ML20076C236

Forwards back-up Notes & Refs for Fuel Cycle Portion of EIS Update.Related Info Encl

ML20076C236
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	06/24/1982
From:	Nelson I Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION
To:	Lowenberg H NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20076B704	List: ML20076C006 ML20076C010 ML20076C111 ML20076C119 ML20076C128 ML20076C131 ML20076C138 ML20076C144 ML20076C151 ML20076C236
References
FOIA-82-290 NUDOCS 8210070465
Download: ML20076C236 (57)

Text

.

p q

50

+

OBa11elle Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Box 999 Richland, Washington U.S.A. 99352 Telephone (509) 375-6813 Telex 15-2874 June 24, 1982 Mr. Homer Lowenberg Office of Nuclear flaterials Safety and Safeguards U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~

Washington D.C.

Dear Homer:

Enclosed is a set of back-up notes and references for the Fuel Cycle portion of the EIS Update. Also enclosed is a bibliography of material used by the Safeguards group. This should be added to that sent to you previously by Ory Hill.

I expect that Bob McCallum will forward additional Safeguards material to you June 30, 1982 or before.

We received the uodated EIS material on June 23, 1982.

Very truly yours, Iral Nelson ICN:bh Enclosures l

i

(

i I'

/ B210070465 820716 l

i PDR FOIA

, WEIBS82-290 PDR l

v f f h/ follhm

'f'

,.8*

a 7Agj_ c of.

couretii 1 a

{fsra

$xt,oa. EAST

/~f 4,a sa tvass wi

-e s

t

& p a tsz

/a,pecds 9-M s

4 9*

4 e

i Ii l

l =

l i

i I

2~

rozuc

}MPdCTs~

/

a O

RP m 6:V

^

50 &

7PA + '=/.sw, ss &e-b-a w 4A 72xs w.suap n as6s -

I Q&s</A#

/O - H.5 - 5 7~- /

nn'ta /,

I g y M - li n d e

~

I mu

& A i.

~

i 1

. i

l. S W i

}

~

l'

\\

[

/

i s

7's fg.,

1 bl = ? 3 L l

I i

I SS.

hL44W $h Y 3.'N

' l f.

tw 5[adM f[

l i

i 0s S Yh t&l'W

- > E Ll k

= t'E h u sw?" & Y /*[. &

i 4

b5-) fd.- V) b hMW t

,e-y

.y7-

, y,

r..

RHO-HS-ST-1 i

Solid radioactive waste buried in the ground is considered to be either in final disposal or interim _ storage., Waste buried after April 1970, which contains or is suspected of containing TRU waste in concentrations greater than 10)Ci/g, is considered to be in interim storage (20 yr)/

Large items of sol'id waste, such as failed equipment from locations /where the presence of TRU waste can be safely ruled out, are packaged,in/

concrete boxes and buried in industrial waste bu' rial trenches.

Small)temsof

\\

^

failed equipment and trash type contaminated waste, from..l

-the presence of transuranium'nuclides can be safely ruled,ocations where out, are packaged

\\

/

in cardboard cartons, wood boxes, or steel or fiber drums and buried in the so-called " dry waste" trenches. NA schematic drawing /of a solid waste N

/

burial trench is shown in Figure 1.12.

/

.y

,/

Prior to 1970, the waste was packaged in' iron drums and iron or con-N /

crete boxes and buried in special trenches.

Subsequent evaluation of iron drumsdirectlyburiedinHanfordsoi,ls'ind)c,atedthatfailurescouldoccur in less than 20 yr and retrieval,,.as cc::tamiriation-free packages, might not be possible.

Two alternatives to. direct bur.ial were implemented on a test basis, either of which, w<ll protect the containers from direct con-

. tact with the soil and wil'i permit retrieval.

./

The first alternative, a prototype concrete V Trench, was built and filledwithTRU-be[ringwastedrums,asshowninFigure

-13.

A metal cover and several feet of earth cover isolate the dr"ms from the environ-

/

\\

ment. This,41ternative provides protection of the drums from the soil and i.. -

\\

allows sanipling of the storage trench atmosphere for radioective materials and comb'ustible gases, either of which would indicate drum failure.

/

Currently, a simpler alternative, pad storage, is being utilized.

The TRU-bearing solid waste is segregated as combustible and noncombustible at the point of origin and placed in labeled drums. The segregated waste drums are placed on the storage pad in a stack four or five drurra high; each layer of drums is separated by plywood treated with fire retardant.

When drums are stacked to cover an area 7.3 by 7.3 m (24 by 24 ft), the stack is covered with plywood and plastic-reinforced nylon sheeting prior to covering with 1.2 m (4 ft) of earth. Capability for sampling the stor-age atmosphere is also provided.

(A schematic of this storage alternative h

is shown in Figure 1-14).

1-26

4'.

O RH0-HS-ST-1 FILTERED SUPPLY EXHAUST FILTER AND FAN IiS+.0

,/

/~

t's BACKFILL (1.22 m) 9{h@

jj,j'.-

METAL Mii ?d

- STEEL ORUMS j5

~

'"1%$h......f:.,

v$

'f;)gttg.'"'. b~jffGRA E

Sif,

~

,adi CONCRETE UNER..

.m

~,

C.:. -

.?.

~

m,w:

u

~.i*

. ; ~2.,-

n

' sump Ok;I#

RCP8109427

{IGbRE1-13. Vee Trench TRU Storaga.

/'/

N

/

,}

% in. PLYWOGD

\\

% in. PLWVOOD p 2 in. PVC PIPE

3. _ _ _

/

N

,/.

N f

q s s y

f BACKFitL \\

GRADE

,-' VINYL COVER g

\\-

I

.s 208.2 L ORUMS k

i

~

M,'?

'ff fV RCPS109-428 FIGURE 1-14.

The Asphalt Storage Pad (Currently Used Method).

l l

i 1-28

(

e g

l N

• Tfh) l y9

~

73 7.5 c

.h 9

e 9 l

StrA

.3.&c.+/.z ~ ( m e)

'1 % w 75+v(VF&]'=/70n e>

0 ff a& = 0.&f Y i

e

{

g

..........l v % e w - w o) %.)

s. s g a l

YGvY)

I

~

55 bmo I

kuav swy tu/ a ss-h[A["#

yy a.

I e

& n mp haa.- as,c au p se b

f")

?

e2< 1y'x /3 = 6 & f

/J & 2 y-5M424. hJ k W

y

....[....'

& && 6> uct Jn

~

t U

bf }(L

/16 y'n% 0.ys a w

• o.uf k

?

I i

e j

hwu AuZEb :

0.o38 acwV n d.8/5 /vu l

i S

t 9

.27~ RobA L dl' ouNb /MPAC~75

%. OND l

CL82P

- L ytf Bow x 9570 -Sss baa 5

e hl sd

/po'u..

I p

i

!/b

= M W X7LX/((74-y 8k_ bb I

/va<c W 1

h l l. V SSk

?,

8 I

I

NUREG-07J2-

}

E-30 N.

Natural Resources The\\ principal.' nonagricultural natural resources within theAicinity of the site 'ar inerals and land.

3.5.1 Minerals The predomina \\nt mineral resources within 50' of the site are dimension stone, crushed sto'ne sand and gravel,, arid clay.

Development of extensive t

mining efforts for metals has not been made in the area of the site.

There are no known precious tae'lais or fos'sil fuel mineral deposits within 8 km of the site. Withdrawingthes'urf,(cialsandylayer.,atthe-siteforindustrial use is not cost-effective dudi to their poor construction quality.

Sand is mined at a local borrow.pft.

This biirrow pit produces an average of 680 metric tons (750 short tons)' annually.

A kaoliib(clay) borrow pit is operated approxi-mately 16 km (10 mi) to the southwest of theNte.

There is little potential at the site for' cost-effective withdrawal of kao'i'in for construction grade clay, although' limited quantities are available for onsite use.

The principal..a s

dimension / stone mined in the state is limestone.

However',sthe small thickness and poor quality of the limestone formation beneath the sitew akes it generally unatt'ractive to major dimension stone producers.

7 3.5.2 Land Within an 81 km (50 mi) radius of the site, there are three principal categories '

of land use:

(1) woodland, (2) farmland, and (3) developed land. Approximately 25% of the land area is. woodland (both private and government preserves), 55%

is farmland (with an approximate 50:50 mixture of row crops and pasture), and 20% is developed land (light industry and residential dwellings).

The area occupied by the site had been used for farming in the past.

However, for the last several years the land hAs been lying uncultivated and a thick secondary growth has grown up.

4.

REFERENCE FACILITY DESCRIPTION N

The descripti.on of the reference disposal facility s divided into two sections:

(1) the basic' site design, and (2) the support iacilities and structures.

4.1 -Basic Design l.

To provide a base case againstswhich. alternatives can be analyzed in this environmental impact statement,'the disposal facility is assumed to have a total capacity of up to.on'e millionm 3s(35.3 million ft) of waste which is delivered to the disposal site at an annual average rate of 50,000 m3 (1.77 million fts) and randomly disposed into shallow land burial trenches having a desig' which is typical of current practices. NThis results in a base case n

amount of land which is committed for waste disposal Alternatives considered e

in thi.s environmental impact statement for waste form'and disposal facility design-a'nd operation will vary the amount of land commit'ted for waste disposal.

For example, increased processing and volume reduction of waste decreases the amount of land needed for waste disposal, while the alternatives considered in

\\

-m.

---

.--,,-..-_y

.-..,r,---,

--p-

i g.

'...C..-

YN(.k (Astd CFt32.P 4&+ w Cmsg9.et

- nss a.a un

,/

P. E~.3I

/ y'Sd(AW

- Cotrood,n.*

~

v b5 O K DY0 M W = 0.-5~/'L OW g,9 g

.13. /TiEG ww n->

0

-mpu&nd

& u d 6 :u e

/ x m>

(ggpassw

a. a, -

op.od saw

('l,1,.(***]'"

.l

- opa6 nai

,cx e6p

3. s u o vo

(,g3 disp o ' %,w

r Alu R EG- 0 7 3 &-

3-50 4

a Table 3.8 Unit Rates for Impact Measures i

Cost Occupational

• Energy Use (thousand Exposure (thousand Activity 1980 $)

(person-mrem) gallons)

Units **

Pracoerational i

Rtference Base Case 7,452 212,,

Lump Sum

~

Additive _Alternativest Walled Trench 594

. Lump Sum-Stacking 226 Lump Sum Segregation 1

Lump Sum Layering 132 Lump Sum Decontainerized Disposal 924 Lump Sum Hot Waste Facility 260 Lump Sum Grouting 55 Lump Sum Intruder Barrier 281 Lump Sum i

Extreme Stabilization 10 Lump Sum Operational Reference Base Case Trench (-Cover) 2,341 300 200 Disposal Vol.

Regular Cover 1,420 2,400 100 Disposal Area Other 63,696 1,000 200 Lump Sum e

Additive Alternativest Walled Trench 74,438 700 300 Disposal Vol.

Stacking 12,758 100 100 Total Waste Vol.

Segregation 3,888 100 30 Total Waste Vol.

Layering 15,400

-100 30 Vol. Disp.

by Layer Decontainerized Disposal 48,975 400 100 Vol. Disp.

by Decon Hot Waste Facility 176,979

-200 450 Vol. Disp.

by HWF Groutin0 72,405

.2,550 800 Grout Volume Sand Backfill 3,270 185 Sand Volume Cover Options Thick 15,524 2,400 150 Disposal Area Intruder Barrier 103,854

_2,400 300 Disposal Area Moderate 3,465 4,800 300 Disposal Area Stabilization Extreme 33,345 4,800 E00 Disposal Area Stabilization

iULIK$G.-by 5 x i

. g z.

3-51:

1 Table 3.8 (continued) i.

' Cost:

-Occupational

• Energy'Use (thousand Exposure (thousand' 4

Activity-

'1980 $)

(person-mrem) gallons)

' Units **

Postoperational

~

Closure. Period' Regular' Closure-1,010 500tt 15 Lump Sum Exten'sive Closure 3,025

'1,000

~50 Lump Sus

~

Institutional Period #

Low Care Level 2

Per Year

. Years 1-10 150 2

Per Year Years 11-25 63.

2 Per Year Years26-100 51

. Medium Care. Level 6

Per Year Years.1-10 303 6

Per Year Years.11-25 150 6

Per Year Years26-100 63 High Care Level 10 Per Year-Years 1-10 440##-

-10

'Per Year Years 11-25 303 10-Per Year Years26-100 150

• 0ccupational exposures associated with-operations other than waste unloading and disposal.

l

• • Lump sum-items are assumed to be independent of the waste volume. Disposal 3 of disposal-(not waste) volume; grout volume dependency is for.1 million m 3

e volume dependency is for 1 million m of grout injected; sand volume dependency is for 1 mill, ion m of sand backfill; disposal area dependency is' for 1'million 3

2 m of trench cover area..

tRates for alternatives are incremental rates in addition to the rates gisen for the reference.ystem.

ttRegular clor..re assumed to last 2 years, extensive closure is assumed to last four years.

Both cases assume 5000 person-hours of field work per year in an-sverage radiation field of 0.05 mR/hr.

1. These costs are basic costs.not considering inflation or interest.

Details for complete calculation of the institutional period costs can be found in Appendix Q.

The formulae given in Appendix Q are incorporated into the cost ca1culation procedure.

1. 1. To this cost, a contingency cost is added which depends on the soil conditions:

$3&f,000 for medium permeability soils; $168,000 for high p meability soils; and,

$1,007,000 for low permeability soils.

I i

k 9

. ~,,_.,,.

m m,,,.,. -,

u

,.,r,-

.,._a

.e.

!7 i

~

l o

b M b(Pff0v.Y & nvgu N

4n& S

/ ).su lcfvckkl./

30v a

fu ur c

=

l V=(rn /mQ gg,

= y,g3g g

~

~

,emG

-~

" "" b hY '

^

~

F Ces.tf occwgi&

O/f7=.=

-~ 7914 rr N ?..fys m

== /S~c) s

~*

~jo&

v f&

WW lh l

Ak $

gw) ha to sn*-() sag = po ad

/)c/0 n "

I S

$8 GCO Aik

?r.ilaub ?

wtc.

d6 e

l.

(9._.12l6 sex)*t'S

1. 9 I

l8 e

$ isw -

Ikt uuadmae

&L

(

S.

Isswa -MzA.a~ k<>el M s

-/Epabaul 6 kruk S/&al

/M be

'~

j ooog ony ses a

-- zoqo

^

r j uo my

• 1~o41L

=/so

./Su j$p

//O

= - V5 Jew

/dn

' *? 65.f l-l t

i e

L l

l 1

'/ /_ a L d.v&5i 7~&/h.- V / M V'A C /3

f' C

1

-!/e

/-!LU A:w< $1f~

$0S GE/5 -

/ 96 38 f417.J M

/px 3 \\,//R 3

AM l

/dd M

GWe 3#

Ad2 M 3 GQ Wh M 6 L A,P M 1 l5

//.87 M1Mff l&<u}

surS

'\\

n ?

\\'

sse>1wep} 5y

...Q") vo' 4 0$Y Mlbf-

@ dl'f Ik#fgj (-

i kre aau.us$ * /nJ /

\\

,5'M f l

d%

GE/S mfus,f h.co= ) (ss~o ) = d.J A 3

p

.h @U5 M h 4.2_/pu3

' /'53 5 /td

' ' hCald.fiblf~ L/.ii.Jb fl k) iWb ltLuri)cdbW

~

afws

(

n

q

/c -

t WfK dke paA w A 87,/p r

fuus2.' pm - fa-M6GJ.[acul -bu)G

.. F7;-// 77 f)'

~~~

-C2ya)

Acu /k-n-wf 40 /cha&1-

/,

t

& s'.

/D.f

~

/. S y)

~~

gj Y

.4:.7 3

d. 7.

(6

~

V O. 8

/.6 5

0f

/ f.

4 6

-O6

/, j +

7.

" O. 55

/, y -

/O.

&? V57 O.89'

'~' '

M

.AJf SC-

' isawsu s urm mis

.i I

-0 i

ORNL-DWG-82-11774 HIGH-LEVEL WRSTE THERMRL POWER

,......g 6

......g

.g

......g LEGEND

~

c - FFTF 10<

A - CRBR

~

~

i

(

+ - PWR-U.

5

\\

x - LMFBR --

y

}j 1

0.7 KW{

~

i 10'

- RTy N

}wwg

,,r r

H k

.\\\\.69 %T 1

10 7

e 7

S 3

f '36

($

o L

-I CC h

10

?

& :,-%]

/

us

?

l 5

i i

J l

10'*

t 7

l

\\

w

~

10

~

l g

/

i i

, );;;t, i

-3

.,......a l

10

10' l'O' I

18 10' 10' 10' 10'

I y

y s

v.

S G~/S hb 'A l-Y I4,*bGJ& O A%bl9 d

a<.. &&S e

e 4 +

+

e 4

a em GJ4-3.w/as,/cmstiu Im Kwlsw p.5.58,lar/cisW bade <nw+pxw y m

e 4e e ^

ee e

=0.e.

e eo ee e

ax)er-cwze, p.p.s-e a - {s.s,,ys) e

=

x /7c)) A" =) sese pi(lar

~

O C d?(.:b L u d A 4 - 3/

3/ < 3. L *

?f2$UAYd c%2 Kid I

i

~ - -

r

L)CE,/6/5 -00 W F 5.38 In the NE'of reprocessing cycleJgh-level wastes there hermal limit for indi-vidual canisters in addition 'tb"the repository area thermal limits. These limits, which are derived-from maximum temperatures, are identif abTe'5:3.5.

TABLE 5.3.4 Conceptual Repository Design Thermal Limits for Reprocessing Cycle Wastes Medium kW/ha(a) kW/ acre (a)

Salt @}

250 100 Granite 3 20 130 Shale 200 80 Basalt 320 130 (a) Area occupied by the emplacement rooms and their associated pillars only.

(b) The placement of HLW in salt is not limited by long-term surface uplift as was the case for spent fuel in salt. Because the concentration of plutonium and its long-term heat contribution is much less in HLW, sur-

~

face uplift is reduced and room and pillar integrity is the dominant con-cern. The integrity of rooms and pillars is dependent upon room and pillar area thermal density as listed in this table TABLE 5.3.5.

Conceptual Repository Thermal Limits for Individual HLW Waste Canisters Maximum kW Medium per Canister Salt 3.2 Granite 1.7 Shale 1.2 Basalt 1.3 The concepttial repositories are designed to receive and emplace 6.5-year-old (time sinYe actor discharge) HLW. However, as was the case with spent fuel (Section 5.3.1.1),

much of the Qas it arrives at the repository will be older and c an'6.5 years.

Because of this, imates of waste emplacement for the reprocessing waste repositorice are

/

conservative because th epository could hold more wast designed for the older and-lower heat-generating rate wa es. As it) the ca the spent fuel criteria, the criteria in Table 5.3.4 were developed for

-year-waste. Using these criteria for 6.5-year-old waste provides additional conservat m e e also. However, the effect on capacity is smal-1er here because a substantia ortion of the-cgpository area is required for TRU wastes whnse placement is not affected by the thermal criter.ia because they generate so little

[

heat.'

N Design and' construction of the conceptual fuel reprocessing w.aste repositories are assumed to. proceed in the same manner' as described for the once-through fuel' cycle in Sec-tion 5.3,

.1.

The overall repository area is approximately 800 ha in all cases.NConstruc-tion is completed during the first five years of repository operations while all wastes are emplaced retrievably.

Y.... -

D Ok/ET -co a g f

7.5.6 j

TABLE 7.5.3.

Reposito'ry Area Allocations and Arrangemen't Fuel Cycle Salt Granite Shale Basalt All cycles Room Size, m *I I

HLW 5.5 x 6 x 170.

5.5 x 6 x 170 5.5 x 6 x 170 5.5 x 6 x 170 FRW/lLW 11 x 6 x 1000 5.5 x 6 x 170 8 x 6.x 170 5.5 x 6 x 170 LLW 11 x 6 x 460 5.5 x 6 x 170 8 x 6 x 170 5.5 x 6 x 170

' Pillar Width, a HLW 18 18 18 16.5 FRW/ILW/LLW 9

7.6 18 8.2

!!a - Uranium-only recycle, Plutonium in M

Number of Rooms HLW 934 673 572 806-FRW/ILW 64 1,192 620 1,005 LLW 4

44 16 37 Containers / Room (b)

HLW -

17 73 66 86 FRW 1,562 145 144 145 ILW 5,220 435 432 435-LLW 31,000 4.464 6,624 4,464 Center to Center Hole Spacing, m HLW 9.5, one row 2.2, one row 2.5, one row 1.8, one row ICI

1. one row (d) 2.3, two rows ICI 1 one row (d)

FRW 2.6, four rows ICI 1, one row (d)-

2.3, two rows (c) 1, one row (d)

ILW 2.3 four rows Total Room and Pillar Area, ha HLW 380.

270 230 290 FRW 20 35 40 36

• llir 110 200 240 210 LLW 4

9 7

9 Total Emplacement Area, ha HLW 500 360 300 380 FRW 27 46 53 47 ILW

-140 270 31 270 LLW 5

12 9

12 ICI Total Repository Area

- per 1000 MTHM Equiva-lent ha III III III III HLW 13 - 18 4.1 - 11 7.2 - 13 4.7 - 8.4 FRW 0.45 0.50 1.1 0.60 ILW 2.4 2.9 6.5 3.3 LLW 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.14 Total 15.9 - 20.9 7.6 - 14.5 15.0 - 20.8 8.7 - 12.4,

Doe /e r-ooa.w

'7.5.7 TABLE 7.5.3.

contd Fuel Cycle Sal t Granite Shale

' Basalt

!!b - Uranium only recycle.

Plutonium stored Number of Rooms HLW 794 668 555 714 FRW/ILW 105 1,190 626 1.013 LLW Containers / Room (b)<

7 46 l16 40 HLW 31 73"-

66 -

'86 FRW 1,562 145 144 145-ILW 5,220 435 532.

435 LLW-31,000 4,464 6,624 4,464 Center to Center Hole Spacing, m-HLW 5.3, one row 2.2, one row 2.5, one row-1.8, one row FRW 2.6 four rowsIC) 1, one row (d)-

2.3, two rows (c) 1,~one row (d)

IC)

1. one row (d).

2.3, two rowsIC) '1, one row (d)

ILW 2.3, four rows Total Room and Pillar Area, ha HLW 320 270 220 260 LLW 36 35 40

~36 ILW 170 205 240

210~

LLW-6 9

7 10 Total Emplacement Area, ha HLW 420 350 290 340 FRW 47 46 53 47-ILW 230 270 31 0 280-LLW-

_ I 8

12 10 13 intal Repository Area ')

• per 1000 MTHM Equiva-1ent ha III III III III HLW 6.6 - 9.3 4.1 - 6.2 7.2 - 13 3.1 - 8.4 FRW 0.45 0.50 -

1.1 0.60 ILW 2.4 2.9 6.5 3.5 LLW-0.08 0.12 0.19 0.14 Total 9.5 = 12.2-7.6 - 9.7 15.0 -'20.8 7.3 - 12.6

!!! - Uranium and Plutonium Recycle Number of Rooms HLW 830 668 555 738 FRW/ ILW 95 1,190 626 1,013 LLW 10 84 29 72

f06/G T-O63 8

=7.5.8.

TABLE 7.5.3.

contd Fuel Cycle' Salt Granite Shale Basalt III - Uranium and Plutonium Recycle (contd)

Containers / Room (b)

HLW

- 31 73

. 66 86 FRW 1,562 -

145 144.'

145 ILW-5,220 435 432 435 LLW 31,000 4,4 64 6,624 4.464 Center to Center' Hole Spacing, a HLW 5.3, one row 2.2, one row 2.5, one row 1.8, one row ICI Id) 2.3, two rows (c) j, p.e rowIdI 1 one row FRW 2.6, four rows ICI 1 one row (d)

'2.3, te m (c)

1. one row (d)

ILW 2.3, four rows Total Room and Pillar Area ha HLW 340 270

[220 270.

FRW 30 35 40 36 ILW 160 210',

240-210 LLW 10 17 13 17 al Emplacement g%

F HLW

'440 350 291' 350-FRW 40 46 50 47

-ILW 210 270 310 280 M-7A}.

' Total Repository Area (')

3

)g

. fi7 f

per 1000 MTHM Equiva-j 1ent ha III III III III HLW 6.6 - 15 4.1 - 11 7.2 - 13 3.1 - 8.4 FRW 0.45 0.50 1.1 0.60 ILW-

2. 4 '

2.9 6.5 3.5 L5W

~~

0.08 0.12 0.19 0.14 Total 9.5 - 17.9 7.6 - 14.5 15.0 - 20.8 7.3 - 12.6

a. Width by height by-length.

b. Canisters are not emplaced in the first 10 m of the rooms,

c. Multiple rows of holes are spaced 1.8 m center to center between the rows.

d. In granite and basalt formations, FRW and ILW are placed into trenches 1.7 m (5.6 f t) wide.

e. Amount of total repository area, including shaf t, maintenance, corridor and emplacement areas required for emplacement of 1000 MTHM equivalent waste. Total area for a single repository (as conceptualized in this report) is approximately 800 ha (2000 acres).

f. As canister diameter changes to meet the kW/ canister constraint (see Section 7.3), the number of MTHM equivalent per canister also changes. For the constant ca af ster spacing assumed in these conception designs the amount of repository area per MTHM equivalent changes inversely with the canister size. The range of canister sizes used at the repositories are:

Canister Diameter, cra Fuel Cycle Salt Granite Shale Basalt

!!a

.25-30 15-25 15-20 15-20 iib 25-30 20-25 15-20 15-25 20-30 15-25 15-20 15-25 1

The"a0 cm (12 in.) diameter canister contains 3 MTHM equivalent waste while the 25, 20. and and 15 cm diameter canisters contain 2.1.1.3, and 0,77 MTHM equivalent waste respectively.

y..

e

'/2

-=

r

$55U d - b.-l $dd %h bl l 20 b.d (L@

/sotu = /%w (xcw

~

e

(

L d.~8 7 /d w

W y= w, n fx L64 i

luby,v+y-no x flew & en H oba d && x-a y<ay nys s).

~

y G

9 y

1 f

l i

i

^

t

/3

=

5YSS!w.1 --- C4au824/

7h g ?)/f r A Lad /

aytaaw

?W>

lS6#V6h

^

MO fv/(m LI x

dex6o

/7 A30 Shn..

go

/v hA9h

/.3 75g G

p~ a, M ( u - /en !

-O ulux u Suurv :..'L.v/i-M 'hy,/ Maff

'I #

l 7,h f

fh,[

{

/7&l

/ 70

/70

/ 79 t

MIL 0l $$(~ iL SY0

$3Z-SSS 33 3 f

s g

i.

f

lv?L b'2P

,k(if -

8 00

$~0 WO 80 0 fa)

I LU(,,,a3 J

/8C,

/gg

/fg lg),

C

&away

}Y,

[$'$0

$$$.)

uS YS0 C/.:n @ # '

d

/5 a.

I bl6 b a 6u

_$L-b00 NW S

NSfwgy k'S2M N

iq'gq g

s o

[

KMkusf /}&

MelaA &y $26O 2 Rtu'[GE/$l

~

Gaus(MA N'A AtNA~3 Q sst 70."b V 3?'f

~st-

• Gn~1t-./8 a At'packd h W"cngck r~

% cast al sk diasdy p 's t s U...

~. ' '. - -

. fruts/ Sdl spaudapcul,.&af m4 chsLfn-usi swsul pger).

- 8 ssa,nc y y a A l-. / ] ( A ) Q&(tN b b =' /2 (.N7C

' ks* & fafnv castafra, %f s,idsschid f

bi W ~mt.d--

c dd, A Ca<- an. c""'s */pw,e das sin i

jaA-P5 6 I ~~ 007. 8 kLla) z.

l

l6 i

b W " &. dT $l--]l ( & - C/t/k pa&kt

&p T h f,.

.,.. r:.-

.....e................

.. g: _,2....,

.~

CC/.s

./4/4/.

.5 o 2 Ce a<.:e[22&2 m mti; ~ '.

.....-...(......

bL C.f a

{C dt/$A j(,,..

m-{g4,y

,.. ~

- -. ~

/8x<

Ctwh% - & cga 6,<

/ze.Av. n D &

~

Ia &Re^ >

-e A Ot-

c. e u M

0

/w. -t n 1.a 9 a Ys 1 a ' -

O 4

W e,

b-

^

Q&-)(7) + a s-(72) - /zf.3

. @ r$O e> - nuy

~

\\

.bl.a-4.

b R f.-f l A M. 0 VW ~ )l J27 ffa.s4tw.t-Saws claEP 3 % d&"t e

U

/7 A

s f-

? :. _.

5$

I*

'~

.u::n.

0 3 70 f/

- fcx F

' ~

(ist5(6.Q -- 6 yP'S ise *

~

~

CES.&P

/G 5fa

/ o.

3 9 ejy Et9 s Y

~

gye w

[

g

%' n g

m F

b*

g g

&7 / decuev

~ 6 6~(s f

I ff bVW

-~

l w

g*

n c

-wyn

,w-

/8

~

4_,s.;c ja 2musu%

2 6'

~

M'd.

dzuz hA

_hAdf.

l, i

NLLJ 3#3

& yB

/77 l/p'

~

i

'}/gl

\\

Q 326'345 d2.36 NTd' 7%

) ys 1

e

$* YY 0.$f

h. llf i

I t

i

' 6. ?.'/ i k

~ ~

908

/w 9.. y y L so7y

[00 ' -

G+a c ;

7.d e

I,

-f

% g/

O.87-0 95

d. 5(

dff-/./6 6SI wk..

I

,j'.!1b

=

e d.

Y Y

e

• /9 a.

i k.Ssuus-A / h 2ktl&s -or>YG f~.,

Se c ba. - S~ f...-..bAb & &

/

/

1 k-Sgf

/tasuzas.- Coudli~

'~

'~

Gib-5.y Y ks;t -Lu(__ fus/ww Ox.s//, -

(4.4l.e 5 (( f

. [M&M/67td*

l b

~

G Mt i y.n>

bee Auf&a-Ta k. s y./s Ewcaus - dpri&aq '

~

66& S Y/?

Nw.- /EsA -Ufi//fY 3

e i

O i

Doe./us-w ysy s.#

5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS RELATED TO REPOSITORY CONSTRUCTION.'.ND OPERATION Environmentsi impacts related to repository onstruction are those estimat-a for con-A struction'of surf ace f acilities and mining of the, entire repository, whereas thow for oper-ation are associated with waste emplaceme'nt, backfilling and decomf$sioning of surface facilities. Ad'ditional details are presented in DOE /ET-00,27.

5.4.1 Resource Comitments

/

Land use commitments for single conc'eptual repositories in the four geologic media are sumarized in Table 5.4.1 for bo. spent fuel and reprocessing wastes. Other resource com-mitments are tabulated in Table'5.4. for spent fuel repositisies and in Table 5.4.3 for reprocessing waste repositories. The same size (areal extent) of repository (800 ha) is N

postulated for eaci). rock type; however, thermal criteria (heat loading of rock) allow spent N

fuel container,s to be stored closer together in granite and basalt than in salt and shale, thus greater' quantities of high-level waste can be stored in granite and basalt repositories for dven area than in salt and shale repositories.(a)

TABLE 5.4.1.

Land Use Comitments For Construction of 800-ha Single Geologic Repositories Land Use Salt & Shale Granite & Basalt Surf ace f acilites, ha Spent fuel repository 180 280 Reprocessing waste 180 220 repository Access roads and 8

8 railroads, ha Mineral and surface 800 800 rights, ha (fenced restricted area)- -

Additional land on which 3.200 3,200 only subsurface activities will be restricted, ha lend use conflicts will be highly site specific; however, most restrictions on surface use of land need not continue af ter repository closure. Thus, most uses of the land could resume after decomissioning of the surface facilities.

Water used,duri g)onstruction of a repository will range.fromIt 1 x 10 5 to

~~ ~

S 3 (depending on geolo'gic. medium) over the 7-yr construction period. As long as 5 a 10 m w4ter can be supplied from rivers sucii as.the R River in the midwest reference environment (Appendix F), water use will represent a smail~ fraction (0.001) of the average river flow

'N (a) Note, however, that waste emplacement has not been optimized in an engineering sense for this generic Statement.

t i

fO t./G./S -o o y 4, F

?.

5.47 TA8'.E 5.4.2. -Resource Commitments Necessary for Construction of a Spent Fuel Repository in Salt, Granite, Shale, and Basalt o

N.

Salt Granite Shale Basalt

. Resource (51,000 MTHM)

(122,000 MTHM)

(64,000 MTHM)

(122,000 MTHM)

Water Use, m 240,000 710,000 360,000 [

610,000 3

Materials \\3s.

100,000 300,000~

50,000 250,000' N

Concrete, m

\\

16,000 48,000 24,000 40,000-Steel, MT 1

Copper, MT 220

-330 560 Zinc, MT' 55 160 80 140 Aluminum, MT 41 120 64 110 3

Lumber, m 2,300 6,900

-3,000 5,900 Energy Rescourt:es y

3 Propane, m 2,200-6,400 3.200 5,400

~

3 Diesci fuel, m 22,000 64,000 32,000 54,000 3

Gasoline, m 16,000 47,000 21.000 40,000 Electricity Peak demand,.kW 3,400

\\1,000 5,100 8,800 N

Total nsumption, kWh 14,000,000 43,000,900 21,000,000 36,000,000' Manp,, man-yr 10,000 30,000 14,000 37,000 TABLE 5.4.3.

Resource Connitments Necessary for Construction pf 'a. fuel Reprocessing Waste Repository in Salt, Granite, Shale, and Basalt (ai N

Salt Granite Shale Basalt Resource (62.0% MTHM HLW) (69.000 MT M HLW) (30,000 MTm HLW) (56,003 MTHM HLW) i 3

270,000 510,000 290,000 450,000 Water use, c i

Materials f

Concrete, m 110,000 210.000 120.000 190,000 3

Steel, MT.

18,000 33,000 19.000 30,000 Copper, MT 240 470 26 0

420, Zinc, MT 62 120 67 '

110'-

Aluminum, MT 46 90 50 77

~

3 Luster, m 2,600 4,900 2,800 4,400

.c Energy resources

~

3 Propane,'m 2,400 4,500 2,600 4,000 2

3 01esel fuel, m 24,000 45,000' 26,000 40,000 3

Gastfline, m 18,000 33,000' 19,000 30.000 Electricity Peak demand, kW 3,900 7,300 4,100 6,600 Total Consumption, kWh. 16,000,000 30,000,000 17.000,000 27,000,000 Manpower, man-yr 11,000 22,000 13,000 26,000

'(a) Only HLW are indicated in this 'and subsequent tables referring to reorocessing wastes sent to repositories. In addition to HLW, about 100,000 MTHM equivalent of TRU wastes are placed in the "first" salt repository and about 110,000, 56,000 and 92.000 MTHM equivalent in "first" reposi-tories in other media, resoectively. Subsequent repositories would undoubtedly receive a dif-

2.-

O os/us -ocwn 5.48 and no significant impacts are expected from its withdrawal. If a repository was to be built in an arid region, water might need to be transported to the site.from ' areas of abundantsuppl)..

-s 5.4.2 Nonradiological Effluents

'N Nonradiological effluentsfrom repository construction include dust and pollutants N

- generated from machinery operation daring surface facility constrsction and mining opera--

tions. Burning the quantities,of fossil fuels'11,sted in Tables 5.4.2 and 5.4.3 results in

~

air pollutant emissions,.but concentrations in air'at. the fenceline are not expected, to-s result in any air quality degradation outside applicabihiits (40 CFR 50). Estimates of pollutant totals released to the atmosphere from operating equipment daring construction are given in' Table 5.4.4.

These quantities are developed from the total quantities of fuel bhrned' and emission factors for a given effluent (URS 1977).

TABLE 5.4.4.

Quantities of Effluents Released to the Atmosphere During Construction of a Geologic Repository for Spent Fuel Salt Granite Shale Basalt

' Pollutant. MT (51.000 MTHM)

(122,000 MTHM)

(64.000 MTHM)

(122.000 MTHM)

C0 7,900 23,000 10,000 20,000 a

Hydrocarbons 360 1,100 480 890 N0, 1,500 4,500 2,200 3,800 50, 92 270 130 230 Particulates 94 270 130 230 for Reorocessina Wastes (62.000 MTHM)

(69,000 MTHM)

(30,000 MTHM)

(56,000 MTHM)

CO.,,

8,800 16,000 9,300 15,000-Hydrocarbons 400 740 420 660 NO, 1,700 3,100 1,800 2,800 S0, 100 190 110 170 Particulates 100 190 110 170 Fmissions from oil burning space heaters in a town of 30,000 population (about 8,000 heaters) were, estimated for a 20-yr period (the aporoximate time surf ac,e_f_acilities at a repository are ope'r'ating)]n an effort to provide some perspective for effluents released during construction of a'reposi_ tory. The calculated emissions were:

N C0, MT _

' \\ s 220 Hydroc'arbons, MT 120 NO,, MT 540 s,'

/

Particulates, MT 6,000

[

50,, MT 460

~ -. - - -

0 E*/EJD ~ 00'lS f S.52 5.4.3 Radiological Effects i

The release to the atmosphere of naturally occurring radon and its decay products will increase during mining of the repositories. Estimated quantities of these radionuclides likely to be released annually to the biosphere for the various geologic media are listed in Tables S.4.8 and 5.4.9.

j TABLE 5.4.8. ' Annual Releases of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides to Air for Construction of Geologic Repository for Spent Fuel, Ci Geologic Media Salt Granite Shale

- Basalt Nuclide (51,000 MTHM)

(122,000 MTHM)

(64,000 MTHM) d 122,000 MTHM) b 2%

7'2'Cn l 220Rn. n 9.3 x 10 2.0 x l'01

- 6.1' 3.1

.. /,,..

Rn ~.5 /1.3 x 10-3,'

1 7.0 2.7 1.9 x 10 2yp 222 g

1.6.x 10-3 5.9 x 10-4 2.3 x 10-4

? sc 210 1.1 x 10-7 f'

g'

..{ 212 1.4 x 10-6gdd0 x 10-2 9.2 x 10-3 4.7 x 10-3

~

p 1

2.7

,1.3 x 10 1.9 x 10 7.0 214Pb r -

1 Bi-kT. 5.3 x 10-3

-7.0

'N. 7 1.9 x 10 210

,e TABLE S.4.9.

Annual Releases of Naturally Occurring Radionuclides to Air for Construction of Geologic Repository for Fuel Reprocessing Waste, Ci Geolog!c Media Salt Granite Shale Basalt Nuclide (62,000 MTHM)

(69,000 MTHM)

(30,000 MTHM)

(56,000 MTHM) 1 220 1.1 x 10-3 1.4 x 10 5.1 2.0 Rn 1

222 1.6 x 10-3 1.3 x 10 6.0 1.7 210 1.3 x 10-7 1.1 x 10-3

• 2.5 x 10-4 1.4 x 10-4 212 1.7 x 10-6 2.1 x 10-2 7.7 x 10-3 3.0 x 10-3 Pb 1

214Pb 1.6 x 10-3 1.3 x 10 6.0 1.7 1

210 1.6 x 10-3 1.3 x 10 6.0 1.7 gg A sumary of 70-yr whole-body doses to the construction work force and to the regional population from the releases of " enhanced" quantities of naturally occurring radionuclides is given in Table 5.4.10.

~

The 70-yr dose from undisturbed naturally occurring radionuclides is about 7 rem /per-son. The 70-yr dose to the regional population is about 14,000,000 man-rem from undisturbed naturally occurring sourdes.

l

's In this report,100 to 800 he'alth effects are postulated to result in the exposed popu-lation per million man-rem. Based on the' calculated doses to the regicnal population, no health effects are expected to result from constructi'n of a geologic repository for spent o

fuel or for reprocessing wastes.

WSb 5.53 TABLE 5.4.10.

Sumary of 70-Yr Whole-Body Dose Commitments from Naturally Occurring Radioactive Sources During Mining Operations at a Repository, man-rem Spent Fuel Repositeries Salt Granite Basalt shale Repository Work force (7 yr in the repository mine) 0.18 5000 6200 1900 Population (within 80 km) 0.007 100 15 38 5.4.4 Evaluation of Ecological Impacts Related to Repositories (a)

Construction of surf ace facilities at repositories will involve the removal of vegeta-tion and displacement of birds and small mannals from the site areas. Weedy species o[

plants would invade cleared areas unless revegetation practices are applied. Local z/ed dust problems would occur until vegetation cover is re-established.

Soil erosion control measures will be needed to prevent surf ace runoff from adding sus-pended s'olids to' nearby land and surface waters. If only reasonably good practices were used, effects from construction of the surface facilities on aquatic biota should be negligible.

\\

5.4.4.1 Ecological Effects Related to Repositories in Salt The major ecological ihact would be from fugitive dust depositions which might occur from surface handling operations of mined material. Of most"/ concern are the estimated salt s

depositions at the repository fenceline of 8.4 and 84 g/mbyr for the reference and arid environment, respectively. These depositions were calcu ated from the case where MT remaining on the surface for final 3.0 x 10 MTofsaltwasminedwith1)3x107 7

disposal.

Adverse biotic effects on vegetation would depend upon many factors, including rate of uptake, short-and long-term sensitivity of psc.ies to effluent concentrations, period of exposure, the physiological condition of t e vegeSation during the time exposure and buildup p

of salt over time. Impingement upon vegetation with subsequent foliar absorption appears to be the most hazardous mode of ent,ry.. Uptake of salt solutions by foliage is a rapid and relatively efficient process (Bukoc'ac and Wittier 1957). Crops particularly sensitive to salt effects are alf alf a, cats / clover, wheat, Indian rye grasi,. and ponderosa pine. These plantsareseriouslydamagedduringgerminationandyoung-leafstigedevelopment. Orna-mental vegetation types that are. susceptible to salt concentrations are dogwood, red-maple, Virginia creeper and wild black cherry. Visual symptoms of toxicity are foliar necrosis, short-time dieback and " molded" growth habits. ' Beans are particularly sensitive showing wilting of areas on primary leaves followed by necrosis of previously wilted areas and l

l (a) In the following discussion of ecological impacts it is assumed that no precautions are taken. Impacts presented can be reduced to insignificant levels through application of f

available engineering techniques. 00E is comitted to discovery and resolution of any potentially significant specific ecological effects.

0 06/E AS ~OO W f 5

5.59 TABLE 5.4.13.

Resource Commitments for the Operational Phase of Fuel Reprocessing Waste I

Geologic Repositories 5-Salt Granite Shale Basalt

_f Materials (62,000 MTHM)

(69,000 MTHM)_

(30,000 MTHM)

(56,000 MTHM)

,f HLW canister overpacks, MT steelt a,b) 6.4 8.2 4.8 9.0

' RH-TRU canister overpacks.

MT steel 1.5 x 101 1.6 x 101 1.0 x 101 1.4 x 101 RH-TRU drum packs, MT steel 5.3 x 104 5.8 x 104 3.0 x 104 4.9 x 104 j

HLW retrievability sleeves, MT steeltb,c) 7.3 x 102 9.6 x 102 1.3 x 103 1.3 x 103 RH-TRU retrievability) sleeves, MT steellc 2.9 x 104 1.9 x 105 2.9 x 10.4 1.6 x 105 HLW concrete plug,(c) MT 8.0 x 102 1,0 x 103 1.4 x 103 1.4 x 103 i

', y RH-TRU congrete plug, MT concretet c) 7.2 x 104 7.2 x 104 7.2 x 104 7.2 x 104 3

-3 Eneroy

$j 9

9 9

9 Ele:tricity, kWh 2.1 x 10 2.6 x 10 1.4 x 10 2.3 x 10 6

6 5

6

[i g Coal, MT 1.4 x 10 1.4 x 10 9.4 x 10 1.3 x 10 3

5 5

5 5

yg Diesel fuel, m 2.5 x 10 2.6 x 10 1.7 x 10 2.3 x 10 7

7 7

7 N3 Steam, MT 1.5 x 10 1.6 x 10 1.0 x 10 1.4 x 10

-1 4

4 4

4 Manpower, man-yr 1.9 x 10 2.4 x 10 1.3 x 10 2.1 x 10

'jg

-j

}h 3 (a) Overpack requirements are based on 0.1% of canisters received leaking or damaged,

'd (b) HLW canister and sleeve diameters change with time as necessary to maintain canister

$3 heat output within limits.

(c') Sleeves and plugs needed for first five years only.

.I 3 f e

i 5 TABLE 5.4.14.

Total Quantities of Effluents Released to the

~

b3

}.j {s Atmosphere During Operation of a Geologic Repository for Spent Fuel

., 4 Geolooic Medium n

h; $

Effluent \\

Salt Granite Shale Basalt-

\\

V3 Particulates, MT

'N430 670 480 670

)g 50, MT 9,700 \\ 15,000 11,000 -

15,000

p x

f,700 3,700 4

2 CO, MT 2,400

, N3,,700 980 1,400 1,'400[N17000 Hydrocarbons, MT 870 24,000

3 NO, MT 15,000 24.000 8

8 x

8 8

Heat, MJ 3.9 x 10 7 9.3 x 10 4,g.x 10 9.3 x 10 3

/

\\

dN

/

N

' d formatiog. The heat will eventually be transferred to the atmosphere and, if the tempera-2 x

v turcs and terr.perature gradients have not exceeded values that would cause ' damage to the for-4 2

/

Ji mation or adversely aff.ect the containment integrity or the environment, the formation will M

N return essentially to'its initial state. The maximum surf ace termerature increase in any 7

case is not expected to exceed about 0.5*C, This aspect is discussed more fully in Sec-

$a tion 5.5 and in DOE /ET-0029.

i

?

m.

-3 g

Doe /us -cow =

5.60 TABLE 5.4.15 Total Quantities of Effluents Released to the Atmosphere During Operation of Geologic Repository for Reprocessing Wastes Geologic Medium Effluent Salt Granite Shale Basalt Particulates, MT 510 540 350 480 50,, MT 12,000 12,000 7,800 11,000 CO, MT 2,900 3,000 2,000 2,700 Hydrocarbons, MT 1,000 1,100 710 980 NO,, MT 17,000 19.000 12,000 17,000 2

8 8

8 8

Heat, MJ 7.6 x 10 8.3 x 10 4.3 x 10 7.0 x 10 5.4.6.3 Radiological Releases g

Routine radiological releases from geologic repositories during normal operation will

~

consist principally of radon emanating from exposed rock faces and radon's decay products.

These releases will also occur from backfilling operations but are negligible conpared to radon releases during repository construction. Occasionally, external contamination may N

occur on' canisters as a result of some minor accident. The population dose,from decontam-ination act)vi, ties would be much less than that from operation at a spenVfuel packaging and storing facility, for which the 70-yr whole-body population dose was, determined to be about 1 man-rem (00E/ET-0029).

Doses to the work force during repository operation will include contributions from

/

receiving, handling, and placement of waste canisters 1,nto subterranean storage areas.

Doses estimated to result fro'ni operations, based on expected time of operation and permis-sible exposure limits, are presented below for disp /osal of wastes for the various geologic media:

70-Year Whole-Body Dose (man-rem)

Geologic Media Spent Fuel Repository -

Reprocessing Waste Repository 5

3 1.4 x 10 Salt 4.3 0

4

'\\

5 Granite 1

x 10 1.6 x 10 3

4 Shale 5.6 x 10 8.0 x 10 4

5 l

Basalt 1.1 x 10 1.'3 x 10 N

Radiation-relatedfealth effects using the conversion f actor of 100 to 800 health effects per million man-fem (Appendix E) suggests a range of zero to 130 hea'lth effects among a dbout8000. The doses tabulated suggest individual worker doses of about workforce I rem per year over a 15-year repository loading period.

/

l 5.4.6.4 Ecological Impacts i

,/

The major ecological impact of repository operation would be from the handling of mined l

materials at the surf ace during repository mining and backfilling. Impacts would be caused by the airborne transfer of mined particulates to the environment near the site. These l

.s 9

L

e2o 0

SLtdik e S ~~

p

)

. ~.

e.

.+ WIDw

-m e

• M.D e u L=

Sly ir

/ A 6s!c h : Z-lv t N W

. _ _T....

6/

v-7nus 'd

~

6

.e any. -..

• • W-e.

+p.

....es k

sg.ym n

/0 L

+ yor> &

. 1.096 v/d 6

=O

~

l *

• V(78 I f(4'06-(f(fo)f.0f6 Y/O')

s

't L

.Yoo L M SSz-.Soj 2d

• 8 " "

4/

...... c.

e h

ez c.pny 4::y. zo rn. u

+ y 4 (ts) ;

j s

g.

hjf0f, [()

. /hfd?& th

• ee -=.

• U elm

/

n 1955 2

~- w/tw

- o.

/

b

.e t

e a se o

=e o

e a

M G

j e

e

'*.e 4

G 4

m,,,

w em 9

oe e

n9 m

ewe

• O 9s==**6 4

e e.

e

.e i

e 1

M n.-

l Edv 6$

., /badA b5 j?tfl.4 /A.1-

- ~ NV/O

?. / N /0 S: ~Y Y / X/O.

'~MU3 ~ * ~~

^ ~

i

1. [

S&l86.oaSO

//0 t /0 S = Vo Yrd fb)hoyo)L- +

L)/C

+

/0L *' + 4/SO G - //.6 76 xta 6 =0

~'

fRz)'- y(Jo)f?i.sti kio )

' ~

^ "E =

-4'on d s

' ~ ~ ~ ~

2ho.)

j - (390 '$. s.191 o y ao

= /035. 5f u Q53. 5 7 x *' Scf(zo) 35.s7) + V(L)(ts)(2s) '

)

10(42 b f

+ pt;g5 +

go

= nsi757.c lf -l/st8 r ep.8 Y acwr < A/5'!L e

' e23 0

4 p

5..n.w' - hs.us'! 10.).k)@L. f@b). m.

. =. -,.:

h

-.e

>.. = =. = =. =

s.

3scwo F Ero =

557/S y' g*

cf5~/ H7f.-f _.. -.

O g

S-

1.

F g.

e.

+

• $ _.?

.... n.

+g>.u.

~

..... i c,

a-e

~

,.e..

• a*'

. g.

..g*

l,

I S

I t

a M

I.-

._........... _ _. J.. _........... - -..

y u.

.o

.. *~*

e.*e ~. ~

[

g 8

I I

l

/

i

((

Jo I

.c 4

i i

I r

y

9 e

c25 y

.l th( rR kl b k h

~'

~ '

g 9

'

• T.

• l,

- l }- h..

t.

C.

M &_.

..v

/

g

;i.

. #e

~

2 e

fk 12 4 c)

/

ills /)@sen.y +. s9.is) 4.

g 1

l D

2.EF/O'Y l

p Pa4auste - u a o +

I

"g-,

w f&

un h

p,Q. g f:....._

)

... ~

.-e t.

~

g:

...g. _

=****=; **

- 9 e.*."

/

~

'.2 h

h K,

t e

e

. ". e

• • 9 8mm.e.

.-.e

.e..

l t

I b

g Ty- " WSN/W y k -

l S

e

rj -

P,otect Numtier OBatielle

,,_., o.. s,_

Paci6c Northwest Laboratories DATE:

June 21, 1981 EC Watson TO:

I. C. Nelson File D. L. Strenge h FROM:.

SUBJECT:

CR EIS Back-up Notes I have reviewed ny notes' for the CRBR project-and have compiled the following 1.ist of references and notes that relate to material contributed the the CRBR EIS.

Napier, B.A.1981. Standardized Input for Hanford Environmental Impact Statements - Part 1.PHL-3509 PT1. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Letter: DL Strenge to DL DeMott (HEDL), January 21, 1981, Fi1EF Environmental Assessnent Dose Calculations.

(Copy attached).

Note to File: DL Strenge, April' 9,1982, Radiological Inpact from Mixed Oxide CRBR Fabrication.

(Copy attached).

Memo: DL Strenge to 0F Hill, April 16, 1982, CRBRES - M0X and FRP

-Site Parameters.

(Copy attached).

Telephone Conversation Note: Tom Clark (HRC) to DL Strenge April 23,1982, X/0 Values for FRP.

(Copy attached).

Memo: DL Strenge to IC Nelson, tiay 20, 1982, CRBR-EIS Update -

Radiological Review.

(Copy attached).

RECEIVED JUN 2 31982 IRAL C. Nelson

...4.w.....,-n.

., e s we,w

.,v, ;..n m,_m m,,

hul - 3509' p73

~

TABLE 8.

Standard Terrestrial Exposure Pathway Data irrigatson Esposure Growing Period field Rate Holdup (dayst Consuection ikq/ year)

Pathway (Days)

(he/o )

(t /= / month) Average gn min Averaae Mu m.m Leary Veg.

9.0 E+01 1.5 E+00 1.5 D02 1.4 E+01 ' 1.0 E+00 1.5 E*01 3.0 [+01 0.A.G. Veg '

9.0 E*01 7.0 E.01 1.6 E+02 l'.4 E+01.1.0 E*00 1.5 E+01 3.0 E+01 Root veg.

9.0 E*01 4.0 E+00 1.5 E*02 1.4 E*01 1.0 E*01 1.2 D02 1.8 E+02 Orch. Fruit 9.0 [+01 2.0 E+00 1.5 D02 1.4 E*01 1.0 E*01 6.4 E*01 3.4 DC2 Grain 9.0 E*01 1.0 E+00 1.5 D02 1.4 E+01 1.0 E+00 8.0 E+01 8.8 E*01 Eggs 9.0 E+01 8.4 E-01 1.5 D02 1.8 E+01 1.0 D00' 2.0 E*01 3.0 E+01

+

Milk 3.0 E41 1.3 E+00 1.5 E42 4.0 D00 1.0 E*00 2.3 E*02 2.7 E*02 Seef 9.0 E+01 8.4 E-01 1.4 E+02 3.4 E*01.1.5 E+01 4.0 E+01 '

4.0 E*01 '

Park 9.0 [+01 8.4 E-01 1.4 E+02 3.4 E+01 1.5 E 01 3.0 E*01 4.0 E+01.

Poultry 9.0 D01 8.4 E.01 1.4 E+02 3.4 E+01 1.0 E 00 8.5 E+00 1.8 E+01 Enternal 1.5 E+02

• Otner above ground vegetables.

TABLE 9.

Standard Aquatic Exposure Pathway Data Exposure Mixing Holdup Usaae Pathway Ratio (Days)

Averaae Maximum Units 1.0 + 000 1.0 + 000 1.5 + 003* 4.0 + 001 (kg/yr)

Fish Drinking Water 1.0 + 000 1.0 + 000 4.4 + 002 7.3 + 002 (L/yr)

Shoreline 1.0 + 000 3.3 - 001

1. 7 + 001 5.0 + 002 (hr/yr)

Swimming 1.0 + 000 3.3 - 001 1.0 + 001 1.0 + 002 (hr/yr) i Boating 1.0 + 000 ' 3.3 - 001 5.0 + 000 1.0 + 002 (hr/yr)

• Total production from Columbia River; must be distributed among total population.

26 s

P.0L-3609 PTJ c

t

[

i Some caution must be used in setting up the population dose calculations.

g The populations exposed may vary with the scenario.

For atmospheric releases, j

the entire 80 km (50 mile) population is used.

However, for releases to the

! t f

Columbia River, a more limited population can be assumed.

While the 80 km population along the Columbia River is assumed for recreational activities on the river, only 50,000 Tri-Citians obtain drinking water from the river, f

Three areas of farmland are irrigated directly from the Columbia directly

{

downstream of Hanford,1) Franklin County Irrigation District with production j

sufficient to feed only about 2,000 people with fresh produce, meat, and milk, f

2) a few small farms at Ringold, mostly orchards, with~some pasture land, and q j

3) a small acreage of hay near Burbank.

The total fish harvest from the l

Columbia below Hanford totals 15,000 kg, which can be prorated among any size population desired, since it is the amount consumed, not the number of people consuming it,'that defines the collective dose.

Other required parameters that are needed to perform Hanford Site dose calculations are given in Table 10.

For these parameters,. if different values can be justified for specific uses, they may be useo.

Additional parameters needed to run the codes and control input and printing are described in the relevant code documentation.

TABLE 10.

General Exposure Pathway Data Individual external ground exposure time 4383 hr/yr

.. ~.

Population ex'ternal ground exposure time 2920 hr/yr Air submersion time 8756 hr/yr Inhalation time 8766 hr/yr 3

i 250 cm /sec '

Individual breathing rate, routine 3

Individual breathing rate, accident 350 cm /sec 1

l 1.0 micron Default aerosol particle size Average Columbia River flow rate 120,000 cfs

=

l 27 i

3....

--E bcc:

EC Watson

>-F.i:le

j LB "5 y.

L OBa11elle

- Pacific Northwest Latoratories P.O. Box 999'.

Richlano, Washington U.S.A. 99352

(

Telephone (309)

Telex 15-2874 January. 21,'1981-Ms. D. L. bdi?tt-

. Hanford Engineering Development Laboratory l'

-FMEF Systems Engineering P. O. Box.1970 Richland, WA 99352

Dear Ms. DeMott:

FMEF Environmental Assessment Dose Calculations The attached table ' presents results of dose calculations for routine -

postulated releases from the FMEF. The table includes doses for-opera-tion of the SAF plus recalculated doses for normal FMEF opertions.

Identification of computer codes and data files used for the calculation-is also attached.

~ If you have any questions on the calculations, please call me (376-4323).

Sincerely, t

,&jiisud.* vtE!ld J Dennis L. Strenge Environment #1 Analys-is Section 1

Ecological Sciences Department DLS:pf.

Attachment r

I; I

i-I i

l l

I

' J. ~.

...,-_._.m 4

4

., l.. *.

FIFTY-YEAR'D0'SE COMMITMENT TO THE MAXIliUM LC l '

EXPOSED INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE-YEAR RELEASE (MREM)

Organ of-Reference

-SAF Operation FMEF Operation 2

~4

-3

- Total Body 2.0 x 10

'1.1 x 10

-3

-3 Liver 2.1 x 10 1.1 x 10

-3

-5.

- Bone 4.7 x'10 '

9.7 x 10

~4

-3 Lung 8.9 x-10 1.1 x 10 Thyroid 2.6 x 10'I2 2.2 x 10-4 FIFTY-YEAP. DOSE COMMITMENT TO YEAR 2000 POPULATION LIVING WITHIN 50 MILES ~0F FMEF FOR ONE-YEAR RELEASE (PERSON-REM)

Organ of Reference SAF Operation FMEF Operation

-4

-3 Total Body 8 x 10 3 x 10

-3

-3 Liver 9 x 10 3 x 10

-2

-4 Bone 2 x 10 4 x 10 4 x 10-3 3 x 10-3 Lung'

-II

-4 Thyroid

.1 x 10 9 x 10 The annual average exposure rate (for FMEF operation) at the 400 Area

-0 visitor center from external radiation is 2.5 x'10 mrem /hr. The 50-year 8

inhalation dose commitment at this site is 2.9 x 10 mrem per hour of inhalation uptake. The corresponding values for SAF operation are

-16

-0 8.7 x 10 mrem / hour for external radiation and 6.7 x 10 mrem per hour Nf inhalation uptake.

L

,.y

.w-__._

r

i ;,).

{

CODES AND' PARAMETERS USED FOR FMEF DOSE CALCULATIONS Meteorological Conditions:

WPPSS 2-year data, annual average Dispersion Model: Gaussian, Pasquill parameters x/Q: 400 area visitor center 5.9 'x 10 sec/m3 0 610 m E, maximum individual

-6 2.0 x 10-6 sec/m3 0 8.1 km E, 80 km population 8.4 x 10-3 person sec/m3 1

Release Height: Ground level Population Distribution:

Year 2000, 251,000 Computer Code:

DACRIN, Rev. 8-4-80 Calculated Dose: Chronic inhalation, maximum individual and 80 km population, first-year dose and 50-year dose commitment Files Addressed: Organ data library 5-19-80 Radionuclide library, Rev.

1-15-81 Computer Code: PABLM, Rev. '10-15-80

(

Calculated Doses: Chronic' Ingestion and ground contamination exposure, maximum individual and 80 km population, first-year and 50-year dose commitment Files Addressed:

Radionuclide library Rev.

1-15 Food transfer library Rev. 27-78 Organ data library Rev.

5-19-80 Ground dose factor library Rev.

3-15-78 Bioaccumulation factor library: Hanford specific Compute'r' C' ode: SUBDOSA, Rev. 11-3-76 Calculated Dose: Chronic external dose conversion factors for air submersion Files Addressed: Radionuclide library RNDBET Rev.

11-3-76 Photon. data library, GISLIBS Rev.

11-3-76 I

. (\\

l J

Y r. $j Y' f

- $h.

s, RADIOLOGICAL IMPACT FROM MIXED OXIDE CRBR FABRICATION C

Mixed oxide fuel fabrication is to be perfonnid in the Secure Automated Facility (SAF) in the Fuels and liaterials Examination Facility (FMEF) currently being built at Hanford. The FMEF Environmental Analysis provides infornation on radiological consequences from this portion of the _CRBR fuel cycle. The annual capacity of the SAF line is designed to be 4 MT of plutonium of which 23% (0.9 MT) will be devoted to supplying CRBR fuel.

The radiological consequences for CRBR mixed oxide fuel fabrication would be approximately 23*. of the SAF line radiological consequences. The SAF line consequences from routine releases scaled to CRBR fuel production are given in the table below. The dose to the maximum individual' (at the nearest offsite residence) and the general population (year 2000) either 50-miles of the FMEF are presented.

Fifty-Year Dose-Commitment from SAF Line Routine Operation

~

for CRBR Fuel Production

(

Organ of Maximum Individual Population Reference (mrem)

(man-rem) l

{-

Total body 9.2 x 10-5 3.7 x 10-4 Liver 9.7 x 10-4 4.1-x 10-3 Bone 2.2 x 10-3 9.2 x 10-3 Lung 4.1 x 10-4 1.8 x 10-3 The dose values include contributions from external exposure to the plume, inhalation of the plume and ingestion of farm products contaminated from deposition onto piants and soil. The ingestion pathway also includes contributions from uptake of contamination produce 'after the first year due i

to residual soil contamination. The methodology used for ingestion path-ways is that of Hapier et al. (1980) which is similar to the models pre-sented by HRC (1977). The inhalation dose calculations were perforned according to Houston, et al. (1976) based on the ICRP Task Group Lung flodel (ICRP 1972) and the simpie exponential organ retcntion functions of ICRP Publications 2 and 6 (ICRP 1959; ICRP 1962).

'Environnental consequences from accidents in FMEF (and SAF.) were analyzed and the worst case accident was found to be a postulated cask-drop acci-dent.

kI This accident could result in a 77-millirem, whole-body, 50-year 1

1 1

_ m.

2 se dose ccanitment to an individual 1.5 miles from FMEF (the nearest distance

( -

for public approach) and 180 man-rem, whole-body, 50-year dose conmitment to the year 2000 population within 50 miles of Fl1EF.. The 77-millf rem, individual, whole-body dose commitment is.less_ than the 500 millirem allowed by DOE for routine operations. The 180 man-rem, 50-year population dose commitment is small compared to the annual whole-body-population dose from natural radioactivity of about 25,000 man-rem (ERDA-1975).

REFERENCE Napier, B.

A., W. E. Kennedy, Jr., and J. K. Soldat.

1980. PABLfi - A Computer Program to Calculate Accumulated Radiation Doses from Radio-nuclides in the Environment. PNL-3209, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

USNRC. 1977. Calculation of Annual Coses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I.

Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.1, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

ICRP. 1959. Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Interaal Radiation.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 2, Perganon Press.

- ICRP. 1962. Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection.

International Commission on Radiological Protection.

ICRP Publication 6, Pergamon Press.

ICRP. 1972. The Metabolism of Compound of Plutonium and Other Actinides.

International. Commission on Radiological Protection.

ICRP Publication 19, Pergamon Press.

ERDA.

1975. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Waste Management Operations.

Energy Research and Development Administration, Report ERDA-1538, Richland, Washington.

• FMEF EA ad '"rf "*d h

()

2

. p. " C. BaHelleJ

. Propc: Numtper ~

,_,a....,_

ie' Pacdic Northwest laboratories'

- fC

'DATE:

April,16,-1982.

IC Helson:

~

EC Vatsor T0:

'O. F. Hill File

~ '

FRON:

D. L._Strenge-l

'Ut[

SUBJECT:

CRBRES - H0X and FRP Site Parameters-l Parameters needed in the rhdiological consequence analysis for airborne.

releases from the N0X.and FRP facilities 'are presented here. This informa-tion should be included Lin your transmittals to Jim. Ayer. The MOX~facil-ity parameters are for the FMEF site (SAF) at Hanford located at the'400 Area (FFTF complex). The FRP facility parameters are defined for-the 2000-acre generic FRP site described in the. Commercial Waste Management GEIS (DOE /EIS-0046F-Appendix F).-

Parameters for MOX Facility The atmospheric. dispersion parameter. at the location of the maximum indi-

~

~

vidual -(8.1.km ' east of the 400 Area) is 2.0 x 10-6 sec/m3. The average, atmospheric dispersion parameter-(for estimating population exposures.is'

' {

3.3 x 10-8 based on a population of 251,000 pecole in the-year 2000 (within 50 miles). These values were derived from joint frequency of occurrence

meteorological data presented in Table 7.of PHL-3509, Pt.1- (copy

).

a ttached).

Terrestrial exposure pathway parameters for the Hanford-site are.given-in Table. 8 of PNL-3509, Pt.1.

The values 1.n this table labeled " averages" are to be used for population exposure calculations and the values labeled-

" minimum".or " maximum". are to be used for the maximum individual dose calcula b o~ns.

• ~

Parameters.for FRP Facility T

The atmospheric dispersion parameter (for stack release from the FRP) at-the location of the maximum individual is 1.5 x 10-8 sec/m3 The. average

~

atmospheric dispersion parameter (based o'n 2 x 106 people) is 1.8 x 10-9 L

sec/m3

• The' terrestrial pathway parameters for the generic FRP site are given in

~

the attached table. The " average" values are to be used for population

, dose estimates and the " maximum" or " minimum" values are f,or the maximum individual dose estimates.

DLS:pf Attachment

....w........

i e t S Govtown,%hns pocg.w.r,s w, j

i

,_--.._+.

e

.@?

w FRP TERRESTRIAL EXPOSURE PATHWAY DATA

.{-'

_ Growi ng

~

Exposure Period Yield Holduo (days) ~

Consumption (kg/yr)

Pathway (Days)

(kg/m)

- Average Minimum.

Average' Maximum:

Leafy _Veg.

'90 1.5 14 1

10 21 0.A.G. Veg.

60 0.7 14 1

12 33 Root Veg.

90 4

14 10-a66 180 Fruit 90 2

14 10 42 115 Grain 90 1

14 10 46 125 Eggs 90 0.84 18 1

20 30 14fi k 30 1.3 4

1 64 181 Meat 90 0.84 34 15 95 110

- (L r

I.

l l

I l

l

(_.

(~

Call fra Tam riark

+'42 3/72 I.

i

~ %

guyyshd pnp w is y

~

' : h s. d m ~ &&r ma%.~ km.IORiv L vfim

^

. as preui&J,v._:nXx6u

/sAR k rpi

~

a

~

ska t../ rd,d Thu 1/a' aGs are may;/ab a we p.4 /a ' w lu n. I suppM th c&

c e.cs.

I

nk,fd L

.. o enu w W> ~~u L

,..J t;

un

~ ~

~ ' p ch t dd n She,'e n t "A c u m-ento 7% ex r sig C:.k %.

~ u-~otu u n us e:

r 4

MMS O

$a gg g

ea qu g

,g M a x i ww w

-EncIvicfuo/. :

/. 7 A to_ 7

.:5-e /m 3 g

2.24(0, sac hu 3

~

t of i aITcw q ue. rap J9 up

.we e

e og

elque, 4de-e q ee e

5

• e

• 4e g

.g y

.m a

=

e ammy

1. -.. 6 e

e em

....e

.~

e y

e Gro cer

..e

, m 4 e

e -

e e

- YrOlttt NUMbtf CBattelle

....., o...,. s_

Pacific Northwest Laboratories

.{

DATE:

May 20, 1982 OF Hill TO:

IC Nelson RF McCallum gg EC Watson FROM:

OL'Strenget/'

File /LB

Subject:

CRBR-EIS Update - Radiological Review I have reviewed sections 5.7.2.7, 0.2.4 and 7.2 as provided in the May 17th transmission to Homer Lowenberg. The discussions-give'a reasonable description of the consequences frcm the CRBR fuel cycle.

I would like to note, however, that the calculations provided,by Ed Branagan of NRC for the SAF line environnental consequences appear to'be quite conservative. The assumptions presented in Appendix D indicate that he did not use the Hanford site specific data provided, but used ' state production values and average poriulation data. This is not a significant problen as the resulting doses are so small even when his conservative values are used.

.C i

e

. stw *.

.,x u,a,,,,_.w w,

HARMON & WEISS 1725 iSTREET,N.W.

TELEPHONE G AIL McG REEVY H ARMON WA SIIINGTON, D. C. 20o06 caoa3 33..o70 E LLYN R. WEISS WILLI AM S. JOR D AN, til LEE L. BISHOP OF COUNSEL DIAld E CURRAN L.THOM AS GALLOWAY LY N NE BERNADEI LUCIA S ORTH FREEDOM OF INFORMATON ACT REQUEST June 28, 1982 FOIA-22-2 90 Joseph M.

Felton, Director p

Division of Rules and Records 7I Office of Administration U.

S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555

Subject:

Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Felton:

Pursuant to the Federal Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following:

1.

All comments, evaluation, or other documents from the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) relative to the environmental impact statement for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant.

2.

All comments, evaluations or other documents from BPNL relative to the environmental impact statement for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant.

Very truly yours,

.I Ellyn Weiss cc:

Tom Cochran ERW: law i

i j

\\