1990 and July 25, 1990). After measuring the total width of and depth at regularly spaced intervals across the streams, the equal-width increment (EWI) method was used to calculate the cross-sectional areas. Where sufficient flow existed, a Mead Flow Meter was used to obtain velocity measurements also following the guidelines of the EWI method. However, at a majority of the locations (all of the onsite locations) flow was insufficient to obtain reliable-i velocity measurements with the flow meter. In these instances a velocity estimate was obtained by timing the uninhibited movement of a small stick across a relatively uniform 3-ft section.of the stream. l 6.1.1.3 Groundwater () Shallow groudwater beneath the LES property was investigated by installing monitoring wells on the property'between July 24 and i 31, 1990-(reference Section 2.5.2.3.1 and Figure 2.5-11). The j wells are 2 inch diameter and were drilled using a 6-1/4-in t hollow stem auger (3-1/4-in auger for the deep well). Geologic logs for each of the wells were produced based on split-spoon samples collected at 5-ft intervals. In addition, undisturbed samples of the stratigraphic unit screened in each well were collected using 2-1/2-ft Shelby-Tubes. These samples were analyzed for particle size distribution, bulk density,. porosity, and total organic carbon using standard methods. When undisturbed samples could not be obtained using a Shelby Tube (as { was the case for some of the particularly wet sands), a split-spoon sample was collected for' particle size distribution and total organ carbon analysis.

l

) After completion, most of the wells were air-developed. A 1 compressor was used to force air down the well at approximately 140 psia until the turbidity of the water stabilized. The remaining wells (A-1, B-1, and B-2) were developed using a bladder pump. After development samples'were collected from.all of the wells. Prior to the collection of samples, three to five well volumes were purged using disposable polypropylene bailers and measurements of pH, temperature, and specific conductivity were taken. After these parameters stabilized, samples were collected for analyses using standard methods and Quality 6.1-2 October 1993

i i I 4' Assurance procedures which meet US Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. On August 13, 1990 slug tests were performed on each of the seven onsiteJwells. The tests were performed in order to obtain hydraulic conductivity estimates. The test involved the I measurement of the initial water level in the well using an electronic water level indicator marked in hundredths of a foot. A slug of water was then evacuated from the well using a teflon bailer, and the water levels were measured at time intervals i using the electronic water level indicator. These data (water j level recovery vs. time) were analyzed using a BASIC program i which statistically fits a line.(by least squares) to the plotted points. Based on these plots and well configuration data,.the hydraulic' conductivity is calculated. While not precise, this method allows for an order of magnitude estimate to be made for hydraulic conductivity. r Both 2-and 3-dimensional contouring of shallow groundwater levels on site were performed using the Surfer graphics package. The average of the water levels measured August 1 and 13, 1990 were used for contouring, and the statistical inverse-distance method was applied to the data. This method was selected over the linear kriging approach because the highly variable geology and topography (and hence groundwater levels) are not expected to i conform to a linear approximation. The extreme variability is most recognized between the central ridge on the property (wells A-1, E-1, and F-1) and the southwest drainage basin (well C-1). t Deep groundwater beneath the LES property was evaluated by means i of the Theis equation (Reference 2) to evaluate the possible effects of anticipated water withdrawals from the Sparta Aquifer by the CEC (see Section 2.5.2.4). The Theis equation is applicable to confined aquifer conditions and is used for the prediction of drawdown at any distance from a pumping well for I any time. The solution ignores recharge to the aquifer and, therefore, is considered to be conservative. Known aquifer j transmissivity and storativity values and a range of pumping } rates were used to estimate these drawdowns. In addition, the effects of withdrawals from the-Central Claiborne Water System Well #4 were assessed individually and coupled with the withdrawals by the facility. 1 i Prior to facility operations, measurement of water levels in all i existing preoperational survey wells will continue on a quarterly schedule to document the seasonal range of groundwater i fluctuations at the site. l f 6.1.2 AIR 'l No onsite monitoring of meteorological or air quality conditions i at the CEC has been conducted; therefore, all data used in this \\ I 6.1-3 October 1993 l

O report to characterize such conditions necessarily have been collected at offsite locations by independent agencies and. institutions. The data were obtained through either literature searches or-through direct contact with the agency or institution responsible for maintaining the data. 6.1.2.1 Meteorological Data Meteorological conditions at the facility location were evaluated and summarized in Section 2.6.1 of this report in order.to characterize the LES site climatology and provide a basis for predicting the dispersion of gaseous effluents. The primary source of these data was.the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) Local Climatological Data'(LCD) station' located at the Shreveport Regional Airport approximately 56 mi. west-southwest of the site. Data collected at'the Shreveport LCD l station and used in the analysis include that for winds, precipitation, and temperature. Printed copies of these data were obtained directly from the NOAA (Reference 3). In general, average values reported in the NOAA data were based on a 30-year period of record (1951 to 1980), while extremes were based on a. 36-year record ending in 1988. 1 l A detailed justification for using-the Shreveport data and a discussion of the extent it may be considered representative of the meteorology and climatology at the location of the facility O are presented in Section 2.6.1. Part of this analysis involved comparing data from the Shreveport LCD station with data collected at other weather stations near the site. For example, temperature and precipitation data are collected'at an observation station located approximately 6 mi. southwest of the site. The station is operated by the Louisiana State Agricultural Center which reports data on a monthly basis to the Shreveport LCD station. As with the Shreveport data, printed copies of the summary of the 1951 to 1980 Homer data were received directly from the NOAA (Reference 4). Wind data are not collected at the Homer station. Wind data, however, are available from the Shreveport LCD station and'two Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) weather stations at airports in. Monroe, Louisiana and El Dorado, Arkansas, which are, respectively, about 60 mi. east-southeast and 40 mi. northeast of the site (see Figure 2.6-3). Printed copies of data were obtained from the NOAA which summarize joint frequencies of wind speeds and directions for a 9-year period (1950 to 1958) in Monroe and 5-year period (1949 to 1954) in El Dorado (Reference 4). These data were used to make a comparison of the means and extremes of wind speed at these two stations with the wind speed data from the Shrevepcrt LCD station. Summaries of joint frequencies of wind speeds and directions at the Shreveport LCD station were obtained from the NOAA for a 5-year period (1984 to-1988). These data were used in the X/Q dispersion analysis 6.1-4 October 1993

required for Sections 4.2.1.2 and 5.1 of.this report. In addition to'the 5-year joint frequency data, summary statistics for the Shreveport station (e.g., peak gusts, mean wind speed, and minimum and maximum monthly average wind speeds) were available from the NOAA for a 36-year period ending in 1988 (Reference 3). The effect of the difference in winds between the site location i and the Shreveport LCD station on the X/Q analysis was assessed j in Section 2.6.1.3 via an air dispersion modeling exercise. The analysis, as described in that section, essentially consisted of' comparing the output from a computer air dispersion model using i the 1984 to 1988 Shreveport meteorological data with the output obtained using a composite meteorological data set based on meteorological data from the Shreveport station and the two FAA stations in Monroe and El Dorado. The source of the composite I data was the Personal Computer Graphical Exposure Modeling System (PCGEMS), which has been developed by the WPA as a database and i modeling system for the performance of exposure assessment studies (Reference 5). The meteorological data contained in PCGEMS for the Shreveport, Monroe and El Dorado Stations are based on 5-year records (i.e., 1970 to 1974, 1954 to 1958 and r 1950 to 1954, respectively). l A discussion of storms and other forms of severe weather as they i have occurred in Northern Louisiana is presented in Section O 2.6.1.4. The information and data reported in this section were 1 obtained primarily from the Tornado and Straioht Wind Speed Study for the Proposed Uranium Enrichment' Plant Site prepared for Fluor Daniel, Inc. by Mcdonald-Mehta Engineers (Reference 6). Additional information was obtained from violent Tornado Climatocraphy (Reference 7), the NOAA annual summary of data from the Shreveport LCD station (Reference 3), and a letter from the l Claiborne Parish Civil Defense (Reference 8), which describes a tornado sighting in 1986. l 6.1.2.2 Air Ouality Data j i Only air quality data for existing levels of Clean Air Act i criteria Pollutants are available for Northern Louisiana. These i data were presented and compared to the National Ambient Air' [ Quality Standards (NAAOS) in Section 2.6.2 of this report. The i primary source of the data was the Louisiana Division of Air Quality (LDAQ), which supplied printed copies of the data from i their database. Data were obtained from a total of four LDAQ f stations in Northern Louisiana. The stations are: a. the Keel Radio Station in Dixie, a small town about 15 mi. f north of Shreveport, b. the Claiborne Public Health Unit in Homer, l 6.1-5 October 1993 r l

i c. the Shreveport Downtown Airport, and d. the airport in Monroe. Based on availability and relevance to the site, TSP data from Homer and Dixie, sulfur dioxide data from Shreveport and Monroe, and ozone data from Dixie, Shreveport, and Monroe are presented and discussed in Section 2.6.2. All of these data were from a 5-l year record (1984 to 1988), with the exception of ozone, which was examined for the entire available record of 8 years (1981 to i 1988) for reasons noted in Section 2.6.1. For two criteria i pollutants, not measured at any of the above LDAQ sites, the EPA's 1985 Annual Statistics on Air Ouality (Reference 9) reports on measurements conducted in Shreveport and Monroe. The minimum, median, and maximum lead levels in 1985 in. Shreveport and the mean and maximum nitrogen dioxide levels in 1985 in Monroe and Shreveport are identified in Section 2.6.2 as reported in this reference. A general examination of the potential for air pollution in the region near the facility is presented in Section 4.2.2.6. This examination is based on seasonal and annual mixing height and wind speed data presented by Holzworth (Reference 10) explicitly for this purpose. l 6.1.3 LAND O I 6.1.3.1 Geology and Soils Geological and soils studies have been performed at the site to determine the nature of surface and subsurface conditions. A. description of sample collection sites and the methodologies utilized to evaluate soil and rock materials is presented in Section 3.6 of the Safety Analys~is Report. Geology and soils studies at the site have included: test borings, test pits, insitu permability tests, refraction profiling, static and dynamic laboratory tests, and analysis of bearing capacity and settlement. The principle objective in conducting geology and soils studies was to evaluate the structural integrity of the site for engineering purposes and to characterize certain physico-chemical aspects related to surficial groundwaters. 6.1.3.2 Land Use and Demographic Surveys i An inspection of the 5-mi. radius surrounding the site was conducted to locate households and any historic, scenic, cultural, or natural landmarks. Land use patterns for this area-were also identified. This information was. plotted and evaluated l by radial sector as discussed in Section 2.2 of this document. i To. estimate projected populations of the 5-mi. radius surrounding the site, Mr. Vincent Maruggi, with the Division of Business and ) 6.1-6 October 1993 h ..4

{)T Economic Research of the University of New Orleans, was first contacted'to obtain the estimated population of Claiborne Parish for 1988. This estimated population was compared with 1990 population estimates for Claiborne Parish, also furnished by Mr. Vincent Maruggi, to determine projected growth of the area within a 5-mi. radius of the site. Demographic.information also was obtained for Claiborne Parish from the Woods and Poole Economic Database. Demographic information from this database can be requested from Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., Washington, D.C. Projected populations for Claiborne Parish were reported by Mr. Maruggi through the year 2000. To determine projected populations through the year 2035, it was assumed that the percentage of the population contributed frcm a single radial sector remained constant with time. 6.1.4 BIOTA Preoperational monitoring programs were conducted at the site. The initial monitoring was-designed to characterize the ecological community as it existed at the site prior to and after extensive clearcutting had occurred (see Section 2.7). This consisted of field surveys of-the plant, avian, and aquatic communities at the site and qualitative analyses of-the likely composition and distribution of the site's mammalian, reptile, and amphibian communities. The latter analyses were based on knowledge of existing habitat at the site and of species-specific distribution and habitat preferences. These analyses were supplemented by information provided by personnel from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (References 12, 13, 14), the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program-(Reference 15), the Louisiana Department of Forestry (Reference 16), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Reference 17). Additional information was obtained from field guides (References 18, 19), and other summary sources (References 20, 21, 22) and from an inventory of Louisiana wildlife (Reference 23). This information is summarized in Section 2.7. i As discussed in Section 2.7, clearcutting at the CEC site has resulted in an alteration of the ecological community of the site. For example, the successional stages of several of the -forest communities at the site have been altered significantly, moving towards earlier stages of succession. Such changes in the i plant communities also result in changes in the associated wildlife community. However, over time, the plant and wildlife communities will continue to change as naturalisuccessional i processes result in a movement of the communities toward

j pretimbering conditions.

Because of this continual change, the. baseline plant and animal communities used to evaluate potential impacts of the facility will be changing constantly. When site operational monitoring programs are instituted in accordance with compliance permit requirements, the extent of the ecological ( 6.1-7 October 1993 i

i [~)' changes that-have occurred since the baseline studies will be \\s ' documented. t The procedures and methodologies for preoperational monitoring i are described below for each of the communities. 6.1.4.1 Preoperational Procrams--Vegetation A botanical assessment was conducted on June 16, 17, and 23, 1990. The purpose of the study was to develop a general vegetative map of the property. Further, because large-scale timbering had occurred recently at the site, the successional trends for each vegetative community were noted. To conduct the botanical survey, the entire site was first flagged each 0.1 mi. This survey divided the property into_100 increments, each 0.01 mi2 Then, a-visual ground survey of the vegetation was conducted and the dominant vegetative community for each square was' recorded on a map. Five distinct terrestrial [ plant communities were identified. These~are: a. upland mixed forest--recent harvest, b. upland mixed forest--several years since harvest, c. upland forest--pine dominated, .i d. upland mixed forest--mature, and t e. bottomland hardwood forest The plant species that occurred in each survey area were identified, and their relative abundance within the surveyed unit was estimated. The following qualitative terms were used to-describe the relative abundance of plant species on the site. Dominant: the most prevalent species within a given vegetative community based on considerations of biomass (qualitatively determined by number and size of individuals). A community may have one or more dominant species or no dominant species. Common: a species that may be noted at any random point within a specific vegetative community. i 1 Moderate: a species that may or may not be noted at any random point but that may be located with a i limited amount of searching. I i Scattered: a species that occurs only a few times within a given vegetative community or a species that is abundant in only.one or two localized areas. 1 Macrophytic vegetation in and around Lake Avalyn and Bluegill l Pond was surveyed. Survey grids were not established for the pond vegetative survey, but rather the plant species that j 6.1-8 October 1993 ) j j l

occurred in three distinct areas along the perimeter of the Lake and pond were recorded. The areas surveyed were as follows a. In the. water: this included free-floating species.and species rooted l within the mud and emergent above the surface of the water. i b. Immediate bank: t this included species that occupied a strip usually only a l few feet wide which is generally inundated during periods of heavy rain and' runoff. j c. Upper bank: this included species that occupied a strip extending from [ the immediate bank to the top of the bank. s The relative abundance categories that were used for terrestrial i plant communities also were used to describe abundance for the i macrophyte community associated with the lake and pond. The results of the botanical survey are summarized in Section f 2.7.1 for terrestrial plant communities and in Section 2.7.3 for aquatic plant communities. l i 6.1.4.2 Preopera tional Procram--Birds f () Site-specific avian surveys were conducted by Goertz in. January (three days) and April (one day) 1990 to verify the presence of particular bird species at the site. The January survey was } conducted before the clearcutting occu red in the spring and early summer of 1990. The winter and spring survey was designed to characterize in general terms the members of the avian' community. ~ For the winter survey, the distinct habitats at the site were { first characterized (see Table 6.1-1) and then the bird species composition within each of these habitats was noted. Transects j 100 m in length were established within'each distinct homogenous habitat, and data were collected at every 5 m transect interval. l Species composition and relative abundance were determined based on visual observations, call counts, and nest identification. l In addition to verifying species presence, the spring survey was designed to determine the nesting and migratory status of the species observed and (as a measure of the nesting potential'of i the site) to determine the occurrence and number of territories of singing males and/or exposed, visible posturing males.- The. area was censused for breeding birds by spot mapping using the procedures described by the International Bird Census Committee (Reference 24). Spot mapping is a common technique for censusing. passerine breeding birds (Reference 25). Censusing was conducted ( in the three major habitats of the area listed in Table 6.1-1. j 6.1-9 October 1993 j l. I t N

l: V The results of the avian survey are summarized in Section 2.7.2. l 6.1.4.3 Preoperational Programs--Mammals ~ l 1h) on-site _ surveys have been canducted-to characterize-the i preoperational mammalian communities of the site. The-mammals j likely to be present were inferred from knowledge of existing t L habitat and of species-specifi~c distribution and habitat i preferences. Literature sources and State and Federal wildlife L officials were contacted for information to' support the analysis (see Section 6.1.4). l t The mammalian communities are described in Section 2.7.2. i L 6.1.4.4 Preoperational Procrams--Reptiles and Amphibians As was the case with mammals, no onsite surveys were conducted to I characterize the preoperational reptile and amphibian communities of the site. The species likely to be present were inferred from knowledge of existing habitat and of species-specific distribution and habitat preferences. Literature sources and I State and Federal wildlife officials were contacted for information to support the analysis (see Section 6.1.4). 2.7.2. The reptile and amphibian communities are described in Section 6.1.4.5 Preoperational Programs--Acuatics An aquatic survey was conducted in Lake Avalyn and' Bluegill Pond on January 20, 1990. The waters were surveyed for plankton i (phytoplankton and zooplankton), benthic organisms, and fish. !l Plankton were surveyed by collecting a 100 L sample of water from the center of the lake and the pond. Samples'were dipped with a 1 calibrated, wide-mouth plastic pail and poured through a Wisconsin straining net (80 m mesh), concentrated into glass-stoppered graduated cylinders, fixed with Lugol's solution and ) transferred into 4-oz. wide-mouth bottles.

j Zooplankton were identified only as miscellaneous Protozoa,.

Rotataria or Copepoda (adult or nauplius). Specimens were identified and enumerated in a Sedgewick-Rafter counting cell following the method of Lind (Reference 26) using a combination I of slide counts and strip counts at 100X magnification. Data j were reported as number of organisms /L of lake water. 1 i Phytoplankton were identified and enumerated using a Palmer l counting cell at.400X magnification. In some cases all of the j 0.05.ml counting cell was observed and in other cases 50 random fields were observed. Organisms were identified as dinoflagellates, filamentous green algae, single cell green-6.1-10 October 1993 1

'M--*4 1

py si-- 2 -w-+ s- $e-g- ...---%w -g&y w .ywe-'- -r.. een.g p.-

i algae, yellow-green algae, desmids, and diatoms. Data were j recorded as the number of cells /L of lake water. Classification followed that of Prescott (Reference 27). l i Benthic samples for quantitative analysis were collected from four locations in the pond and the lake using a Ponar dredge. The four benthic samples from each water body were taken by starting near the shoreline and progressively moving into deeper water (sampling depths were 1-1/2 ft., 4 ft., 8 ft., and 12 ft. l to 14 ft respectively). Shoreline samples were collected from areas with beds of rooted vegetation in an attempt to maximize the number of habitat types in order to obtain a more representative sample of the actual benthic diversity as a I reflection of water quality and not a function of substrate conditions only. In addition, a random sample to be used in qualitative analysis.was collected from the lake and the pond l using a D-frame aquatic sweep net. The random sweep net sample was collected to supplement the dredge sample by capturing i organisms capable of escaping capture by the Ponar dredge and { those that would not normally be captured by the dredge due to 1 particular habitat preferences. All benthic samples were sieved through a f30 field screen, j placed in liter bottles, preserved with 10% formalin in the i field, stained with Biebrich Scarlet and Eosin B, and hand picked under illuminated magnification. Specimens from the. quantitative O samples were identified to the family level with exception of -i annelid worms, which were identified to the Class level (Oligochaeta). Specimens from qualitative samples were identified in a like manner but were not counted because only f their presence was considered as important to the study. Nomenclature of the benthos foll' owed Ward and Whipple (Reference i 28). ~ Fish were collected using a 6 mm mesh net, 8 ft. by 20 ft. in size, along the shoreline up to a depth of approximately 4 ft. The lake and pond were sampled for approximately 30 min.'each. I Representative fish were preserved in a 10% fommalin solution for later reference or voucher. Nomenclature for the fish and i identification characteristics followed Douglas (Reference 29). I The results of the aquatic survey are summarized in Section j 2.7.3. -j i 1 l l 6.1-11 October 1993 i }

m i ~ i 6.1.5 FREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING 6.1.5.1 Summary of Baseline Radiological Data l Samples were taken at the facility site in order to assess its pre-existing radiological conditions. The types, numbers, and l locations of the samples taken are presented in Table 6.1-2 along with a brief synopsis of the radionuclides and activities'found. The data presented here is not intended to be a substitute for a sound preoperational monitoring program, but to briefly characterize the site conditions prior to construction and initiation of the preoperational program. j 6.1.5.2 Overview of the Preoperational Radioloalcal Monitoring Program Regulatory Guide 4.9 (Reference 1), " Preparation of Environmental I Reports for Commercial Uranium Enrichment Facilities" was used as the primary reference for the development and implementation of the program. In accordance with Reference 1, the preoperational radiological monitoring program is described with the appropriate detail in the following text. The preoperational program will 1 focus on collecting needed data to perform critical pathway j analyses, including-selection of nuclide/ media combinations to be l encompassed into the operational surveillance program, i Identification of radionuclides will be performed using accurate j and sensitive analytical equipment, as is' technically appropriate. Data collection during this period will be planned i to provide information for evaluating any future changes in .i environmental conditions, which might be caused by facility ' i operation. This is essential for proper assessment of doses due to facility operation after onset of enrichment. t The preoperational program is designed to be more extensive than l the operational program in order to provide this base'of I knowledge and also to anticipate changing conditions around the 3 site as the facility is built, operated and eventually decommissioned. Environmental surveillance at the Louisiana .) Energy Services CEC is a major part of the radiological program in order to provide data to provide. reasonable assurance of containment and effluent controls, to assess radiological ~ impacts on site environs, to estimate potential impact on members of the public, and to determine compliance with applicable radiation protection standards. Surveillance will be initiated prior to the operation of the facility in' order to provide'preoperational (baseline) data and to adequately define the extent of site-l specific terrestrial radioactivity. j i 6.1.5.3 Preoperational Radiolocical Monitorinc Procram i The Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program will be 'l initiated at least two years prior to the operation of the l 6.1-12 October 1993 l t j

O enrichment facility to-provide a sufficient database for ) comparison with the Operational Radiological Monitoring Program, and to provide experience that will improve the efficiency and. quality of.the Operational Radiological Monitoring Program. 1 Table 6.1-3 describes the Preoperational' Radiological Monitoring Program. Sampling methods and frequency shall be as specified in Table'6.1-3. All samples shall be analyzed for gross alpha. Should the gross alpha action levels-(Table 6.2-7) be exceeded,: further isotopic analysis shall be performed. Table 6.1-4 lists the detection capabilities for environmental sample analysis. Program enhancements can be initiated and documented during the preoperational program or during the .i operational program. Sections 6.1.5.3.1 through 6.3 5.3.3 describe the rationale behind the sampla types chosen. The rationale presented is based on the data available at the time of this report. The rati6nale is subject to change as additional knowledge is discovered which would allow for improved and more efficient l environmental monitoring, at a reasonable cost, so that the environment surrounding the' facility is maintained in a safe and acceptable manner. During the implementation of the. preoperational program, some samples may be unavailable or may be collected differently than specified. Additionally, some desired q sampling sites may be on private property that facility personnel have not attained permission to use for sampling purposes. j Under these circumstances, documentation shall be created to describe the rationale and actions behind the decisions. If a sampling location has frequent unavailable sample or deviations from the schedule, then one of the following shall be performed and documented: another location to be selected as its i replacement, sampler repair / replacement or other appropriate actions shall be taken. j 6.1.5.3.1 Atmospheric Radioactivity Monitoring { The air monitoring program will use the meteorological data from j the Shreveport Meteorological Station from 1984 through 1988 (more recent meteorological data may be used as it becomes available). Plant design data, geographical data, Chi /Q values,- D/Q values, land use data, radioactive inventory data, and projected radioactive = effluent data are parameters that will be - j used to determine the expected deposition of airborne ) radioactivity to the environment around the facility as a result ) -of operation. The background data will then be used to determine J the committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) attributed to j facility operation. The primary radioactive material that may be released is uranium, ~ 'y which has a short term for dispersal to the environment. The 6.1-13 October 1993-

l u

,, ~ . -, ~.,

1

^ ll O majority of the air monitoring sites are in the prevailing wind ' direction, based on' historical data of frequency of wind speed and direction, and located within 1.0 mile of the facility. The sampling filters will entrain radioactive particles that may be deposited in the environment. The fraction of particles caught by the filter will depend upon meteora'^~~ 7a1 conditions that exist during the sampling period. Air monitoring sites will be located as described in Table 6.1-3 1 and Table 6.2-1, for the preoperational and operational i monitoring programs, respectively, 6.1.5.3.2 Hydrospheric Radioactivity Monitoring l Trace amounts of radioactive materials may be contained on the site within Bluegill' Pond. Additionally,.the Hold-Up Basin may. contain small amounts of radioactivity from roof drains and other releases. In order to assess the amount of radioactivity t released into the liquid pathway, surface water will be sampled a from Bluegill Pond and the Hold-Up Basin on the site. Ground water sampling will be based on available hydrology data. Although uranium has very low transport. properties in soils and clays, sampling will be performed in order to assure protection of ground water aquifers and to document changes, if any in natural background characteristics. Ground water will be sampled from at least one well on the site and at one residence / business _j (if available) less than two miles from the facility in a location where ground water could be potentially affected by operation of the facility. I 6.1.5.3.3 Geospheric Radioactivity Monitoring Soil sampling will be performed in the same prevailing wind j directions (geographical sectors) as the air monitoring site locations and in areas that may be impacted by effluents. The areas impacted by effluents'will be identified, as appropriate, j as the program progresses and the operating characteristics of j the facility are documented. This sampling will determine the amount of any trace amounts of radioactive material that may be l deposited to the ground from plumes or other effluent streams from the facility that may contain radioactive material. a t h i i k t ) 6.1-14 October 1993 i [ l 4 e

t q REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.1 l 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Preparation of. 1 Environmental Reports for Commercial Uranium Enrichment ? Facilities," Regulatory Guide 4.9, 1975-i 2.

Theis, C.V.,

The relations between the: lowering of the piezometric surface and the rate and duration of discharge. of a well using groundwater storage. Trans Amer Geophys Union, 2:519-524, 1935. 3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-(NOAA), Local Climatological Data Annual Summary with Comparative Data for Shreveport, Louisiana, ISSN 0198-2338, 1988. l 4. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraiton (NOAA), Climatography of the United States No. 20, 1984. \\ 5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,. Personal Computer Version of the Graphic Exposure Modeling System (PCGEMS). Prepared by General Sciences Corp. for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substancer. November 1989. 6. Mcdonald-Mehta Engineers, Tornado and Straight Wind. Speed [ Study for Les Uranium Enrichment Plant Site. Prepared for j O Fluor Daniel, Inc. Contract No. 04539000-9-K001. February 1990. 7.

Grazulis, T.P.,

Violent Tornado Climatography, 1880-1982. Prepared for Division of Health, Siting and Waste i Management. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. j Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C., NRC FIN .j B2392, 1984. ) 8.

Rodgers, M.,

Letter to M. Hogg, Clement Associates, transmitting copy of a tornado report for Homer, Louisiana, from Martha Rodgers, Assistant Director, Claiborne Parish i Civil Defense, Homer, Louisiana, April 24, 1990. l 9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986. Air Quality i Data -- 1985 Annual Statistics. Office of Air and l Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC. EPA-450/4-86-008, i 1986. -l 10. Holzworth, G.C., Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential j for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United i States. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air l Programs, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1972. l ? 6.1-15 October 1993 j i

r 4 '/~' 11. Marugc', V., Telephone conversation with Mr. Vincent Marr a, Division of Business and Economic Research, Ur- -rsity of-New Orleans, December 20, 1989. 12.

Johnson, L.,

Personal ~ communication, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Baton Rouge Office, June 11, j 1990. 13.

Atbert, S.,

Personal communication, Louisiana Department of i Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Baton Rouge Office, July 26, l 1990. 14.

Christ, R.,

Personal communication, Louisiana Department of l Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Minden Office, June 13, 1990. ? 15. Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP), Letter from f Richard Martin, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program, Baton l Rouge, Louisiana, to Jennifer Kiess, Clement Associates, on rare, threatened, endangered, and other species found near Homer, Louisiana, January 12, 1990. 16.

Waller, R.,

Personal communication, Louisiana Department'of i Forestry (LDF), District 4 Office, June 13, 1990. l 17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Memo from Janice

Nichols, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4 Headquarters, Atlanta, Georgia, to Jennifer Kiess, Clement Associates, on endangered and threatened species in Louisiana, January 23, 1990. i 18.

Burt, W.H.,

Grossenheider, R.P., A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusettes, 1976. i 19.

Conant, R.,

Reptiles and Amphibians, Eastern / Central North 1

America, Peterson Field Guides.

Heighton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1975. { i 20.

Chapman, J.A.,

Hockman, J.G.,

Edwards, W.R.,

" Cottontails," j in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.), Wild Mammals of Nerth America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1982, pp. 83-123. j 21

DeGraaf, R.M.,

Rudis, D.D.,

New England Wildlife:

Habitat, i

Natural History, and Distribution. General Technical Report j NE-108, Northeastern Forest Experiment Stations, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1987. l 22. Parker, W.,

Dixon, L.,

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife of j Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. i North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, Raleigh, i North Carolina, 1980. ) 6.1-16 October 1993 f 1 l i i

23. St. Amant, L.S.,. Louisiana Wildlife Inventory and Management-Plan. Pittman-Robertson Section, Fish and Game Division, Louisiana Wild Life and Fisheries Commission, 1959. 24. International Bird Census Committee, An international standard for a mapping method in bird census work-recommended by the International Bird Census Committee. Audubon Field Notes, 1970, 24:722-726. 25.

Robbins, C.S.,

Census techniques for forest birds, in R.M. DeGraef (Tech. Coord.), Proceedings of the. Workshop on Management of Southern Forests for Nongame Birds, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report SE-14, 1978, PP. 142-163. 26.

Lind, O.T.,

Handbook of Common Methods in Limnology. C.V. Mosby Company, St. Louis, 1979. 27.

Prescott, G.W.,

How to Know the Fresh Water Algae, Wm. C. l I Brown Company Publishers, Dubuque, IA, 1978, pp. 293. 28.

Ward, H.B.,

Whipple, G.C.,

Fresh-Water Biology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 1959. 29.

Douglass, N.H.,

Freshwater fishes of Louisiana. Claitor's Publishing Division, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1974. 30. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Programs for Monitoring Radioa.~tivity in the Environs of Nuclear-Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 4.1, 1975 l 6.1-17 October 1993

\\ i i Table-6.1-1 l MAJOR'AND MINOR HABITAT AT THE LES SITE. AS DETERMINED DURING ONSITE-AVIAN SURVEYS MAJOR HABITATS DESCRIPTION j i Old-cutover Areas cut between 5 and 10 years ago. Pine and sweetgum prevalent. Select-cut pine Areas that have been selectively timbered to remove mature pine.. Pine i and sweetgum prevalent. Clear-cut Areas that have been clear cut within-the-last two years. Dominated by shrub. and herbaceous vegetation. Hardwood bottom Undisturbed areas along streams, pond, h and lake. Beech, oak, gum, maple, + hickory prevalent. MINOR-HABITATS { O t Lake Avalyn Wet areas. Buttonbush, alder, willow shoreline prevalent. { Lake Avalyn Swampy area in the vicinity of the lake dam base overflow pipe. Herbaceous wetland species prevalent. Bluegill Pond edge Hardwood' bottom vegetation along pond. Log and slash Scattered. Left from previous logging l piles operations. Fence row Each side of Parish Road 806. Lake Avalyn Dominated by mature pines. campground October 1993 I l

e TABLE 6.1-2 -4

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL CONDITIONS FOUND AT THE CLAIBORNE PARISH ENRICHMENT SITE i WHEN SCREENING MEASUREMENTS WERE PERFORMED PRIOR TO THE PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM i f SAMPLE TYPE

SAMPLES NUCLID3S ACTIVITY ACTIVITY COLLECTED COLLECTED IDENTIFI.

RANGE MEAN Airborne 4 none (a) (b) (b) Radioiodines Airborne 4 none (a) (b) (b) Particulates i Broad Leaf 12 Cs-137 (a) (c) 115 pCi/kg Vegetation Surface Water 21 none (a) (b) (b) Ground Water 15 none (a) (b) (b) Sediment 16 Cs-137 (a,d) 64-4534 1044 pCi/kg i Soil 38 Cs-137 (a,e) 133-1123 698 pCi/kg O. Direct 37 none 0.006-0.015 0.010 Radiation (f) i Footnotes to Table 6.1-2: (a) Gamma spectroscopy analysis only. (b) No nuclides identified, therefore no activity ranges or means exist. (c) No range exists because only one sample was determined to have activity. (d) Positive identification of Cs-137 was made in 16 of 16 samples. (e) Positive identification of Cs-137 was made in 24 of 38 samples. t (f) Direct radiation measured with thermoluminescent dosimeters. Data in mR/ hour. O October 1993

-O TABLE 6.1-3 Page 1 of 6 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and Sample type collections (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) Airborne APl - One sample located in Air sampler with a Particulate the sector with the highest particulate (d) prevailing wind direction. To filter, operating be located in the area with continuously and the highest Chi /Q for that collected and sector near the site analyzed weekly. boundary. AP2 - One sample located in the sector with the second highest prevailing wind 3 direction. To be located in the area with the highest Chi /Q for that sector near the site boundary. AP3 - One sample located near ( the resident who is maximally i exrar ed from the gaseous pu' say. AP4 - One sample located in the west sector. To be located near the site boundary corresponding to the highest Chi /Q in that sector. APS - One sample located in the east sector near the site boundary corresponding to the highest Chi /Q in that sector. AP6 - One sample located in the south sector near the site boundary, corresponding to the highest Chi /Q in that sector. If this sector is already represented by I another air sampling site corresponding to the AP1 through AP4 sites above, then site AP7 is not needed. October 1993 l

i t (~ TABLE 6.1-3 \\ Page 2 of 6 2 i PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and Sample type collections (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) AP7 - One sample located in the north sector near the site boundary, corresponding to the highest Chi /O in that sector. i Airborne / S1-S16 - Samples to be Collected and l Soil collected near the site analyzed (e,f) boundary in each sector. One quarterly, sample per site. Combine samples from sixteen sectors into four composites as described in footnote f. Airborne / V1-V16 - Samples to be Collected and Vegetation collected near the site analyzed (f,g) boundary in each sector. One quarterly. sample per site. Combine samples from sixteen sectors into four composites as described in footnote f. Liquid / GW1 - Same as chemistry well Grab samples to be Ground

A1.

collected and Water analyzed (h) quarterly. GW2 - Same as chemistry well

Bl.

GW3 - Same as chemistry well

C1.

l GW4 - Same as chemistry well

D1.

GW5 - Same as chemistry well

El.

GW6 - Same as chemistry well

F1.

October 1993

k t O TABLE 6.1-3 i Page 3 of 6 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM ' i Pathway / Sampling and i Sample type collections i' (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) Liquid / SS1 - To be collected near Grab samples to be Shoreline the outflow of Bluegill Pond. collected and Sediment analyzed (i) quarterly.

- - E ""

SS2 - To be collected near the inflow of Bluegill Pond fe ors nt four from the Hold-Up Basin. composites as SS3 - To be collected near described in the south shore of Bluegill footnote f. Pond. SS4 - To be collected near the north shore of Bluegill Pond. SS5 - To be collected near surface water site SW12 at Lake Claiborne. Liquid / BSl - To be collected from Grab samples to be Bottom the east end of Bluegill collected and Sediment Pond. analyzed .j (i) quarterly. ES2 - To be collected from rm xt the center of Bluegill Pond. sectors into four BS3 - To be collected from composites as the west end of Bluegill described in Pond. footnote f. BS4 - To be collected from the center of the Hold-Up Basin. BS5 - To be collected near i surface water site SW12 at ] Lake Claiborne. l October 1993 )

~'i TABLE 6.1-3 [%sl Page 4 of 6 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and Sample type collections (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) l Liquid / SW1 - Inflow to Lake Avalyn. Grab samples Surface Same location as chemistry collected and Water surface water location #1. analyzed (h) This is the control location. quarterly. ' Locations SW5 - Inflow to Bluegill correspond to Pond. Same location as those shown on chemistry surface water Figure 2.5-10 for location #5. chemistry surface SW6 - Bluegill Pond, near the water collections. center. Same as chemistry Note that some surface water location #6a. chemistry sites are not needed in SW7 - Outflow from Bluegill the radiological Pond. Same as chemistry sampling. surface water location #7. [ SW8 - Site drainage stream. Same as chemistry surface water location #8. SW9 - Outflow at the western property boundary. Same chemistry surface water location #9. SW11 - Hold-Up Basin. Take sample from center of basin. No corresponding chemistry location. SW12 - Lake Claiborne. Take sample at inflow point of Cypress Creek. No corresponding chemistry surface water location. i \\ October 1993

1 i / TABLE 6.1-3 (. Page 5 of 6 i PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (a) This table presents an acceptable minimum program for a site at which each entry is applicable. The program may be enhanced at any time. The code letters in parenthesis (i.e., AP1, SW2) provide one way of defining generic sample locations and can be used to identify the specific locations during the designation of each sample site. (b) sufficient volumes of samples will be collected when available, using accurate sample collection methods to ensure the attainment of Lower Limits of Detecting as specified in Table 6.1-4. {c) Samples collected will be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis via a reliable shipping organization. A sample transmittal form will accompany the samples. Samples will be packaged in a manner to ensure the integrity of each during transit. Perishable samples shall be refrigerated as soon as possible by the receiving laboratory. Samples requiring analysis as a composite will be stored in a manner to ensure the integrity of the sample until the composite analysis has been performed. i i (d) Air particulate samples will be collected on filters attached to continuously operating air samplers. Samples are to be collected weekly and analyzed for gross alpha after each collection. Radon and thoron daughter decay shall be allowed prior to gross alpha analysis. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. (e) soil samples will be collected using scoops, shovels, etc. as appropriate. Collect the top surface of the soil, not to reasonably exceed a depth of two to four inches. (f) Sectors shall be combined thusly: Composite 1 = sectors N, NNE, NE Composite 2 = sectors E, SSE, SE Composite 3 = sectors S, SSW, SW Composite 4 = sectors W, NNW, NW ) l l October 1993 j

l / T TABLE 6.1-3' 's / Page 6 of 6 PREOPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAM (g) Representative vegetation samples will be obtained as they f are available (seasonal variations may occur). If no vegetation sample is available, obtain the sample at a location as near as possible (within the same sector) to the designated site. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. (h) Water samples will be collected using water collection buckets, bottles, pumps, etc. and stored in clean containers. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. (i) Sediments will be collected using a device that will gather the top surface of the sediment, not to reasonably exceed a depth of six to eight inches. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. NOTE: The number, media, frequency, and location of samples may be enhanced to reflect the facility's operating history and other information. Any modifications to the program shall be documented. ? t O October 1993

TABLE 6.1-4 s Page 1 of 3 LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION (LLD) FOR RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYSES t NUCLIDE WATER AIR SOIL / VEGETATION SEDIMENT (pCi/ml) (pCi/ml) (pci/g) (pci/g) (a) (b) (c) (d) gross alpha 1.0E-12 1.0E-18 3.0E-7 1.0E-10 (e,f) U-total 1.0E-12 1.0E-18 3.0E-7 1.0E-10 (g) l [ (a) Uranium LLD's for water are based upon a fraction of the 10CFR20 Appendix B Table 2, Column 2 limit for D compounds (3E-7 Ci/ml) and also upon the expected effluent concentration encountered in the environment. The LLD is designed to be low enough to allow detection of very minute amounts of radioactivity O' to provide information on both background levels during the preoperational program and also to assess the operation of the facility. The limit in Appendix B is based upon ingestion of water of 7.3E7 ml per year at the listed concentration - this would result in a committed dose of 50 mrem. The LLD is 1/300,000 of the limit for each nuclide. Therefore if the water ingested contained each of the above uranium nuclides at 1.0E-9 pCi/ml, the CEDE received would be no greater than 1/100,000 of the limit. (b) Uranium LLD's for air are based upon a fraction of the 10CFR20 Appendix B Table 2, Column 1 limit for D compounds (3E-12 pCi/ml) and also upon the expected effluent concentration encountered in the environment. The LLD is designed to be low enough to allow detecting of very minute amounts of radioactivity to provide information on both background levels during the preoperational program and also to assess the operation of the facility. The limit in Appendix B is based upon continuous breathing of air with the listed concentration - this would result in a committed dose of 50 mrem. The LLD is 1/3E5 of the limit for each nuclide. Therefore if the air breathed contained each of the above uranium nuclides at 1.0E-17 pCi/ml, the CEDE received would be no greater than 1/100,000 of the limit. (c) Uranium LLD'E for soil / sediment are based upon a fraction of ) October 1993

jT TABLE 6.1-4 (,,/ Page 2 of 3 LOWER LIMITS OF DETECTION (LLD) FOR RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYSES the 30 pCi/g uranium above background decommissioning limit for I facilities. The LLD listed above corresponds to 1/100 of the.30 pCi/g limit and provides reasonable assurance that activities deposited in the environment due to facility operation can be detected and trended. Soil and sediment are to be analyzed on a dry weight basis. (d) Uranium LLD's for vegetation are based upon ingestion of 190 kg/ year vegetation (Regulatory Guide 1.109) containing 1 pCi/kg uranium yielding approximately 2.5E-2 mrem to adult bone. This is the most restrictive of the ingestion pathway - committed dose equivalents to other orgnns and to all other age groups are less than the estimated 2.5E-2 mrem above. Vegetation is to be analyzed on a wet weight basis. (e) Gross alpha LLD for air is based upon a fraction of the 10CFR20 Appendix B Table 2, Column 1 limit given for mixtures if Ac-227-D,W,Y, Th-229-W,Y, Th-232-W,Y, Pa-231-W,Y, Cm-248-W, and Cm-250-W are not present. The gross alpha LLD is also based upon projected release data as described in footnote (a). The limit in Appendix B (1.0E-14 pCi/ml) is based upon continuous breathing of air with the listed concentration - this would result in a committed dose of 50 mrem. The LLD is based upon the limit for the' mixture of nuclides listed in this footnote. Therefore if the air breathed contained activity at the activity of 1.0E-17 pCi/ml, the CEDE received would be no greater than 1/100,000 of the limit or SE-4 mrem. (f) Gross alpha LLD for water is based upon a fraction (1/100) of the 10CFR20 Appendix B Table 2 limit given for uranium-238, - 235, and -234 nuclides. The gross alpha LLD is also based upon projected release data as described in footnote (a). No limit is given for mixtures of uranium nuclides in a liquim in Appendix B, l therefore the most restrictive value '3E-7 pCi/ml) has been selected as the basis for the LLD.

i. the water ingested contained a mixture of the above uranium nuclides that totaled 1.0E-12 pCi/ml, the committed dose received would be no greater than 1/100,000 of the limit or SE-4 mrem.

(g) The uranium LLD is based upon assuming all uranium in the d ] sample is uranium-234. If isotopic uranium analyses is desired instead of total uranium, then the LLD for each uranium compound i would equal those listed for the total uranium. The LLD is based upon both a fraction of the 10CFR20 Appendix B Table 2 limit given for the uranium-238, -235, and -234 nuclides and on the calculated effluent concentrations expected at the sampling 5 October 1993

l f TABLE 6.1-4 s Page 3 of 3 LOWER I.IMITS OF DETECTION (LLD) FOR RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING ANALYSES sites. The LLD will allow the analyses to be sensitive enough to detect small changes in the radiological characteristics of the site. NOTE: These values apply for UF6 originating from non-1 reprocessed fuel. I i 1 i October 1993

i i l TABLE OF CONTENTS 6.2 OPERATIONAL -MONITORING' 6'.2-1. 'l 6.2.1 -OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2-1 l 6.2.1.1 Effluent Monitorina Systems 6.2-1 6.2.1.2 Environmental Monitorina Procram 6.2-1 7 6.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MONITORING-6.2-2 ~.; 6.2.2.1 Effluent Monitorino System 6.2-2 6.2.2.2 Environmental Monitorinc 6.2-3 j 6.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING 6 '. 2 -4 f 6.2.4 BIOTA 6.2-6 i e i LO I

q I

I 1 l t l l 3

~. 1 -4 ) 4 i LIST OF TABLES I ~ 6.2-1 Summary of Environmental' Radiological Monitoring Sampling Sites'-- Operational _ Program j 6.2-2 Action Levels for Radiological Environmental Analyses (a,b) i 6.2-3 Reporting Levels for Radiological Environmental Analyses (a,b) 'l 6.2-4 Surface Water Chemistry Monitoring Program j 6.2-5 Groundwater Water Chemistry Monitoring Program 6.2-6 Stormwater Monitoring Program t 6.2-7 Action Levels and Lower Limits of Detection For -f Environmental. Analyses l f i i O q l t 4 1 ( t 4 f l i I 1 .O ii

.,~ _ _.. _. _ _. _ _, _. = -. _. _ _. .- t.t n__ t ii LIST OF FIGURES .i d 6.2-1 Surface Water Chemistry Monitoring Locations 6.2-2 Ground Water Chemistry Monitoring Locations -l 6.2-3 Location of Meteorological Instrument Tower ] I f R t i .- i i t i t e 1 1 I i l t l l t i I f I i i o.. 111 .e e F r ~

q h 6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING The-baseline studies discussed in Section 6.1 provide initial data.necessary:to determine'the physical, chemical, and= biological variables which are likely to be affected by: CEC construction and operation. The proposed monitoring program for CEC operation:is outlined'in this section. 6.2.1 OPERATIONAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM 6.2.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Systems Comparisons'of effluent data to environmental data will be performed as determined by release data. Under routine operating conditions, no significant activity should be released from the facility and this should be confirmed by environmental-data. If an accidental release of uranium should occur, then the-environmental data can be used to help assess the extent of the release. 6.2.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Program The Preoperational Radiological Monitoring Program (Section 6.1.5). will be superseded by the Operational Radiological O Monitoring Program (outlined in Table 6.2-1) at the. time the facility receives its first shipment of uranium hexafluoride. The rationale for the operational radiological monitoring progran is.similar to the preoperational monitoring program-(see Sections 6.1.5.3.1 through 6.1.5.3.~3). The frequency of some-types of samples will be reduced as compared to the preoperational program since the goal of establishing a significant baseline will have been accomplished. The operational program is designed to use the same Lower Limits of Detection (LLD's) as the preoperational program. The operational sampling program may be enhanced as it is implemented so that monitoring data will be reliable without incurring unnecessary work. Action levels (requiring further analysis) and reporting levels (which warn of approaching action levels) for radioactivity in environmental samples have been established. These values are listed in Tables 6.2-2 and 6.2-3. Sampling methods and frequency shall be as specified in Table 6.2-1. All samples shall be analyzed for gross alpha. Should the gross alpha action levels (Table 6.2-7) be exceeded, further isotopic analysis shall be performed. As construction work at the uranium enrichment pl' ant proceeds, changing conditions (e.g., regulatory, site characteristics - both radiological and non-radiological, technology, etc.) and new t 6.2-1 October 1993

-~ (~' knowledge may require that the operational monitoring program be reviewed and updated. Such review would be performed-when-environmental data indicate a positive significant trend with? l respect-to radionuclide activities. Minute increases and/or decreases in activity are indicative of background fluctuations and would not initiate an' investigation. During the implementation of the operational program, some samples may be collected differently than specified. Under these circumstances, documentation shall be created to describe what. l was done and the rationale behind the decisions. If a sampling' l location has frequent unavailable samples or deviations from the' r schedule, then another location can be selected or other j appropriate actions taken. Each year, the licensee will submit a summary of the environmental sampling program and the associated data (e.g., i data required by 10CFR70.59) to the proper regulatory I authorities. This summary'will include the types, numbers, and l frequencies of samples collected and the identities and ~ activities of nuclides found'in the samples that can be reasonably attributed to facility operation. j 6.2.2 PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL MONITORING j 6.2.2.1 Effluent Monitorina System O' Specific information regarding the source and characteristics of 1 all non-radiological plant wastes that will'be collected and e disposed of offsite, or. discharged in various effluent streams is provided in Section 7.2 of the. Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Chemical constituent quantities which will be discharged to'the 'i natural environment in facility-effluents will be below-t concentrations which have been established by State and Federal [ regulatory agencies as protective of human health and the natural j environment. 6.2.2.1.1 Surface Water Monitoring Program j Surface water samples have been collected at several locations within and outside the plant site and analyzed to establish site " baseline" water quality conditions. Baseline sample collection locations and tabulated physiochemical data are presented-in l Section 2.5. l Prior to initiation of facility operation, and continuing throughout the life of the plant, additional water samples will be collected, analyzed and compared to the. baseline data to monitor any impact the facility operations might have on surface l water quality. Locations where surface water samples will be collected during facility operation are described in Table 6.2-1 and shown in Figure 6.2-1. A list of the physiochemical 6.2-2 October 1993 1

.~ 'j -l parameters which will be analyzed along with the analytical-l V . methodologies for each is presented in Table 6.2-4. i i 6.2.2.1.2 Groundwater Monitoring Program f Chemical measurements of the shallow onsite groundwaters and the. I deep sparta aquifer zone underlying the site have been made to establish

baseline" groundwater quality conditions of the

'l facility site. Collection locations and-tabulations-of this i baseline information are presented-in Section 2.5. Prior to facility operation and continuing throughout the life of' the plant; additional groundwater samples will be collected. ) analyzed and compared to the baseline data to monitor any impact _ facility operations might have on groundwater quality. Locations where both shallow groundwater and Sparta Aquifer' groundwater l samples will be collected during operation are described in Table 6.2-1 and shown in Figure 6.2-2. A list of. parameters which will 1 be analyzed in groundwater samples plus the analytical methodologies for each is presented in Table 6.2-5. 6.2.2.1.3 Stormwater Monitoring Program The stormwater monitoring program will be initiated during i construction of the facility. Stormwater monitoring during facility construction will be conducted annually and used to i evaluate the effectiveness of measures taken-to prevent the i contamination of stormwater and to retain sediments within property boundaries. The hold-up basin will be used as.a sediment detention basin during construction and the construction [ phase stormwater monitoring will be conducted at the discharge from the hold-up basin to Bluegill Pond. Stormwater monitoring will continue with monitoring frequency l increased to quarterly upon initiation of facility operation. ) Operational phase monitoring will be conducted upstream of the' hold-up basin in order to demonstrate that runoff does not contain pollutants which would result in the creation of i contaminated sediments in the hold-up basin. A list of j parametOrs to be monitored and monitoring frequencies are present ed in Table 6.2-6. This monitoring program is based upon the requirements contained in EPA's proposed rule, NPDES General. Permits and Reportina Recuirements for Storm Water Discharaes j Associated With Industrial Activity, published in the Federal l Register August 16, 1991. t 6.2.2.2 Environmental Monitorina The purpose of this Section is to describe the operational surveillance monitoring program which will be employed by the i 6.2-3 October 1993 1 I

~. 'I -i O Claiborne Enrichment Center (CEC) to measure non-radiological chemical impacts upon the natural environment. i f 't The ability of both regulatory agencies and CEC operational personnel to detect as well as correct any potentially adverse chemical releases from the facility to the environment-will rely ? I on chemistry data which will be collected as part of the monitoring programs described in the preceding Section 6.2.2.1. Data acquisition from these programs encompasses both.on and off- { site sample collection locations and chemical. element / compound analyses commonly mandated by Federal and State National-Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) compliance

programs, g

t The range of chemical surveillance and analytical sensitivity incorporated into all the planned effluent monitoring programs for the facility should be sufficient to predict any relevant chemical interactions in the environment related to plant operations. In addition, to insure the facilities operation vill have no environmental impact, the CEC intends to limit chemicals in all facility effluents to levels below those' prescribed by State of Louisiana and the USEPA, as being protective of human j health and the natural environment. j 6.2.3 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING O This Section provides details of the program designed to. monitor meteorological phenomena during plant operation, in accordance i with the specifications listed in Regulatory Guide 1.23 for onsite meteorological programs (Reference 1). This monitoring network will be adequate to evaluate the atmospheric dispersion at the site for beth normal and accident conditions. The terrain in and around the facility is relatively flat which makes it possible to obtain characteristic meteorological information for the entire site from a single instrument tower. Based on site inspections and facility plot plans, the tower location which provides the most accurate and representative j measurements of required meteorological data is to the uutth of the plant (see Figure 6.2-3). This location was selected so that the tower would be far enough from facility structures to minimize their impacts on the wind distribution. In addition, the meteorological characterization for the site area presented in Section 2.6 indicates that tne wind blows predominantly from the south, therefore, the building structures will have no significant impact on the predominant winds. The tower base will { be located at approximately the same elevation as the finish grade for the facility structures. All instruments selected for use in the meteorological monitoring 1 program will meet or exceed the performance specifications 6.2-4 October 1993 1 .t i [

..~ 'l a ]# outlined in Regulatory Guide l.23 (Reference 1). The instruments I -listed in the following discussion may be replaced by other models, but the replacements will have equal or better performance specifications. t Wind speed will be measured using the Met'one 014A Wind Speed } Sensor. This instrument records wind speeds ~in the 0 to 100 mph range with a starting threshold of 1 mph. It is accurate to 10.25 mph or 1.5% and has a standard distance constant'of less j than 15 ft. and an optional fast response distance constant of less than 5 ft. Wind direction will be' measured using the Met i One 024A Wind Direction Sensor. This 3-cup anemometer has a starting-threshold of 1 mph and an accuracy of 0.5 mph. Both. i sensors will operate in temperatures from -50 C to +70'C. } Onsite temperature will be monitored using the Met One 060A Ambient Temperature Sensor (Dash No -2). Temperature difference j (which will be used to estimate atmospheric. stability) will be i measured using-the Met One.062A Air Temperature Difference i Sensor. Both sensors operate in the ambient range of -50 C to l +50 C to an accuracy of 0.1 C. There is no self heating of the sensors and the time constant is 10 sec. in still air. Both the i air temperature sensor and the air temperature difference sensor l will be shielded from solar radiation effects using the Met One 076B model radiation shield. This shield operates in _i temperatures ranging from -50 C to +85 C. Radiation error is less than 0.05 F under a maximum solar radiation of 1.6 gm-l cal /cm / min. } 2 l The monitoring instruments listed above will be connected to the l Met One 451L data recorder via a Met One model 104 translator for j signal conditioning. The 451L model is an intelligent datalogger i designed for environmental monitoring. Data are sampled once every 10 sec., and averages'are built upon the individual [ samples. Built-in firmware provides for vector / scalar averaging, which is then recorded on a removable magnetic cartridge. The i datalogger output also will be directed to digital display units, which will provide real-time displays of ambient temperature, wind speed, and direction. In addition, analog recorders will also be used for temperature difference and wind speed and l direction as backup to the digital equipment. l The monitored data will be transferred from the magnetic cartridge to a computer for data manipulation. Hourly averages i of wind speed, direction, ambient temperature, and temperature difference will be compiled and then used to produce joint frequency distributions of wind speed and direction as a function t of atmospheric stability on a monthly basis. The monthly data will be used to construct an annual joint frequency distribution at the end of each calendar year. The accuracy of the meteorological monitoring program will be 6.2-5 October 1993 l ? 1

3 l 1 1 i insured through.the use'of scheduled instrument calibrations and-servicing. Instrument calibrations will be accomplished at least-j semiannually:using precision internal reference sources.- The . servicing schedule _will be in accordance with the manufacturers j . recommendations, or as needed for unscheduled maintenance due to -j equipment failure. The program for instrument maintenance and i servicing combined with the redundant data recorders will assure l at least a 90% data recovery. Instruments' equivalent to the MetOne models described above may f be used instead. t 6.2.4 BIOTA l The procedures used to characterize the plant, bird, aquatic, mammalian, and amphibian / reptilian communities of the proposed site during preoperational monitoring are regarded as appropriate i for the operational. monitoring program. Operational monitoring surveys also will be conducted quarterly (except annually for amphibians / reptiles) using the same sampling sites established i during the preoperational monitoring program. These surveys should be sufficient to characterize gross changes in the composition of the vegetation or avian, aquatic, l mammalian, and amphibian / reptilian communities of the site i associated with operation of the facility plant. 1 Interpretation O of operational monitoring-results, however, must consider those changes that would be expected at the proposed site'as a result of natural successional processes. Plant communities at the site, particularly those that were clearcut in 1990, will continue to change as forests regenerate and begin to mature. i Changes in the bird community are likely-to occur concomitantly 1 in response to the changing habitat. f i l i O 6.2-6 October 1993-I 1

'i i REFERENCES FOR SECTION 6.2 l r U.S.~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.23,- 1 1. On-site Meteorological Programs (Safety Guide 23),' February j 1972. ij 1 t l I !.i I i j \\ .' r i i i I !l i i .i i 6.2-7 October 1993 l l l

1 i TABLE 6.2-1 Page 1 of 6

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL RADIOLOGICAL MONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and Sample type collections ? (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) Airborne AP1 - One sample located in Air sampler with a Particulate the sector with the highest particulate ^ f (d) prevailing wind direction. To filter, operating l be located in the area with continuously and the highest Chi /O for that collected and sector near the site analyzed weekly.. boundary. AP2 - One sample located in the sector with the second highest prevailing wind direction. To be located in the area with the highest Chi /O for that sector near t the site boundary. l f '( AP3 - One sample located near I the resident who is maximally exposed from the gaseous r pathway. AP4 - One sample located in l the west sector. To be located near the site i boundary corresponding to the highest Chi /O in that sector. APS - One sample located in the east sector near the site r boundary, corresponding to i the highest Chi /Q in that sector. l t ('~/) i \\m -l October 1993 1 I t

P TABLE 6.2-1 Page 2 of 6 l s l

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM t Pathway / Sampling and Sample type collections j (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) AP6 - One sample located in the south sector near the i site boundary, corresponding to the highest Chi /O in that sector. If this sector is I already represented by another air sampling site corresponding to the API through AP4 sites above, then site AP7 is not needed. AP7 - One sample located in the north sector near the site boundary, corresponding l to the highest Chi /O in that sector. -j O Airborne / S1-S16 - Samples to be Collected and Soil collected near the air analyzed semi-i (e,f) boundary in each sector. annually. Combine One sample per site. samples from sixteen sectors into four i composites as described in footnote f. Airborne / V1-V16 - Samples to be Collected and vegetation collected near the site analyzed semi-(f,g) boundary in each sector. annually at the One sample per site. same time as soil sample collection. Combine samples i from sixteen sectors into four composites as described in footnote f. Liquid / GW1 - Same as chemistry well Grab samples to be Ground

Bl.

collected and Water analyzed semi-(h) annually. October 1993

B t O TABLE 6.2-1 k Page 3 of 6

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and Sample type col.loctions (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) GW2 - Same as chemistry well

C1.

GW3 - Same as chemistry well

El.

d i Liquid / SSl - To be collected near Grab samples to be Shoreline the outflow of Bluegill Pond. collected and Sediment analyzed semi-(i) SS2 - To be collected near annually. Combine the inflow of Bluegill Pond samples from I from the Hold-Up Basin. sixteen sectors SS3 - To be collected near into four the south shore of Bluegill composites as Pond. described in footnote f. SS4 - To be collected near the north shore of Bluegill Pond. SS5 - To be collected near surface water site SW12 at Lake Claiborne. Liquid / BSl - To be collected from Grab samples to be Bottom the east end of Bluegill collected and Sediment Pond. analyzed semi-(i) annually. Combine BS2 - To be collected from sampl3s from the center of Bluegill Pond. sixteen sectors BS3 - To be collected from into four the west end of Bluegill composites as Pond. described in i footnote f. BS4 - To be collected from the center of the Hold-Up Basin. t BS5 - To be collected near surface water location SW12 e at Lake Claiborne. T October 1993 i

r ,Q_ TABLE 6.2-1 () Page 4 of 6

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM Pathway / Sampling and i Sample type collections (a) Samples and Locations (b,c) Liquid / SW1 - Inflow to Lake Avalyn. Collected Surface Same location as chemistry continuously via Water surface water location #1. integrating water (h) This is the control location. sampling equipment. Obtain SW5 - Inflow to Bluegill monthly composites Pond. Same location as of integral water chemistry surface water samples. location #5. Locations SW6 - Bluegill Pond, near the correspond to center. Same as chemistry those shown on surface water location #Fa. Figure 2.5-10 for chemistry surface SW7 - Outflow from Blu'. gill water collections. Pond. Same as chemis';ry Note that some surface water location #7. chemistry sites p are not needed in b SW8 - Site drainage stream. Same as chemistry surface the radiological water location #8. sampling. SW9 - Outflow at the western property boundary. Same chemistry surface water location #9. SW12 - Lake Claiborne. Take sample at inflow point of Cypress Creek. No corresponding chemistry surface water location. ( October 1993 i l I l

r O TABLE 6.2-1 Page 5 of 6

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMEIn'AL NONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM footnotes (a) This table presents an acceptable minimum program for a site at which each entry is applicable. The program may be enhanced at any time. The code letters in parenthesis (i.e., AP1, SW2) provide one way of defining generic sample locations and can be used to identify the specific locations during the designation of each sample site. t (b) Sufficient volumes of samples will be collected when available, using accurate sample collection methods to ensure the attainment of Lower Limits of Detection as specified in Table i 6.1-4. (c) Samples collected will be sent to an appropriate laboratory for analysis via a reliable shipping organization. A sample transmittal form will accompany the samples. Samples will be packaged in a manner to ensure the integrity of each during transit. Perishable samples shall be r7frigerated as soon as possible by the receiving laboratory. Samples requiring analysis as a composite will be stored in a manner to ensure the integrity ( of the sample until the composite analysis has been performed. (d) Air particulate samples will be collected on filters attached to continuously operating air samplers. Samples are to be collected weekly and analyzed for gross alpha after each i collection. Radon and thoron daughter decay shall be a lowed prior to gross alpha analysis. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded,- isotopic analysis shall be performed. (e) Soil samples will be collected using scoops, shovels, etc. as appropriate. Collect the top surface of the soil, not to reasonably exceed a depth of two to four inches. (f) Sectors shall be combined thusly: ~, Composite 1 = sectors N, NNE, NE Composite 2 = sectors E, SSE, SE Composite 3 = sectors S, SSW, SW Composite 4 = sectors W, NNW, NW (g) Representative vegetation samples will be obtained as they are available (seasonal variations may occur). If no vegetation 3 sample is available, obtain-the sample at a location as near as possible (within the same sector) to the designated site. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha l l l October 1993 j

[\\ TABLE 6.2-1 Page 6 of 6

SUMMARY

OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SAMPLING SITES - OPERATIONAL PROGRAM footnotes action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. l (h) Water samples will be collected using water collection buckets, bottles, pumps, etc. and stored in clean containers. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. (i) Sediments will be collected using a device that will gather the top surface of the sediment, not to reasonably exceed a depth of six to eight inches. Samples are to be analyzed for gross alpha. If gross alpha action levels are exceeded, isotopic analysis shall be performed. NOTE: The number, media, frequency, and location of samples may be enhanced to reflect the facility's operating history and other information. Any modifications to the program shall be documented. O t 1 ) October 1993 i i

i TABLE 6.2-2 ACTION LEVELS FOR RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES (a) l NUCLIDE WATER AIR SOIL / SEDIMENT VEGETATION (pC1/ml) (pCi/ml) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) gross 3.0E-10 3.0E-15 5.0E-6 1.0E-8 alpha (a) Activity above background levels for the CEC site. Background levels will be established during the preoperational program. If no background data exists, then steps should be l taken to obtain data either by analyzing additional samples or other appropriate mechanisms. M NOTE: A gross alpha activity that exceeds the action level for l gross alpha indicates the need for isotopic analysis of that sample. ) . O l } l l O October 1993

I-l I TABLE 6.2-4 SURFACE WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING PROGRAM Analytical Physiochemical Measurement Methodoloav* pH Electrode-Conductivity Electrical Conductance q Transparency Secchi Disk Turbidity Nephelometric Total Suspended Solids Gravimetric Dissolved Oxygen Probe Alkalinity Potentiometric Titration Calcium AA/ICP Magnesium AA/ICP Potassium AA/ICP Sodium AA/ICP Chloride Colorimetric Fluoride Colorimetric Hardness (Caco 3) Equiva?ency Calculation Silver AA/ICP l Beryllium AA/ICP Antimony AA/ICP Zinc Cold Vapor AA Thallium AA/ICP l Arsenic AA/ICP Selenium Colorimetric Cadmium AA/ICP Chromium AA/ICP j f Copper AA/ICP Nickel AA/ICP Lead AA/ICP Sulfate Turbidometric Total Organic Carbon TOC Analyzer Nitrite & Nitrate Nitrogen Colorimetric Ammonia Nitrogen Colorimetric l_ Total Phosphorus Colorimetric I Abbreviations - AA = Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry - ICP = Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy - Probe = Specific Ion Probe

Methodology subject to change with changing technology October 1993

J [ TABLE 6.2-5 GROUNDWATER WATER CHEMISTRY MONITORING PROGRAM Analytical Physiochemical Measurement Methodologv* Temperature Thermistor Thermometer pH Electrode Conductivity Electrical Conductance Total Suspended. Solids Gravimetric Total Solids Gravimetric Total Alkalinity Potentiometric Titration Calcium AA/ICP Magnesium AA/ICP Potassium AA/ICP Sodium AA/ICP Chloride Colorimetric Fluoride Colorimetric Hardness (CaC 3) Equivalency Calculation Silver AA/ICP i Beryllium AA/ICP (~ Antimony AA/ICP (gj Zinc Cold Vapor AA Thallium AA/ICP Arsenic AA/ICP Selenium Colorimetric Cadmium AA/ICP Chromium AA/ICP Copper AA/ICP t Nickel AA/ICP Lead AA/ICP Sulfate Turbidometric Total Organic Carbon TOC Analyzer Nitrite & Nitrate Nitrogen Colorimetric Abbreviations - AA = Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry - ICP = Inductively Coupled Plasma - Atomic Emission Spectroscopy - Probe = Specific Ion Probe r

Methodology subject to change with changing technology October 1993 I

r (] TABLE 6.2-6 i V I STORMNATER MONITORING PROGRAM f A. Construction Phase Stormwater Monitoring Program Monitored Parameter Monitoring Frequency Sample Type Oil & Grease Annual Grab Total Suspended Solids Annual Grab BOD 5 Annual Grab t COD Annual Grab Total Phosphorus Annual Grab Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Annual Grab pH Annual Grab Nitrate plus Nitrite Annual Grab Nitrogen B. Operational Phase Stormwater Monitoring Program Monitored Parameter Monitoring Frequency Sample Type Oil & Grease Quarterly Grab Total Suspended Solids Quarterly Grab BOD 5 Quarterly Grab COD Quarterly Grab Total Phosphorus Quarterly Grab Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen Quarterly Grab pH Quarterly Grab l Nitrate plus Nitrite Quarterly Grab Nitrogen Uranium Quarterly Grab l ( October 1993

TABLE 6.2-7 Action Levels and Lower Limits of Detection For Environmental Analyses SAMPLE TYPE GROSS oc ACTION LEVEL GROSS oc LLD [ (ABOVE BACKGROUND) Water 3.0E-10 pCi/ml 1.0E-12 pCi/ml Air 3.0E-15 pCi/ml 1.0E-18 pCi/ml Soil / Sediment 5.0E-6 pCi/g 3.0E-7 pCi/g Vegetation 1.0E-8 pCi/g 1.0E-10 pCi/g i O P i i i ? i October 1993 4

l i O TABLE OF CONTENTS l ) l 8.1 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC j f BENEFITS / COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 i

l 8.1.1 QUANTITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COSTS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-1 l

8.1.1.1 Value of Enriched Uranium 8.1-1 8.1.1.2 Tax Revenues 8.1-1 l 8.1.1.3 New Jobs and Increased Local Income 8.1-1 8 1.1.4 Capital Costs of Land Acauisition 8.1 8.1.1.5 Capital Costs of Plant Facility' Construction 8.1-2 8.1.1.6 Facility Decommissionina Costs 8.1-2 q 8.1.1.7 Impact to Local Government for Services Recuired 8.1-3 8.1.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS-COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1-3 8.1.2.1 Impact on Local Populace and Community I O Caused by Land Accuisition 8.1-3 8.1.2.2 Impact on Local Services and Facilities 8.1-3 f 8.1.2.3 Impacts on Housinc and Rental Costs 8.1-3 8.1.2.4 Impact on Local Roads and Hiohways 8.1-3 I 8.1.2.5 Incentives to Other Industries 8.1-4 t 8.1.2.6 Availability of Site Personnel and Eauipment to supplement Local Services'and Facilities 8.1-4 8.1.2.7 Impact on Local Recreational, Aesthetic { and Scenic Values 8.1-4 8.1.2.8 Removal of Land from Present and Contemplated '( Future Uses 8.1 8.1.2.9 Impact on Real Estate Values in Adiacent Areas 8.1-4' I i f 8.1-i October 1993 i -l =

~. I i i I List of Tables 8.1-1 Quantitative Benefits / Costs of Socioeconomic Factors l Associated with Plant Ccnstruction and Operation 8.1-2 Qualitative Benefits / Costs of Socioeconomic Factors Associated with Plant Construction and Operation l i f i .i l l i l 0 I i l .I i-! I t 8.1-ii October 1993 l -f I ... a. - .r

l ) 8.1 QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUC'0 ION B.1.1 QUANTITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS / COSTS: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION 8.1.1.1 value of Enriched Uranium At full production levels, the LES facility produces 1.5 million separative work units (SWU) of enriched uranium product each year. Based on a 1990 market value of $110 per SWU, the added value of uranium enrichment services which is produced by the facility each year is approximately $165,000,000. 8.1.1.2 Tax Revenues Tax payments resulting from the investment in the LES Claiborne Enrichment Center (CEC) facilities can be separated into ongoing -i property taxes and income taxes. Louisiana Energy Services forecasts annual property tax for the period 1990-2001 of $5,400 based on 1% of the $538,000 land cost. For the year 2002 and beyond, LES assumes property tax payments of 7.9 million annually. This figure is calculated by multiplying.75% times the initial book value of the facility. l ( Income taxes accruing from the investment in LES facilities are inherently more variable than property taxes due to the variability in annual tax depreciation applied to the LES investment. LES anticipates that the facility will generate taxable losses to its investors during the early years of operation; these taxable losses will reverse, becoming taxable income to its investors later in facility life. LES assumes a composite 37.7% tax rate and a nominal 0.3% local rate. Nominal annual tax liabilities in the years of taxable income to LES investors are projected to be in the range of $5 to $130 million. 8.1.1.3 New Jobs and Increased Local Income Construction and industrial operating experience of the LES project owners provides the necessary background information needed to estimate the new jobs and projected increases in local income that will result due to the construction and operation of ~ the LES enrichment facility. A peak construction work force of 400 personnel is expected to be drawn from within Claiborne and surrounding Parishes. About 85 i percent will live within commuting distance and approximately 12 percent will move into the Parish from other areas of Louisiana. Only about 3 percent of construction workers will be from out-of-state. 8.1-1 October 1993 t i

A major portion of the skilled labor force needed for.and operating the facility is expected to be drawn from unskilled' workers hired locally and trained by LES in on-the-job training i programs. About 180 full-time employees will be needed:to operate the LES uranium enrichment facility. The estimated total annual. operational payroll for.the CEC in 1990 dollars will be approximately $8,000,000. This figure includes all costs j including benefits. It is profected that the majority of this money will be spent in Claiborne and surrounding Parishes. Expenditures for materials, equipment, and services associated-with the construction and operation of the LES facility will l represent a substantial addition to local as well as regional incomes. While major components of the facility including ~the r centrifuge units are not manufactured locally, much'of the other i equipment and materials required for facility construction and operation will be purchased from qualified local and regional vendors. In addition to direct construction and operating payroll' costs, project monies are expended on services and supplies, much of which is available locally. Examples of such services and [ supplies include water treating chemicals, vehicle maintenance i and fuel, miscellaneous hardware, food and clothing, janitorial supplies, pumps, motors, instruments and electrical equipment. ) 8.1.1.4 Capital Costs of Land Acquisition Purchase costs of the LES property tract was approximately _j $538,000. i 8.1.1.5 Capital Costs of Plant Facility Construction l Direct capital cost of the LES plant facility construction including interest and property tax and input transmission ej faci!.ities is projected to be approximately $800 million This j cost does not include escalation, capitalized interest, contingency or replacement centrifuges. [.; 8.1.1.6 Fgcility Decommissionino Costs A decommissioning cost study for the LES facility Assuming a 1.5 million separative work unit (SWU)/ year production rate for 30 years of operation has been made. Projected cost for the } facility decommissioning is approximately $518.34 million (1996_ l dollars). This amount includes an estimated $16.175 million for l each year of operation for disposal of UFs tails. Detailed information pertaining to this study and projected costs are-i presented in Section 4.4. 8.1-2 October 1993

.s I l 'I 1 l 8.1.1.7 Impact to Local Government for Services Reauired I No' costs of the project to local government for required. services j is expected. No significant impacts in the areas of: housing; i inflationary effects on housing rentals or prices; noise or aesthetic disturbances; overloading of water supply and sewage treatment facilities, crowding of local schools, hospital or other public facilities or the overtaxing of community services ~ j is projected to occur. 8.1.2 QUALITATIVE SOCIOECONOMIC BENEFITS-COST: SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION l l 8.1.2.1 Impact on Local Populace and Community ) Caused by Land Accuisition No permanent residences were moved as a result of land acquisition for the LES facility and therefore no disruption to the local populace or the nearby community of Homer, Louisiana is expected to occur. l 8.1.2.2 Impact on Local Services and Facilities - l t No significant impacts and/or overloads on local services and ? facilities will occur as a result of the construction and operation of the LES facility. During construction, wastes such O-as wood, concrete, and stumps, will either be buried on-site in an approved construction landfill area or shipped off-site for [ disposal in an approved landfill facility. Quantities of construction wastes which may be disposed of off-site should not i significantly decrease existing landfill capacities. l Small quantities of chemical and sanitary wastes resulting from - l construction activities will be disposed of off-site in approved-facilities. During operation, the LES facility has its own dedicated water supply, water treatment, chemical, radiological l and sanitary waste treatment systems. l 8.1.2.3 Impacts on Housina and' Rental Costs [ i Some minor short-term increases to local housing and rental costs i may occur during the construction phase.of the project. No significant inflationary impacts to housing or rentals'however is expected to occur over the long-term as a result of the LES { project. j 8.1.2.4 Impact on Local Roads and Hichways j Some localized congestion along local roads accessing the j facility site area may occur during work shift' changes but no consistent long-term traffic congestion impacts will result due to the construction and operation of the LES facility. 8.1-3 October 1993 1 p h t p g e w w" u +- e

~ i i 8.1.2.5 Incentives to other Industries Construction and operation of the LES facility is not projected to either increase or decrease incentives for other major-industries to locate within the local area. Service requirements of the facility (e.g., food, lodging accommodations, fuel, etc.) l may however be sufficient to support the presence of several r ancillary service type businesses in areas immediately adjacent l to the plant. i 8.1.2.6 Availability of Site Personnel and Ecuipment to Supplement Local Services and Facilities { No significant supplements to local services and facilities are expected to result because of the construction end operation of the LES facility in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Several of the operational personnel will be trained for special tasks such as fire fighting, first aid, chemical treatment and-technical radiological analysis and may be made available should the need arise to supplement and augment any local service i or community needs. } 8.1.2.7 Impact on Local Recreational, Aesthetic and Scenic Values t The potential monetary impact of the LES facility on local recreational, aesthetic and scenic values is difficult to determine, but is not considered to be significant in either a positive or negative manner. Prior to its selection as the i location for the LES facility, the site was orivately owned and restricted from public uses such as hunting,-camping and fishing. 1 Timbering activities prior to plant construction by the previous land owner resulted in a temporary degraded visual condition i which will not be further impacted by plant construction activities. The site has no known areas of historic or cultural interest. 8.1.2.8 Removal of Land from Present and Contemplated Future Uses Prior to construction of the LES. facility, the site property was f in pasture and woodland. While some past uses of some of the_ land will be precluded by the facility, there will be a benefit due to-the additional taxes paid for an industrial installation compared to.those paid previously on unimproved land. l 8.1.2.9 Impact on Real Estate Values in Adiacent Areas It is anticipated that real estate values of some_ adjacent properties may be enhanced due to the presence of the LES facility 4 It is difficult however, to evaluate or quantify how l and/or which adjacent properties may have their economic values 8.1-4 October 1993

= j . r O ' . increased. Property value enhancement would be gained primarily through the location of business ventures supporting LES operations (e.g., food service, equipment vendors). ~ ' I i i 1 r N t l -i t d 4 s' I 8 1-5 October 1993 i O I ..J

/ TABLE 8.1-1 Quantitative Benefits / Costs of Socioeconomic Factors + Associated With Plant Construction and Operation One Time Benefit Claiborne Parish School Board Tax $5,000,000. Annual Benefits Value of enriched uranium enrichment services $165,000,000. Operating Payroll 8,000,000. Tax Revenues (local / State / Federal) - Years 1990-2001 5,400. - Year 2002 to end of facility life 7,900,000. Personnel / business income (a) 21,000,000. One Time Costs Land acquisition 538,000. Site selection, community relations 3,000,000. i and licensing Plant decommissioning 29,540,000. l O Plant engineering & construction 800,000,000. 1 Annual Costs Operating and maintenance $ 16,000,000. Depleted Uranium Disposal (b) 16,175,000. I i (a) Based on 2.65 multiplier of primary dollars (i.e., payroll) for the Shreveport Economic Area which includes Claiborne Parish. (b) 1996 dollars O October 1993

T TABLE 8.1-2 r V Qualitative Beneftis/ Costs Of Socioeconomic Factors Associated With Plant Construction And Operation Determination / Oualitative Benefits Evaluation f Incentive for development of other Potentially j o ancillary / support business development beneficial l resulting from presence of LES facility Availability of LES facility personnel Potentially [ o and equipment to supplement local beneficial I facilities and services Change in real estate values in areas / Potentially o communities adjacent to the facility beneficial (e.g., land, homes, rental property etc) Savings to rate-payers from decreased Beneficial o nuclear fuel costs Increase in local employment opportunities Beneficial o 3 Impacts to local retail trade and services Beneficial o O Development of local workforce capabilities Potentially o beneficial Oualitative Costs Change in real estate values in areas / Potentially communities adjacent to the facility inflationary (e.g., land, homes, rental property etc) Traffic changes along local streets and some increases o highways during shift changes o Demand on local services, public Some increased utilities, schools, etc utilization expected Impact to natural environmental Minimal impacts o components (e.g., wildlife, water quality, air quality, etc No Impact I Alteration of aesthetic, scenic, No measurable o historic, or archaeological areas or impact values i Change in local recreational potential No impact j o (' (e.g., hunting, fishing, camping, etc) s October 1993 1 f}}

ML20057F567

Text

3.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

10.0 REFERENCES

1.1 BACKGROUND

3.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

10.0 REFERENCES

1.1 BACKGROUND

3.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

10.0 REFERENCES

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search