ML20106B830
| ML20106B830 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000371 |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1985 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1112, NUDOCS 8502120056 | |
| Download: ML20106B830 (74) | |
Text
.
?
NUREG-1112 Environmental Assessment for renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-368 Docket No.70-371 UNC Naval Products Division of UNC Resources, Inc.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Offico of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
' ~ January 1985 I
h A
f.....
s h
O O 03 1 j
C PDR 1
T_,
+
~
a;.
g.
e-4 um.
l
- a j
s
~
!N'OTICE -
j
~
Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications.
Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sourcesi
- 1. The'NRC Pu'blic Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W.; '
L Washington, DC 20555 '
~
E 2i The NRC/GPO Sales Program, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission!
, Washington, DC 20555 m
2 3. - The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 '
Although;the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, o
it is not' intended to be exhaustive.
Referenced documents available' for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-
~
ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda NRC Office of Inspection -
i and Enforcement bulletins,' circulars,'information notices, inspection' a'nd. investigation notices;-
Licensee Event. Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and -
licensee documents and correspondence.
I The following' documents in th'e NUREG series are available for purchase from the NRC/GPO Sales
~
Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reportss NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and I
N RC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory. Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of p
Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Informationl Service' include NUREG series
~
~
reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic J
Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.-
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, =
such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and
.s at te legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555.
l
- Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library,7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually, copyrighted 'and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the.
'f
- American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
l t
GPO Printed copy price: $4.50 i
i n.
1_
NUREG-1112 Environmental Assessment for renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-368 Docket No.70-371 UNC Naval Products Division of UNC Resources, Inc.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards January 1985 7*a a%,,
k
}
...../
s-J i
CONTENTS' 5
LIST OF FIGURES.............................
v LIST OF TABLES v-LIST OF FACTORS FOR CONVERSION OF ENGLISH TO INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS (SI)....................
ix ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xi i
1.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION...................
1
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1 1.2
SUMMARY
OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 1
- 1. 3 NEED FOR ACTION........................
2 1.4 THE SCOPING PROCESS......................
2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 2
2.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING TiiE PROPOSED ACTION 3
2.1 THE ALTERNATIVE OF NO LICENSE RENEWAL.............
3 2.2 THE ALTERNATIVE OF LICENSE RENEWAL 3
2.2.1 Description of the Current Operation..........
3 2.2.2 Waste Confinement and Effluent Control.........
5 2.3 DECOMMISSIONING........................
10 2.4 SAFEGUARDS 10 2.5 STAFF EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 11 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 11 1
3.
THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT......................
-13 1
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 13 3.2 METEOROLOGY AND CLIMATOLOGY..................
13 3.2.1 Climatology 13 3.2.2 Winds, Tornados, and Storms 14 3.2.3 Meteorology 13 3.2.4 Air Quality 18 3.3 DEMOGRAPHY AND SOCI0 ECONOMIC PROFILE L18 3.4 LAND 18 3.4.1 Site Area 18 3.4.2 Adjacent Area 20 111
CONTENTS (Continued)
Page 3.4.3 Historic Significance 20-3.4.4 Floodplains and Wetlands................
20 3.5 HYDROLOGY...........................
20 3.5.1 Surface Water......................
2C 23 3.5.2 Groundwater 3.6 GE0 LOGY, MINERAL RESOURCES, AND SEISMICITY 23 23 3.6.1 Geology 3.6.2 Mineral Resources 24 3.6.3 Seismicity.......................
24 3.7 BIOTA.............................
26 i
3.7.1 Terrestrial 26 26 3.7.2 Aquatic 3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 28 3.8 RADIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS (BACKGROUND)...........
28 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 28 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF P20 POSED LICENSE RENEWAL.......
30 4.1 MONITORING PROGRAMS AND MITIGATORY MEASURES..........
30 4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Programs..............
30 4.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Programs 33 4.2 DIRECT EFFECTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE.............
37 4.2.1 Air Quality 37 4.2.2 Land Use........................
37 4.2.3 Water Use 37 4.2.4 Ecological.......................
38 4.2.5 Radiological Impacts..................
38 4.3 INDIRECT EFFECTS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE............
42 4.3.1 Socioeconomic Effects 42 4.3.2 Potential Effects of Accidents.............
42 4.3.3 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies..............
49 4.3.4 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, and Society.................
49 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 49 iv
CONTENTS (Continued)
P,agg APPENDIX A.
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATING RADIATION DOSE COMMITMENTS FROM THE RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES....
51' LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Facility layout of the Naval Products Division complex 4
2.2 Plan view of exhaust stack locations 7
3.1 Location of the Naval Products Division site in New London County in southeastern Connecticut.........
19
- 3. 2 Seismic risk map of the United States.............
25 3.3 A preliminary map of horizontal acceleration (expressed as percent of gravity) in rock with 90% probability of not beirig exceeded in 50 years 27 4.1 Locations of monitoring stations for the United Nuclear Corporation Naval Products Division facility in Montville, Connecticut 31 A.1 Pathways for exposure to man from releases of radioactive effluents.....................
53 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2.1 Stacks evaluated as possible sources of radioactive and nonradioactive emissions 6
l 3.1 Highest mean monthly and anr.ual temperature for New London and Middletown, Connecticut (representative of the Montville area) 15 3.2 Monthly-and annual precipitation normals based on 1931-1960 data for Lake Konomac (representative of i
the Montville area)......................
16
)
3.3 Mean seasonal and annual relative humidity (%) at U.S. Weather Bureau airport stations 17 l
v
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table
_Page 3.4 Incremental 1980 population data within 80 km (50 miles) of the UNC NPD at 4129'30" latitude and 7205'30" longitude 21 3.5 Cumulative 1980 population data within 80 km (50 miles) of the UNC NPD at 4129'30" latitude and 7205'30" longitude 22 a1 Operation of the radiological monitoring program for the 32 UNC facility 4.2 Average values for physical and chemical parameters at both onsite and offsite monitoring stations for 1977-1982 34 4.3 Results of the 1983 grab samples taken for analysis of wastewater discharge from the facility 35 4.4 Average annual release of radionuclides in the stack effluents of the United Nuclear Corporation fuel fabrication plant.
39 4.5 Fifty year dose commitments to the maximum exposed individual at the nearest residence from the airborne effluents of the United Nuclear Corporation plant..
39 4.6 Major contributions to dose to the nearest residence from the airborne effluents of the United Nuclear Corporation plant.......................
41 4.7 Fifty year dose commitments from the airborne effluents to the population living within 80 km of the United Nuclear Corporation plant...................
41 4.8 Discharge of liquid waste to the sanitary sewage system....
43 4.9 Release rate of. volatile radionuclides to the atmosphere from a criticality accident....
45 4.10 Maximum 50 year dose commitment to the nearest residence from the criticality accident.................
46 A.1 Dose conversion factors for major contributor to the external exposure pathways 55 A.2 Dose conversion factors for internal exposure pathways 56 vi
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Eage A.3 Intake parameters (adult) used in lieu of site-specific data 57 t
A.4 Ground-level x/Q values for particulates at various distances in each compass direction...................
59 A.5 Frequencies of wind directions and true-average wind speeds..
-60 A.6 Frequencies.of atmospheric stability classes for each direction...........................
61 A.7 Other parameters used in determining exposure to air concentrations of radionuclides released in the building vent effluents 62 i
I i
t l
vii
LIST OF. FACTORS FOR CONVERSION OF ENGLISH TO INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF UNITS (SI)
The-following table gives the factors used in this document for converting conventional English units-.to the equivalent International System of Units (SI), now being adopted worldwide, or conventional metric units.
The con-version factors'have been obtained from the ASTM publication " Standard for Metric Practice"* and are used to four-digit accuracy, since most of the
~
4 values in this document are not known to any more exactness.
After conver-sion, the SI values.have been rounded to reflect an accuracy sufficient for the requirements of this_ document.
Most of the values will be presented in SI units with the equivalent English unit following within parentheses.
Conversion of English to SI Units j-To Convert From To Multiply By f
acre hectare (ha) 0.4047 3
barrel (bb1) cubic meter (m )
0.1590 3
3 i
cubic feet / min (ft / min) m / min 0.02832-'
feet (ft) meters (m) 0.3048 3
3 cubic feet (ft )
cubic meters (m )
0.02832-cubic yards-(yards 8 3
3 or yd )
m 0.7645 3
gallon (gal) cubic meters (m )
0.003785 gal / min 3
m / min 0.003785 l
gal / min 3
m /h 0.2271 i
gal / min liters /s (L/s) 0.06309-
}
inch (in.)
-centimeters (cm) 2.54
]
inch (in.)
meter (m).
0.0254 1.609
.l mile (statute) kilometer (km) 2 2.590 j
2 square mile (mile )
square kilometer (km )
pound (lb) kilograms (kg) 0.4536 l
ton (short) kilograms (kg) 907.2 i<
- American Society for Testing and Materials, Standard E-380, " Standard for' Metric Practice," February 1980.
i d
i.
i a
ix i
~
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AMAD Activity median aerodynamic diameter CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOE Department of Energy EIA Environmental Impact Appraisal EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NAS National Academy of Science NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0RNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1
j X1
~
1.
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
' 1.1 Introduction i'
The UNC Naval Products,' Division of UNC Resources,'Inc. in Montville,.
Connecticut, produces fuel assemblies and complete fuel modules for light-water reactors (LWRs) used'in.the U.S. Navy nuclear propulsion program.
4.-
-In response to'an application by UNC for. renewal of'Special' Nuclear Material (SNM). License No. SNM-368, the U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission (NRC), with j
the technical assistance of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), prepared i
this environmental assessment pursuant to NRC Regulations (10 CFR Part 51),
which implement requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.(P.L.91-190)..Part 51 also takes account of the Council.on Environmental Quality Regulations-(40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for. implementing i
NEPA.
Sections 51.14'and 51.30 of the NRC regulations (10 CFR) defines
" Environmental. Assessment" as follows:
1 1.
An environmental assessment is a concise public document, for which the NRC is responsible, that serves to I
briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining i
whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a.
i finding of no significant impact, aid the NRC's compliance with NEPA when no EIS is necessary, and facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.
i l
2.
An environmental. assessment shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal,-of alternatives as required by Sect.= 102(2)(E) of NEPA, and of the environmental impacts of.the proposed action and alternatives.
It shall also include a listing of agencies and persons' consulted.
j The UNC facility at Montville has been in operation since 1957.
Some'modifi-cations to the site and of the production procedures have been made since the last license was issued.
No major changes are anticipated during the five year license renewal period being considered.- Modifications to the fuel fabrication plant to reduce the release of environmental pollutants have been completed by i
UNC.
This' environmental' assessment provides a review of the past five years-of operation and an analysis of future impacts.
f The UNC plant is located ~in the town of Montville, New London County, Connecti-cut. The-site contains about 102 ha (251 acres) with only about a 16-ha (40-acre) portion of the site occupied by the UNC fabrication and core assembly plant and associated facilities.
1-j 1.2 Summary of the Proposed Action i
l The proposed action is the renewal of the license necessary for UNC to continue the existing fuel fabrication operation.
Principal _ operations in the fabrica-tion facility include the processing of highly enriched uranium (>90% 23s0) i 1
i -.,.:_:-
.,a
~
I k
4 into fuel elements and assembling of'the el'ements into complete-reactor cores.
The present application for renewal--invol~ves no major changes in the current authorization and no new facilities are planned.
1.3 Need For Action p
The.UNC operation.is ne'eded for the fabrication of fuel elements and core assemblies for LWRs for the U.S. Navy propulsion program, including both.first i
fuel loading and subsequent refueling.
Denial of. license renewal for the.
fuel-element fabrication activity at the Naval Products Division (NPD) would require that similar activities be undertaken at another site.
Although denial of renewal of the SNM license for the UNC NPD is an alternative-available to
~the NRC, it would be considered o'nly if issues of. public health and safety.
cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities involved.
i
- 1. 4 The Scoping Process The overall UNC operations and impacts were appraised by NRC in January 19741 Because of this previous documentation and the very limited impacts associated-with the operation of the UNC, the staff determined that a formal scoping process was unnecessary.
In conducting this assessment of the proposed action, the staff met with Connecticut air and water quality specialists on May 18, 1983, toured the site and surrounding area on May 19,-1983, and met with the l
j applicant to~ discuss items of information related to facility operations and j
to seek additional information that might be needed for an adequate assessment.
The staff used information submitted by UNC2,3 to assist in the evaluation.
The current operation of the UNC facilities results in the release of radio-j active and nonradioactive effluent to-the environment.
The actual gaseous and liquid pollutants released during normal operation of the plant have been monitored and documented.
Because the proposed license renewal for the'UNC does not involve an increased _ scope of activity, the staff concluded that the principal subjects to be addressed in this environmental assessment should-1 include water use, pollutant controls, environmental monitoring, and environ-mental impact of operation and accidents.
Other site factors and plant operations necessary for this assessment will be described, and aspects of-insignificant impacts will be identified.
j REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 1.
Environmental Impact Appraisal Concerning License SNM-368, Docket No.70-371 - The United Nuclear Corporation, Naval Products Division Montville Plant,.Montville, Connecticut, Fuels and Materials, Directorate i-of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, January 30, 1974.
i 2.
United. Nuclear Corporation, " Environmental Information" (provided for the -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
3.
W. F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation, letter with additional information to Marc-J. Rhodes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No.70-371, Aug. 17, 1983.
I 2.
-e
-+
+
m-
l i
2.
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
~
i 2.1 The Alternative of No License Renewal Not granting a license renewal would cause UNC to cease fuel fabrication for j
the U.S. Navy propulsion program at this site.
This alternative would be' con-sidered only if. issues of public health and safety could not be resolved. The only benefits to be' gained by such a course of action would be.the cessation of the environmental impacts (as described in Sect. 4), which have been deter-mined to be acceptably small.
Since the fuel elements are needed for the naval propulsion program, denial of a. license for the UNC would result in the transfer 2
of the environmental impacts to an alternative site.
2.2 The Alternative of License Renewal This alternative, which is the proposed action, would result in..the continued operation of the UNC facility for another 5 years essentially as it has
- 3 been operated for the past 10 years.
A description of the current operation, waste confinement, and effluent control follows.
j 1
2.2.1 Description of the Current Operation j
The existing UNC operation involves the fabrication of. uranium (>90% 23sg enrichment) into fuel assemblies and cores,for use in naval reactors.
The l
fabrication procedures use classified technology unique to the U.S. Navy j
program.
1 In addition, UNC is involved in research on, and development of,. improved i
manufacturing techniques for fuel-element fabrication and in the removal and/or recovery of non-nuclear waste material generated in manufacturing to prevent degradation of the environment.
j The physical layout of the UNC facility is shown in. Fig. 2.1.
The plant build-i ings are set in the side of the valley with the roof line nearly level with the.
parking lot on the ridge.above Trading Cove.
A security fence surrounds the 2
2 building complex.
About 24,400 m (250,000 ft ) is devoted to' manufacturing operations, with the remainder used for offices, pollution control facilities, and storage. The plant buildings are of sturdy construction and are well maintained.
l The Montville facility was originally built in 1957-59, with small additions in 1961 and 1966.
The original buildings were approximately 58 m (190 ft) by 69 m (225 ft). A major expansion, Building M, completed in 1969 is about 64 m (210 ft) by 73 m (240 ft), and with an attached two story office building. All operation with special nuclear material in these buidings are limited to clad
}
fuel.
]
Following authorization by the AEC (now NRC) in 1972, UNC constructed four-additional buildings.
Building A, which is approximately 82 m (270 ft) by.
i 85 m (280 ft) and is contiguous to Building M, was completed in early 1973.
Buildings A and M have a general height of 6.4 m (21 ft) except for a pent-house with a height of 11 m (36 ft) and for the. process exhaust stacks on the i
roofs which range from 1 m (3 ft) to 15 m (5 ft) in height.. Building B, which i
i 3
-- - -...,.. ~,
4
-.m.-
_.,--r
N p
.rJ g
e g.. #
-.. a 5
e a
g C
f 4
4 d-
-' 4 e
,g
~
I,;.-
i
(* ; < / ;
(
[5 5,_
w',,N,
<l,fc!*..'
-e.-
ig-
-'I JW -
5
, ~,.
. ~
. a '.m y
x.y c,.y; h
s l
fIf.1
' --il';4 d.
8
.ry
/
8 1
i
.p e[-
d
~
./
j,/* /
z3=
Ms-I,'.l a
e s,
e BI8 u
ge, 8g5 5
p'.
<e B
t g
l',
=,,
go 7
,3 e
h oS=
- s'
\\*J tc<
}
E sn D g
o O
- J p-8
('
A
.g
' f-4 2
Og a
,8 i
d a
2
.6 t.
.si s
t j--s
%"%g
/
{--E k
o y
t of
,499 04%
4
s.
-is approximately.82 m.(270 ft) by 73~m (240 ft),'was completed September 1973, and is.used for the initial forming-and enclosure of uranium-bearing materials.
Building C, which is approximately 73 m (240 ft) by'64 m (210 ft), was completed in May 1973, and contains the main office and clerical functions.. Building.D, is used for. inspection of non-uranium bearing materials, bulk storage of other non-uranium materials and recovery )f silver.
Building S and R are used for 4
receiving, inspection,'and storage of non-uranium materials.
Exterior. walls of all buildings are a combination of concrete block and insulated metal siding.
In~ general,~the operations performed by UNC at Montville are to produce and assemble unirradiated enriched uranium fuel elements and other components for naval reactor cores.
The' activities consist of receiving uranium bearing.
materials,. fabrication of uranium fuel fillers, the' preparation of clad fuel elements, assembly' operations with clad elements, and core assembly operations.
2.2.2' Waste Confinement and Effluent Contro11,2 2
2.2.2.1 Gaseous Wastes There are '26 exhaust stacks from the NPD with potential for either radioactive 5
or nonradioactive gaseous emissions.
These stacks are listed in Table 2.1, and their relative locations are shown in the plan view on Fig. 2.2.
Exhausts from operations that could potentially produce radioactive effluents L
have HEPA filters and/or gas scrubbers. The HEPA filters have an efficiency of about 99.97% for removal of particles >0.3 pm in diameter.
Exhausts from HNO3 pickling operations pass through a caustic fume scrubber that neutralizes and removes most of the nitrogen oxides' formed in the pickling process.
Radioactive Emissions Only the Building B exhausts have potential for radioactive emissions.
All of the exhausts'have HEPA filters and continuous monitoring for gross alpha with l-a detection limit of 2.2 x 10 H pCi/mL.
A summary of the release of alpha activity for the years 1978 through 1982 is given in Sect. 4.2.5..The annual i
emissions averaged 4.42 x 10 5 Ci over the 5 year period and the stack l
concentrations are far below the 10 CFR Part 20 limits of 4 x 10 12 pCi/mL for l
insoluble ~ uranium.
Nonradioactive Emissions i
Nitrogen oxides are produced during HNO3 pickling (chemical milling) operations.
Most of these oxides and HNO ~ fumes are neutralized and removed from the 3
exhaust by a caustic fume scrubber.
It is estimated that 0.21 g/s or 6.7 metric tons / year (7.4 tons / year) of. waste calculated as N02 is emitted annually at this source point.
Ten other pickling exhausts may contain small amounts.
of nitrogen oxides and HNO3 vapor together with trace quantities of HF. The i
10 untreated exhausts are estimated to emit an additional 0.17 g/s or 5.5 metric tons / year (6 tons / year) of'N0 -
2 4
5
Table 2.1.
Stacksevaluatedaspossjblesourcesofradioactiveand nonradioactive emissions Equivalent Exhau'st Stack diameter Height-rate Function 3
(m / min) no.
(m)
(m)
Building M 15 0.73 3.04 56.6 Fume Scrubber 17 1.64 1.52 425:
Pickle Line 18 1.64 1.52 425 Pickle Line 19 1.45 1.52 340 Pickle Line 20 1.45 1.52 340 Pickle Line
~51 1.45 1.52 340 Pickle Line 52 1.45
- 1.52 340 Pickle Line Building A' 1
-1.45 x 1.04 2.44 340 Pickle Exhaust 2
1.45 x 1.04 2.44 340 Pickle Exhaust-3 1.45 x 1.04 2.44 340 Pickle Exhaust 4
1.45 x 1.04 2.44 340 Pickle Exhaust Building B 1
1.64 0
299 Chemistry Laboratory 2
0.73 6.7 142
' Metallurgy Laboratory 3
0.54 7.0
^ 59.5 Metallurgy Laboratory Hoods 4
0.59 0.61 32.6 Fuel Vault 5
0.64 4.3 62.3 Unit 2 Facility 6
0.68 0.76 80.7 Unit 1 Facility-7 0.82 0.76 119 Decontamination Area 8-1 0.59 0.61 28.3 Unit 1, Clean Room 8-2 0.59 0.61-27.6 Unit 2, Clean Room 13 0.77 0.61 26.7 Unit 2, Change Room 16 0.25 0.61 26.7 Unit 2, Change Room 28 0.64 0
68.0 Health Physics Laboratory 29 1.18 0
136 Radioactive Waste Area 30
/ 0.77 0.61 27.6 Assembly Area 46 l 0.91 0.61 143 Sectioning aAll stacks are vertical except stack nos. 28 and 29, which are horizonte.l.
u 6
e
9 906 S
E M
G D
L 0
B 2
5 '3 1
9 s
5'3 n
1 o
i 71*
t 1[$
8 a
1 c
i o
2*,
l k
i$
co ts j
tsua A
hxe G
f D
o L
w B
e iv n
a l
P 2
2
=
=
.g i
0l t*
F 3
8 i
- i 7
4 *s 2
B 3*
8 G
6 1
D 3,4 LB 9
2, 2,
8, 2
1*
I i
In addition to the above gases, it is estimated that 7.2 metric tons / year of Freon;'3.2 metric tons / year of.' isopropyl alcohol; 1 metric ton / year of acetone, hexane, and trichlorethylene; and 0.3 metric ton / year of methyl ethyl ketone evaporates within the plant building and are discharged through the exhaust system.
2.2.2.2 Liquid Wastes The four liquid streams that leave the plant are as follows:
An estimated 148 m /d (39,000 gpd) of sanitary wastes, which may contain 3
1.
up to 15 m /d (4000 gpd) of treated manufacturing process waters containing 3
very low concentrations of uranium are routed to a tile leaching field.
3 2.
The rinse-water stream of about 227 m /d (60,000 gpd) is routed to the j
percolation ponds (process cooling ponds).
The percolation ponds effluent feeds into the local groundwater.
3.
The south storm drain (Fig. 2.1) carries equipment cooling water at about 3
gpd), about 2.8 m /d (750 gpd) of rinse waters mixed 3
1100 m /d (290,000 with neutral Nacl solution from resin regeneration, and overflow from the percolation ponds. The storm drain discharges to the Thames River.
4.
The parking area and plant site north of the building complex drains to Trading Cove by way of the north storm drain (Fig. 2.1).
Other liquid wactes on an annual. basis are listed as follows:
4 590 metric tons of spent HF-HNO3 solution, 154 metric tons of HNO3 containing iron and copper, 144 metric tons of caustic and detergent solution, 21 metric tons of photographi_c developer after silver recovery, and 6.3 metric tons of solvents.
All of these wastes are stored on the site until routine pickup for reclamation or disposal by commercial services licensed for such activity by the State of Connecticut.
Radioactive Waste Treatment All liquids that potentially could contain uranium, the only radioactive material processed at the UNC facility, are piped to collecting tanks in Building 8.
The liquids from process operations expected to contribute-uranium waste are centrifuged and filtered to remove uranium solids before transfer to a 3.8-ma (1000 gal) detention tank for sampling.
Liquids from change-room showers and the chemical laboratory that could potentially contain uranium are filtered into a separate retention tank for sampling.
Six 9.5 m3 (2500 gal) retention tanks are available with transfer possible between tanks.
8
4 Depending on analytical results,'the liquids may be given further filtration or passed through an ion exchange column until the uranium concentration is well below 10 CFR Part 20 requirements for unrestricted release. The pH is then adjusted and the liquid discharged into the septic system.
Currently, the-NRC has established a Branch Technical Position
- for unrestricted release of soils containing residual amounts of uranium. The staff is concerned that the discharge of liquid wastes containing uranium into the leach _ field could result in the accumulation.of uranium in soil in the long-term exceeding the limit of 30 pci of enriched uranium per gm of soil.
The staff has requested i
that UNC explore other methods of disposal of this liquid waste and a license j
condition will.be' imposed requiring UNC to cease the discharge of. liquid waste
~
containing uranium to the leachfield by January 1986.
Uranium-containing samples and uranium recovered by ion exchange are shipped to an offsite processing facility for-recovery of uranium.
No scrap recovery' 1
is done at.the UNC facility.
Nonradioactive waste treatment NPD does no onsite treatment of nonradioactive wastes.
Chemical wastes are l
collected onsite in drums or tanks for consignment to State-licensed commercial j
services.
J Sanitary waste treatment Sanitary waste treatment at the UNC facility includes use of a settling tank for solids removal and a tile leaching field for water dissipation.
Analysis of liquid effluents l
i In response to an NRC staff request, the applicant obtained an analysis of the surface-water discharge streams to confirm their overall quality.2 Samples were taken'frem the drainage ditch above and below the percolation pond outfall and near the river. The percolation pond outfall was also sampled.
The-samples were analyzed for constituents potentially contributed by UNC operations.
The results are given in Section 4.1.1.
The quality is such that no detrimental 4
effects would be expected if the water were used.
2.2.2.3 Solid Wastes 1
Nonradiological About 137 metric tons of paper, paperboard boxes, and other-paper materials are transported to the town dump each year.
About 4.5 metric tons-of classi-fied or proprietary paper waste is shredded and sent to a local paper mill or-l incinerated onsite each year.
About 45 metric tons-per year of zirconium chips are oxidized (controlled burning) to' zirconium oxide and then disposed of as nonhazardous waste.
Another 45 metric tons of uncontaminated scrap metal are sold to scrap metal dealers.
9 i
Radiological Scrap uranium wastes are shipped to an'offsite processing facility to recover uranium.
Sludges generated from the septic tank are shipped to a licensed burial ground or handled as routine sludges by an authorized offsite vendor.
2.3 Decommissioning.
At the end of'its operating life, the plant must'be decontaminated and decom-missioned before the site'and any plant buildings remaining on the site can be 3
released for. unrestricted use.
The NRC has prepared a two-volume report 'P to provide information on the technology,' safety, and costs of decommissioning
. uranium. fuel fabrication plants.
This information is intended to contribute
?
background' data for uranium fuel fabrication plant owners'and for the'NRC~in 4
the development;of decommissioning plans.
It also provides the_ basis for
. future regulations regarding decommissioning of such facilities.
In accordance with NRC requirements,'the applicant prepared and submitted a decommissioning plan, cost estimate, and financial surety dated July 22, 1977, for inclusion in the license application materials.
The major-guidelines embodied in the plan are as follows:
1.
All. facilities and grounds are to be decontaminated to levels established for. unrestricted use.
i 2.
Current radiological limits are to be adhered to, and available decontami-j nation technology is to be implemented.
3.
All process and ancillary equipment in controlled areas is to be cleaned to the maximum extent practicable, packaged, and transported to a licensed disposal facility for burial. :If the equipment can be decontaminated to levels established for unrestricted use, it can be released for use in other applications.
4.
Any contaminated underground piping is to be removed, cleaned to the maximum extent practicable, packaged, and transported to a licensed disposal facility for burial.
The ground surrounding such piping is also to be surveyed and removed for disposal if contaminated beyond established limits.
Decommissioning based on these guidelines and the use of existing prescribed procedures for minimizing radiological and nonradiological contamination i
should result in insignificant environmental impact during and after the l
decommissioning operation.
l l
2.4 Safeguards
[
Current safeguards requirements ce set forth in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73.
The regulations.'in Part 70 provide for n.cterial accounting and control requirements with respect to facility organization, material control arrangements, account-ability measurements, statistical controls, inventory methods, shipping and 10
receiving procedures, material storage-practices, records and reports, and management control.
The NRC's current regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 provide requir nts for the physical security and protection of fixed sites and for nuclea aterial in transit.
Physical security requirements for protecting formula quantities of strategic SNM include-(1). establishing and training a security organization with armed guards, (2) installing physical barriers, and (3) establishing-security response and safeguards contingency plans.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73,-described briefly above, are applied in the reviews of individual. license applications.
License conditions are tailored to fit the particular type of plant or facility involved.
The licensee has an approved ma+erial control and accounting plan and an approved physical security plan that meet the current requirements.
It is concluded, therefore, that the safeguards-related environmental impact of the proposed action is insignificant.
2.5 Staff Evaluation Of The Proposed Action And Alternatives The staff has concluded that denial of license renewal would provide very little in the way of environmental benefits.
The environmental impact asso-ciated with the continued operation of the UNC facility has been evaluated and is found to be insignificant.
The licensee's method of waste confinement, effluent control and the existing monitoring program are adequate provided that the following additional conditions are included in the renewed license to further protect the environment:
1.
The licensee shall cease the discharge of liquid wastes containing uranium to the leach field area by January 1986.
(Section 2.2.2).
2.
The licensee shall conduct soil profile analysis within the septic field discharge area in accordance with UNC's letter to NRC dated August 19, i
1983.
(Section 4.1.2.1).
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 1.
United Nuclear Corporation, " Environmental Information" (provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
2.
W. F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation, letter with additional information 4
to Marc J. Rhodes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No.70-371, Aug. 19, 1983.
3.
H. K. Elder and D. E. Blahnik, " Technology Safety and Costs of Decommis-sioning a Reference Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant," NUREG/CR-1266, Vol.
1, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, October 1980.
11
- 4.
H.'~K. Elder and D. E. Blahnik, " Technology Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Fuel Fabrication Plant," NUREG/CR-1266,'Vol.
l 2, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, October 1980.
5.
'W.J. DircNE, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Disposal' or 'Onsite -
Storage of Residual Thorium or Uranium from Past Operations," Memorandum to the Commissioners, presented as a Branch Technical Position from the.
, Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch, Oct. 5, 1981.
i-I f
j l
12 i-
,yy, w
m e
w-,
-y g
i L3. OTHE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
'3.'1, Site Description 1
The UNC plant is located.on'a 102-ha (251-acre) site in the town of Montville, New London County, Connecticut. Only a small portion of the site is occupied by -
the' manufacturing facility and the paved parking lot.
The Central Vermont Rail-
' road has a' right-of-way along the Thames River.at the eastern edge of the UNC -
site.
The plant is served by a spur from'the' railroad and has car.and truck' j
access:from State Highway 32. :The site is bounded on the north by Trading Cove, en the east by the railroad beside the. Thames-River, and on the: south and west by private properties (Fig. 2.1).1 The site is an asymmetrical valley flanked by terraces with elevations upito
-23 m (70 to 75 ft) above~the valley floor.
The' southern boundary of the.
i valley is a ridge with a maximum elevation of about 46 m (150 ft) above mean 1 sea-level (MSL). The. northern boundary is a ridge rising to 21 m (70 ft)-
l above MSL. The elevation of-the valley floor is about 7.6 m (25'ft) above MSL. The. plant buildings are on the^ valley floor inset into.the northern.
j ridge with the parking lot on the northern ridge.
The plant exhaust. vents are j
slightly below the. level of the northern ridge.
The tree-covered ridges; surrounding the plant make it difficult to see the facilities from offsite areas.. The facilities are surrounded by a security fence and have guard towers that. are manned full time.1,2 3.2 Meteorology And Climatology j
j 3.2.1 Climatology Generally, the climate of Connecticut 1 is affected by the continental polar, Artic, and maritime polar and tropical air masses.
Occasional thunderstorms,.
l together-with more infrequent heavy rains or snows, hurricanes, and: ice storms are part of-the weather pattern.
The Montville plant site lies in the Thames Valley about 16-km (10 miles) from the Long Island Sound.
The climate at the site.is more affected by the proxim-ity to Long Island' Sound than are the interior portions of the state;-however, these maritime influences are variable.
k The prevailing winds are west to east. Maritime tropical air masses dominate the Connecticut area during the summer season, causing warm, humid weather and 1
j-showers.
The prevailing low-level winds during the summer are southerly,-
bringing additional' moisture into the area from the Long' Island Sound and the Thames River.
Continental polar air masses d_uring the autumn and winter seasons cause predominantly northwesterly winds in late fall and winter.
)
[
3; 2.1.1 Thermal Induced Inversions
-In Connecticut, the annual frequency of inversions is a little less than 25%
i-of the time along the southeastern coast.as compared to 30% in the northwest i
13 s
-.,,e.,,
,,-v'<w,
-,-,-,we
.,a-,
ve--<=ee---
n, - --~ v ---
- - - ~ ~ ~~~- +
.. ~.
... ~
~ ~ -.
]
i area of.the state. The seasonal patterns for the; state range from 21 to 25%
.l
~
c.
in the spring, 23 to 31% in the summer, and 28 to 36% in the fall.
The percentages for these seasons increase-from southeast to northwest.across the-state.
However, for the winter, the increase is from 28% in the southwest to.-
- 36% in-the northeast.-
i JLow-level l stability observed along the coast during the daytime-at certain'
~
-times of the year reflects the stabilizing effects of the_ cold water offshore.
At' the same time, potential for increased air pol 1ution during.these occurrences
-of -low-level stability is offset-by higher velocity sea breezes.
The net result is that the number of-thermal-radiation-induced inversions along the coastyis less than in the interior. The average annual lid height for the area, used in-this report, is 961 m.3
-3.2.1.2~.-Temperature The New London and Middletown, Connecticut,- weather. stations are considered to
~
i be representative of the Montville area' temperature.
Highest mean monthly and annual temperatures are.'shown-in Table'3.1 for those weather stations.
The-
+
mean annual temperature for the area is 13.5*C.
3.2.1.3 Precipitation Precipitation data for Lake Konomoc, 12 km (7.5 miles) away, would be most representative of the Montville site.
Annual normal precipitation-for-j.
the period 1931-1960 was about-129 cm (51 in.) as shown in Table 3.2.
The average annual snowfall on the Montville site was about 97 cm (38 in.) for the period 1941-1961.
i.
3.2.1.4 Fog Heavy or dense fog is observed on an average of 30 d/ year -in both coastal and inland sections.
Along the coastal plains, heavy fog-is most common during the late winter and spring seasons but also occurs with considerable frequency.
in the fall.
Cool ajr drainage into the valleys produces ground fog, and moisture from the ri u rs produces stream fog.
Both may become dense enough to i
hamper transportation, especially in the early morning.
3.2.1.5 Humidity i-The humidity for New Haven and Hartford areas may'be considered.~ typical for the Montville area.
The humidity data is presented in Table-3.3.
(
3.2.2 Winds, Tornados, and Storms i-High wind conditions in the Montville area are caused primarily.by the passage of cyclonic storms-either tropical or extratropical in origin-over southeastern l
New England. Winds of up to 113 and 142 Km/h (70 and 88 mph) on a. recurrence =
interval of 25 and 100 years, rs pectively, could occur.
However, the buildings L
are located in the middle of a depression on the site, and-thus are shielded from the hurricane winds.
i i
l l
14
_.~my
.-y,r.-
w--
- ,-w--+
.---e+w.,-+-.
m--
--r-
~
Table 3.1.
Highest mean monthly and. annual temperature for New London and Middletown, Connecticut (representative of the Montville area)
Temperature (*C)
Month' New London (1930-1955)
Middletown (1930-1963)
January-4.0 2.2 February 2.2 2.9
~ March 7.8 7.9 Apri1 11.3 11.3 l
May 16.1 17.0 June 21.7 21.9 July 24.8 25.4 August 23.9 24.9 September 20.9 20.1 October 14.9 14.8 November 10.3 9.4 December 3.7 3.9 Annual 13.5 13.5 Source: United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental eleport, Montville Site, Naval Products Division, Docket No.70-371, Sept. 8, 1972.
4 l
a e
f b
15
.l
f-1 Table 3.2.
Monthly and annual precipitation l
l normals based on 1931-1960 data for Lake Konomac (representative of the Montville area)
Month-Average (cm)
January 11.0 February 9.0 March 12.3 April 11.3 May 10.4 June 8.6 July 10.1 August
- 11.4 September 11.2 October
'10.1 November 12.6
. December 11.1 Annual 129.1 Source:
United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental Report, Montville Site, Naval Products Division, Docket No.70-371, Sept. 8, 1972.
16
'E b
~
Table 3.3.
Mean seasonal ~and annual relative humidity (%)
at U.S. Weather Bureau airport stations D
Hartford Station
- New Haven Station
-Season-s 7 a.m.
1 p.m.
7 a.m.
1 p.m.
' Winter' 76~
60.
76 64 t
Spring:
75 50 76 63-Summer 82 54 81 67 Fall 86 56 83 66 t
Annual
' 80 '
55 79 65 i
aData-collected over nine years.
Data collected over 20 years.
1 i
)
i 1
1 I
i e
1 f
I I'
i 17 i
Although there have been tornados reported in the western part of the state, there have been no recorded tornados in New London County during the period 1682-1971. According to methods for estimating tornado occurrence presented by Thom,3 the probability of a tornado ~actually striking the site is about 8 x 10 4 per year, with a recurrence interval of about 1300 years.
3.2.3 Meteoroloqy Onsite meteorological data currently are not available from the Montville site.
In lieu of such information, the staff has decided that the best avail-able data source, representative of the plant site, is the Connecticut Yankee Power Station, located approximately 32 km (20 miles) west of the site. These data, which include the wind direction-speed-stability frequency information, are shown in Tables A.5 and A.6 in Appendix A.
Meteorological dispersion factors (annual X/Q values) are estimated using the Gaussian plume model and diffusion coefficients for Pasquill-type turbulence.4'S The annual average X/Q values in 16 sectors up to a distance of 80 km (50 miles) from the site are given in Table A.4 of Appendix A.
3.2.4 Air Quality The Montville site is located in the Eastern Connecticut Intrastate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR #41).
In this region, concentrations of particulates do not meet national secondary standards, and concentrations of ozone do not meet national primary standards (40 CFR Part 81, revised as of July 1,1982).
Concentrations of 50, CO, and N02 are below the national standards or cannot 2
be classified.
3.3 Demography And Socioeconomic Profile The UNC facility is close to the boundary between the towns of Montville and Norwich and across the Thames River from the town of Preston, as shown on Fig. 3.1.
About 300 people live within 0.8 km (0.5 mile) of the UNC site.
In 1980, Montville had 16,455 residents; Norwich, 38,074 residents; and Preston, 4,219 residents.2 The 1980 incremental population within 80 km (50 miles) of UNC is given in Table 3.4 by distance and compass sector.
The cumulative population is given in Table 3.5.
Although the local area is rural, it contains much light and heavy manufacturing industry.
The UNC facility contributes to area employment but is not a signifi-cant factor.
3.4 Land 3.4.1 Site Area The Montville facilities are located on land that is either gently sloping or level about 9 m (30 ft) above MSL.
This land lies in a blind valley that opens to the Thames River on the east and rises to an elevation of 20 m (65 ft) above MSL at the western border of the site.
Elevations on the site range from just above MSL at the Thames River to about 60 m (200 ft) above MSL in the south-eastern part of the site.
Most of the 102-ha (251-acre) site is forestland.
18
_ 3 i
l l
ES6000 i
.r..]-
\\
/
/
'-~~~~____,l
\\ SPRAGUE,)
VOLUNTOWNl
/
[
i
/
/ FRANKLIN ). ~ ~ '
's l
t
/ ~-
/
GRISWOLD k LISBON 8 i
i s
,/
...\\j i
>- - s j
s i
4
/
, NORWICH g
\\
\\
t
{',
- '" g BOZRAH #
l l
( ~ ~ ~ ~~s.
_ J
-l t - e., -s',
[w# PRESTON t i,
}
SALEM i
gg7g
-m l
% NORTH STONINGTON
)
i
,)
l
\\
kV1...,J
)~~~'
MONTVILLE LEDYARD r
N,,,,
,/
's WATERFORD
~~~I t
STONINGTON e
g k
- n GROTON
/s g
e 1
kEAST LYME
\\,
t I
J NEW 4
LONDON O
2 4
i e
i MILES i
3 6 km Fig. 3.1. Location of the Novel Products Division site in New London County in southeastern i
l l
i l
19 i
l
l
[
To the north, a ridge separates the facilities from the Trading Cove, an arm of the Thames River estuary.1 About 16 ha (40 acres) of the site are occupied by buildings, parking lots, cooling ponds, and associated clearings surrounding the facilities. Most of the remaining 86 ha (211 acres) are unused forestland.
3.4.2 Adjacent Area Land uses within a 3.2-km (2-mile) radius of the site include residential, light business, and woodland, including a few farms, two hospitals, and five schools.
Residences within this area are located primarily to the south and west.
Norwich State Hospital is on the east side of the Thames River about 1.2 km (0.75 mile) from the site.
The 74-ha (183-acre) Fort Shantok State Park is located 1.6 km (1 mile) south of the site.
The area within 8 km (5 mile) of the site is zoned for residential and light industrial uses.2 3.4.3 Historic Significance j
The " National Register of Historic Places"7 lists a large number of historic sites in New London County.
Many of these are located in the towns of New London and Norwich. Only one of the historic places, the Raymond Bradford Homestead on Raymond Hill Road, is in the vicinity of Montville.
The Pachaug-Great Meadow Swamp, located more than 16 km (10 miles) northeast of the plant site, is the only natural landmark listed in New London County.s Many other sites are recognized at the local level as having historic signifi-cance. Several sites in Montville are associated with Indian history.
These include the Indian Shantok Fort at Fort Shantok State Park; a Congregational church built in 1831 for Indians; an Indian museum currently operated by i
Mohegan Indians; and Cochegan Rock, a former retreat of Chief Uncas, who defended his tribe with the help of the English against the Narragansetts in 1645.
In addition to these historic Indian sites, several old buildings of historic significance, primarily of colonial style, are located in Montville.2 4
3.4.4 Floodplains and Wetlands No floodplains or wetlands of significant size or ecological importance are located on the plant site.
A few very small (e.g., less than 0.2 ha) wetlands lie along the ephemeral stream downstream from the UNC facilities. No brackish marshes are located along the Thames River shoreline at the eastern site boundary.1 The shoreline slopes upward rapidly to a level that is unaffected by floods or high tides.
At the northwestern boundary of the site, a small floodplain forest cbout 0.1 ha (0.25 acres) extends from Trading Cove upstream along an intermittent stream for about 12 m (40 ft).
Two small ponds are on the site. One is an overflow pond of the Thames River, and the other is a temporary pond.
Neither one is a particularly important wetland.
3.5 Hydrology i
3.5.1 Surface Water The UNC site is bordered on the east by the Thames River and to the northeast by Trading Cove, which is connected by a culvert to the Thames River.
The 1
4 20
4 Table 3.4. Incremental 1980 population data within.80 km (50 miles) 4 i
of the UNC NPD at 41*29'30" latitude and 72'05'30" longitude Population distribution at distances given in miles Direction 0-1 2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50~
N 280 4,324 2,445 986 1,536-3,076 5,875 12,238' 13,030 28,962 NNE O
1,830 5,587 6,757 1,497 7,009 8,461 43,387 35,987 51,206 NE 326 1,528 646 1,685 721 4,146 9,359 13,896 60,808 323,937 i
ENE O
742 457 71 403 929 3,185 20,673 220,498 259,077 E
465 3
487 362 249 863-3,940 30,138 36,525 45,886 ESE 0
0 329 341 183 2,848 23,879 8,728 1,983 0
s i
SE 2
283 348 420 284 3,699 14,005 0
517 0
SSE 375 754 473 862 1,619 6,508 11,273 193 1,522 0
S 305 1,195 360
.727 1,615 33,354 20,147 0
8,665 141' SSW 0
354 381 578 950 6,628 13,585 4,975 18,962.
21,737~
SW 326 299 417 373 391 1,732-11,854 24,458 866' 17,030 i.
WSW 0
244 244 264 457 2,721 9,591 l46,094 38,385 267,825' l
W 247 208
-142 273 548 2,071 4,608 73,164 127,792 201,170 WNW 0
335 201 281 394 1,293 8,952 60,763 381,911 129,119 NW 295 8'/
- 361 318 267 1,096 7,918 94,438 161,386 96,081 NNW 0
925 1,093
- 504 550 1,663 24,763-63,492 27,039 205,293
-Total 2,621 13,898 13,971 14,802 11,664 79,636 180,995 496,637 1,135,'975 1,647,404 j
1 i
.9 i
i d
Table 3.5. Cumulative 1980 population data within_80 6mr(50 miles).
of the UNC NPD at 41*29'30" latitude and 72*05'30" longitude-
~
Population distribution at distances given.in miles Directior.
'0-1 0-2 0-3 0 0-5 0-10 0-20
- 0-30 0-40 0-50 N
280 4,694 7,049 8,035 9,571 12,647 18,522 30,760 43,790.
72,752 j
NNE O
1,830 7,417
.14,174 15,671 22,680 31,141 74,529 110,515' 101,721 l
NE 326 1,854
_2,500 4,185 4,966 9,052 18,911 32,807 193,615 417,552 ENE O
742 1,199 1,270 1,673 2,602 5,787 26,460 243,950 506,835 E
'465 468 955 1,317 1,566 2,429 6,369 36,507 73,032
-110,910-1 Rl ESE O
O 329 670 853 3,701 27,500 36,308' 30,291' 38,291 SE
'2 205 633 1,053 1,337 5,036' 19,041
'19,041 19,558-19,558 i
SSE 375 1,129 1,602 2,464_
4,083 10,591 21,864-22,057 23,579, 23,379 S
305 1,500 1,860 2,587 4,202 3.7,556 57,703 -
57,703; 66,368 66,589 SSW
-0 354 735 1,313 2,263
.8,891 22,476 27,451 46,413 68,150 -
l SW 326
-625 1,042 1,415 1,806 3,538-15,392 39,850 40,716r
'57,746 WSW.
.247 455 597-870 1,418-3,489' 8,097 81,261 289,053-
~410,223 0
244 488 752!
1,209 3,930 13,521 59,815 98,000 365,025 1W:
WNW 0
335
'536 817 1,211 2,504 18,556.
71,319 453,230 582,349-l NW
.295 1,169 1,530
.1,849 2,115 3,211 11,129 105,567 266,953
.363,034 NNW 0
925-2,018 2,522' 3,072
.4,735 29,498 92,990 120,028
'325,321 l
Total 2621 16,519 30,490 45,292 56,956 136,592 317,587 814,224 1,950,099: 3,597,563-I i
L '.
.______Z
1
. T I
2 2
Thames' River' drains an area of more than 3500 km ~(1300 miles ) and.is subject to tidal influence 2.in.the vicinity of the plant. site.
Two small-ponds occur on the site, in. addition.to the wastewater ponds.
No perennial. streams _ flow over the site proper, but the drainage' courses of numerous-intermittent streams discharge.to the valley where the'UNC facility-
~
is located.~ The~ intermittent. streams carry surface runoffiduring' spring thaws and periods of ' exceptionally heavy rain. _The valley receiving' stream drainage formerly was' contained by natural levees along the Thames River and consisted
_ partially of'a_ swamp area..This area now drains into the Thames River by a
~
man-made excavation. Because.of the well-drained nature of the soils onothe site and.theEdepth of the water table, the surface-water flow into the inter-
~
mittent stream channels and into the: river is limited.1 Thel. storm drainage from the facility area is discharged at several points.to natural channels.
Most of this drainage (90-.95%) reaches the Thames River.1 Water quality of the Thames River generally is good.
Levels _of nitrate, phosphate, and' fluoride are less than 1.0 mg/L; pH levels (6.6) are near-neutral.2 3.5.2 Groundwater The groundwater flow system is complicated by the organic material in the valley floor and percolation from the septic field and cooling ponds.
Ground-water recharge to the valley comes primarily from Crow Hill.
North of the plant buildings, about 120 m (400 ft) from the river, brackish water from Trad-ing Cove intrudes into the freshwater aquifer.
Recharge from Crow Hill is of considerable magnitude since more than half the 3
water used_in the plant [over 530 m /d (140,000 gpd)] is pumped from onsite wells southeast of the cooling ponds.
The well water' remains of good quality, and the brackish water from the Thames will appear if the pumping rate exceeds recharge rate.
3.6 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Seismicity 3.6.1 Geology 3.6.1.1 Regional Geology The geology of eastern Connecticut can.be divided into two broad classifica-tions based on physical characteristics:
bedrock geology and surficial geology.1 The bedrock geology consists predominantly of complexly faulted and folded micaceous schists and calc-silicate gneisses that record geologic events-that took place primarily during the Paleozoic Age.
The-surficial geology.is characterized by a complex variety of unconsolidated glacial drift deposits of Pleistocene Age.
23
O a
-3.6.1.2 Site Geolony The facility site is underlain by geologic units from both classifications.1
. Crystalline bedrock outcrops. appear _on the southern flank of the Crow Hill and on the northern shore of Trading Cove..The rock units exposed in these'two-
~
outcrop areas are believed to be sept. rated by the Honey Hill fault -(discussed
'below).
Surficial deposits. overlay the crystalline bedrock and can be divided into several' categories. based on their genesis.
The bedrock underlying the site is a fine grained to medium grained, equigranular gneiss. The' gneiss is~ fractured in outcrops on Crow Hill.
Outcrops on the northern shore of Trading Cove ~are not intensely fractured but do display intense folds.
The surficial deposits on the site are about 46 m;(150 ft) thick beneath the northern ridge and thin out in a southerly direction as they lap on Crow Hill.
Deposits of glacial till, with thicknesses of-3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft),-overlay the gneissic bedrock.
These deposits range'from moderately sorted, coarse sand to_ material consisting entirely of very fine' sand or soil.
Stratified fluvial deposits overlay the general till and form a kame terrace with an elevation of approximately 23 m (75 ft).
The kame terrace is part of a geomorphologic feature that extends up the valley of Trading Cove Brook.
The deposits-range from fine grained sand to boulder gravel.
The lower part of the valley at the facility site is covered with 5 to 7 m (15 to 20 ft) of dredge spoils from the Thames River that were dumped at the site following the hurricane of September 21, 1938.
The dredge spoils ' consist of fine grained to medium grained sand with shell fragments varying in abundance.
The dredge spoils, at least over the southern part of the valley, rest on organic-rich, fine grained material.
The thickness of this material'is' unknown but is at least several meters thick.
The organic-rich material beneath the dredge spoils is a black, silty material that contains some roots.
3.6.1.3 Structural Geology The trace of the east-west trending Honey Hill Fault is believed to pass i
beneath Trading Covel and is thought to be a thrust fault.
Geologic features along the faults suggest that faulting began when the rocks were being meta-l morphosed.
The final stages of movement in the fault probably predated Triassic i
tectonic activity in this area.1 Stratified drift deposits surrounding Trading i
Cove are not offset along the projected trace of the fault, precluding signifi-L cant late Pleistocene displacement.-
l i
3.6.2 Mineral Resources i
The staff is not aware of a potential for any mineral resource that could be actively exploited within or near the plant boundaries, with~the possible exception of sand and gravel.
Gravel has been extracted from the site in the past.
3.6.3 Seismicity The area of eastern Connecticut where the UNC facility is located lies in a relatively quiet seismic region of the United States (Fig. 3.2).
Although areas 24
- -. - ~.
l i
l ES-6089 i
3 I
- p
[:0 liWW g
3 j'
3 4
. l:.
1i
- 1 i i:p" : 1sii i
UNITED
- }:-
ik :':..
~
g 4f' NUCLEAR y
.x;
- ]'i':ll ja PLANT 2
g y
.. g A
14
- -:(-4 :1 3
.l. ' 2 ? j- -
gll,i
!lSl-ll.)
&, u \\\\l\\ht.
~ W
' $. i 3
g l$q
!l!
O DAMAGE 2
O l
lO NONE l
p;
,.] l MINOR 2 MODERATE M 3 MAJOR Fig. 3.2. Seismic risk map of the United States. Source: S. T. Algermissen United States Earthous&es. Fig. 2.4, U.S. Govemment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1968.
.i i
l I
(.
i r
in New England have. experienced reasonably large damaging earthquakes in the past,1 the recurrence rates of earthquakes.in this region are much lower than i
those in the western United States.
I i
A recent probabilistic acceleration map of the. contiguous United States-(Fig. 3.3) indicates that the horizontal acceleration at the facility site,
)
with 90% probabilit3 of not being exceeded in 50 years, is less than 1
[
0.10 gravities..On-the basis of the historic seismicity record and the tectonic framework of the region, it is highly unlikely that an earthquake of i
.high. magnitude will affect the facility site during its projected life.
i-
~
3.7 Biota 3.7.1 Terrestrial I
The ecology of the Montville site is described in Appendix B of the " Environ-l mental Report" for 1972.1 Undisturbed portions of the site are forestland and j '
cover about 86 ha (211 acres).
About half of the forest is on slopes more than 12 m (39 ft) above MSL' in the southwestern half of the site. _ The substrate l
is coarse-textured glacial till, and the soil is a very stony, sandy loam that i
is capable of holding much moisture.
Red and white oaks, black birch, and red maple are the dominant tree species.
Both the canopy and the shrub layer are well developed.
f The other half of the forest-area is located in the northeastern half of the site and is also more than 12 m above MSL.
Soils are well drained and dry,-
i i
and the forest is dominated by oaks and red maple.
Ground and shrub vegeta-tion are poorly developed.
The area lying less than 12 m above MSL, much of j
which is occupied by plant facilities, has sandy soils and scattered clumps of trees dominated by scarlet oak, pitch pine, large-tooth aspen, and pin cherry.
l Ground vegetation is sparse.
i Wildlife that may be observed in the Montville area includes 170 species of summer-resident land birds 10 and 60 species of mammals.12 The Montville site is too small to contain the habitats required by all these pecies.
Therefore, not all the species would be expected to be living on the site.
Game species j
most often observed include the raccoon and mourning dove, although the site is not particularly abundant with either one. - Ruffed grouse are present in low numbers. White-tailed deer are virtually absent.
j 3.7.2 Aquatic l
j Because of the limited amount of freshwater habitat (Sect. 3.5.1), there are l
few freshwater species.
There are two onsite ponds.
One, an overflow pond i
of the Thames River next to the gravel pit, contains bluegills and killifish but appears to lack amphibians.- The other, which is adjacent to the railroad track, is a temporary pond and contains typical pond vegetation dominated by l
cattails.
Large. numbers of wood-frog tadpoles are present in the spring and early summer.
I j
The effluent stream from'the plant facilities and the wastewater ponds produce a limited freshwater habitat in a channel next to the sand flat; this channel j
ultimately leads to the Thames River.
Because of its shallow depth and the I'
26 l
.~
~.- -
}
f ES 6094 5
6 3
at'
' Di r-
\\
'tk
.' fC 5
11 T
9 *p 4 '.
9
.. a, (
- ' '~h.
l I.
PLANT SITE
,o.
9 k.,
~~
l
>.Y
\\.
7 s-M, l
T/75.., f\\.
8' f
3
}L.~-Q
.?
7 4
1 A_/
4 f.s.g f
\\-9 o,
.Y
- -n -
., 4..u..
\\.
N..
11 MILES f
N i
O 50 100 150 200 b 'tEO 2bO 3 0 KtLOMETERS 1
4 Fig. 3.3. A preliminary mop of horizontal acceleration (expressed as percent of gravity) in rock with 90% probability of not being excessed in 50 years. Source: S. T. 4.cr':- 7 and D. M. Perkine.
A Probabnietic Estenete of Memmum Accelerstion in Rock in the Contiguous Uhited States. Open File Report 76-426, U.S. Geoloyc Survey.1976.
27
re sandy' soil, the effluent stream supports few aquatic animals, although patches of. aquatic and riparian vegetation exist.2
-The~ aquatic biota of Trading Cove is typical of other backwater areas of the Thames River.
The biotic diversity of the cove may, however, be restricted by the culvert under the railroad track that separates Trading Cove-from the
~
Thames River.
3.7.3 ' Threatened and Endangered Species The United States endangered species-list (50 CFR 17), as'of July 27, 1983, includes several species that may occur in Connecticut.
In a'1976 study, it was reported that the Indiana bat had not been found in the= state for many.
years.12 It spends winter in caves and raisestits young primarily in wooded areas.along streams.
Suitable habitat at the site appears to be lacking, and it is highly unlikely that this type'of bat will be found in'the area.
The eastern cougar may occur in wilder, more remote parts of the state; however, it is highly unlikely that the cougar would find suitable habitat-at the site',
which lies in a densely populated area.
The bald eagle formerly bred in more remote regions-of the state,12-but no nesting eagles have been recorded since the 1950s-(R. Kroodsma,:0RNL, personal communication with R. Narenchelli, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Nov. 18, 1983).
The American peregrine. falcon formerly nested on high, rocky cliffs in central Connecticut.12 -However, suitable nesting habitat is absent at the site, and sitings of this species would be rare.' A plant' species, the small whorled pogonia, grows in dry, rich woods in the south-eastern hills region and coastal regions of Connecticut, which include the j
town of Montville.
Thus, this species could be present on the site. although it was not observed during onsite surveys.1 1
3.8 Radiological Characteristics (Background) l l
The total-body dose rate for the vicinity of Montville is approximately i
110 millirem / year.13 This dose rate includes 41 millirem / year from cosmic j
rays, 51 millirem / year from terrestrial sources, and 18 millires/ year from internal emitters.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 I
i 1.
United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental Report, Montville Site Naval i
Products Division, Docket No.70-371, Sept. 8, 1972.
[
2.
United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental Information-(provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
3.
G. C. Holtzworth, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, AP-101, Environmental 4-Protection Agency, Research Triangle' Park, N.C., January 1972.~
{
4.
H. C. S. Thom, " Tornado Probabilities," Mon Weather Rev. 91:.10 (October-l December 1963).
i L
4
[
28 fts
5.
D. H. Slade, ed.. " Meteorology and Atomic Energy," U.S. Atomic Energy -
- Commission, Division of Technical _Information, July 1968.
6.
J. F. Sagendorf,~"A Program Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Reactor Station," NOAA Technical Memo ERI-ARL-42,1974.
7.
Department of the Interior, " National Register of Historic Places; Annual Listing of Historic Places," Fed. Regist. 44(26) (Feb. 6, 1979); Part II; 45(54) (Mar. 18, 1980), Part II; 46(22) (Feb. 3, 1981); 47(22) (Feb. 2, 1982), and 48(41) (Mar. 1, 1983).
8.
Department of the Interior, " National Registry of Natural Landmarks,"
Fed. Regist. 48 (Mar. 1, 1983).
9.
W. F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation,. letter with additional information to Marc J. Rhodes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket No.70-371, Aug. 19, 1983.
10.
R. E. Cook, " Variation in Species Density of North American Birds," Syst.
Zool. 18: 6364 (1969).
4 11.
G. G. Simpson, " Species Density of North American Recent Mammals," Syst.
Zool. 12: 5773 (1964).
12.
J. J. Dowhan and R. J. Craig, " Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut and Their Habitats," Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Report of Investigations No. 6, 1976.
i 13.
D. T. Oakley, Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States, ORP/SID 72-1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1972.
i 1
l l
29
r-4.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED LICENSE RENEWAL 4.1 Monitoring Programs and Mitigatory Measures The locations for. effluer.t and environmental monitoring are shown in-Fig. 4.1.
A summary of the monitoring program is presented in Table 4.1.1 4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Programs 4.1.1.1 Radiological Gaseous All stacks emitting radioactive particulates are continuously monitored for alpha activity at the point of release.
Liquid Presently, a proportional sample of liquid effluent from each radwaste tank is taken and analyzed for gross alpha prior to discharge to the septic field.
Prior to rerouting the liquid process waste line to bypass the septic tank, samples were analyzed from the 9.5m3 (2500 gal) retention tanks before discharge to the septic tank.
Additionally, the septic tank effluent was monitored every other month for gross alpha and uranium and the septic tank sludge was sampled at 2 year intervalt or when records showed that 350 g of uranium could have been released to the septic tank.
At present, no uranium contaminated liquid is routed through the septic tank and neither of the two analyses men'.ioned above is required.
Process pond water is analyzed for gross alpha and uranium on a monthly basis.
4.1.1.2 Nonradiological l
Gaseous Airborne chemical (ffluents are generated during nitric acid pickling operations and during cleaning operations with volatile solvents.
Pickling results in the release of nitrogen oxides and to a much lesser degree hydro-fluoric acid fumes.
The State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has issued UNC four " Permits to Operate." Three of these permits are for pickling operations and one is for an incinerator used to burn uncontaminated combustibles generated onsite.
At present, the State of Connecticut does not require that UNC monitor their stack effluent for N0x or fluorides.
The State does maintain a system of periodic inspections on stack effluent opacity, as a means of evaluating pollution al e iment equipment performance.
If deemed necessary, the state can request that JNL initiate stack monitoring.
The release of volatile materialJ from cleaning operations is less than the State of Connecticut's limit for discharging both photochemically reactive and unreactive solvents, therefore no monitoring is required (Sect. 4.2.1).
30 i
4 i
ES 4003 l*;M.m g;- M,.lt_ i*k~.s J;' %,,3 ;-$.k
- g. +vy. >... " n; 47.. f.,.,;.
9 :.
3=
s : >
.. ;/
y p ;
>g y
r
~%.,%.,,,;,f ', -
$b4 O'
f" s..
-I
' 'g
.,:+,,~
- I F
J A Of,4 m;l y"g- ^
AFm'.W v'r/, M,rp gj,'[f;&
i
..~.
if l}.
NORTH ji.f.%gl7 [lN u-H.%n.h,
.Mt STORM
'. s ! Jjn [ t. +
"-M.4,
9
,f. s 'x 7,.,_7 Q Q[$2 *.yA.'m; DRAIN p
4
.;o y.
- :g,ys. -..
- 7 %;; h 4%y%n q. :.
- fing;'UN k; N.
- ' N;:. '
e l
+
f2 5-Fr O4 N
^
l D
.II A Vs
^
i:.,4;pg; a g27
.y.. Q.ar.JS:w?g
..fp<k 0 0 it. U N C i # e'** $ ;
o' o
s
\\ %w.~, @,;w.%es.g. x k,w c s -. q TR ADING COVE o
-g n B ?p a -
~
c.
o
,a a
l o
- if=';Q i.p.y
>2,, G ;.x + - u 3%.
o o
.A C C
's ~
'*~t- %"b ~
~%
~
a l
O
+
y Mh
.'.N(e&S _i;;r:: rep; hh: T ' 0 DESEgT
~
M;..g'. T -d y
RD-C
-. ', ~ :: t :. '.
-r k.4 +
(
Y %Y%f ::h...d m:#;g.%%A:iB%y, & p E
Ei#
C loc h
k G. gL
$ hq h
- k.YY:.e sw. e hh 1-. i..;p;p rg ::,( #6m.. ;,.& >:. s; Q FLOW Sq
, w-s M
N M
N o
SEPTIC FIELD 4,, E MjI Q($
[ Id STORM 4
y 3
.?
jfl ?q::pg. jn ~ p :.jg:f d
~.2 C
c DRAIN O
M @ M @O" @Of'E WNdM C
y!y4Y;J.e %.y.. : *vu1 g 7 d
M THAMES RIVER ITIDALkW~ J 8
PROCESS
.I
' w -j $i,%"#9}.,f...
j.IF
- wr;.s.P. #, 5S.,%:G. - +
c -
?*
COOLING
'4,'~'
'w m %,;I th,y.kq,h %. m A
- s PONDS r W M. 3
,d n +. as we>
m
- :?.dW
,,..%;.?. ; M n. n '
- g" $ y${b ~ @ y* g % *g O gT
- ih#
M
.' #+ 4. nz:..w -i., eg%. q? lng B
s,pe 9.*y >
s
-. w.a d
- 9a.c m.> ay;q. fy%.
40
, jpc
.g r g
u 4O 3:-
g.
p.y.. - c 3 9; Yh';Q'Ih:(;'
- u. _y. 7' g.;Q:, y x
%.;,Yk. r [ #
I' J": e.M.
'i
?
) -
r W
N.;: -
LEGEND
~,45Qm y p. m -m.. ?.-
(4
+an A-AIR, NITROGEN OXIDES. SOIL k
. 4 p s:4+.
..,.< B X1; 'djf Wi@Q :.?d ' ;.::h:g.,y,4 g:
d 8-SURF ACE WATE R
- m. -p. yx4 c. n.n
,n
= - -
c.g n
' Mg'. g g* L g> %p %y
-' W,e C - ON SITE MCNITORING WELL w :s!!' M Q Q 'M +g p' 59 a:g
~1..
J. G. 2 n gjj,S V E.q...cfMuf)-
D-OFF SITE MONITORING WELL
- .4. "
0 200 400ft a
e s
% gi g.x. ' - n?.j E - SOlt
%ggM.; N 0 ' 61 122 m Fig. 4.1. Locations of suonitorir.g sostions for the United Ph-Corporation Novel Products Devision facility in Montville. Connecticut.
Table 4.1. Operation of the radiological monitoring program for the UNC facility Number of Sample Samples Collection Analysis Analysis medium taken frequency frequency parameters Effluent surveillance Air effluents Air Stacks Particulates 15 Continuous Varies from Gross alpha 1-4 d Liquid effluents Rad waste Water 1
Continuous Daily and monthly Gross alpha N
per batch composite release Process pond Water 1
Weekly Monthly Gross alpha, uranium water Site surveillance Air effluents Monitoring Air 6
24-h_ samples, Bimonthly Gross alpha stations bimonthly Water effluents Surface water Water 4
Quarterly On-site well Water 17 Quarterly ~
Quarterly Gross alpha, uranium Quartery Gross alpha, uranium Residential well Water 4
Annually Annually Gross alpha, uranium Soil samples Soil 6
Semiannually Semiannually Gross alpha, uranium-Source: W. F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation, letter with additional information to Marc J. Rhodes, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket 70-371, Aug.19,1983.
.1 4
Liquid The applicant monitors the-process wastewater pond on a-monthly basis and the outfall from the pond for selected chemicals on' a quarterly basis.- A summary-of this data along with data from the Thames River (upstream and downstream) and Trading Core, for the' years 1977-1982-is presented in Table 4.2.2 The.
- 1983 data (Table 4.3)1
- show elevated pH and nitrate levels in the discharge.
from the' plant.and from the wastewater. pond outfall..These increased levels are the result of resin regeneration' and occur on a daily short-term basis.1 4.1.2 Environmental ~Monitorina Programs 4.1.2.1 ~ Radiological Gaseous Offsite air monitoring for radioactive pollutants is not routinely performed' and is not needed because stack effluent is monitored and dispersion modeling' shows that relevant offsite location concentrations are well below acceptable-limits.
(See Section 4.2.5.)
Liquid Surface water is sampled quarterly at the following locations:
1.
Thames River, upstream and downstream of the plant; 2.
Trading Cove; 3.
Outfall of the drainage trench; and 4.
Incoming city water.
Samples are analyzed for uranium and gross' alpha. The staff has reviewed UNC's data and finds that there is no significant difference between concen-trations of uranium at upstream Thames River, downstream Thames River, Trading Cove locations and Norwich City water.
Seventeen onsite monitoring wells surrounding the plant are sampled quarterly to monitor-the uranium activity in the groundwater to ensure that the plant discharge water is not adversely.affecting local groundwater.
At least four residential wells near the site boundary are sampled annually and analyzed for uranium to detect any changes'in the basic water quality in the residential wells.
The locations of these offsite groundwater monitoring wells are shown in Fig.- 4.1.
Data indicates that plant operations have not resulted in'any significant level in groundwater uranium concentrations over-UNC's well water or Thames River water.
t 33
(
)
A
- ~
-- j,
J Table 4.2."" Average values for physical and chemical parameters at
!b'oth onsite and offsite monitoring stations for 1977-1982 Process Parameter Process.
pond Thames River Trading pond outfall Downstream Upstream Cove Nitrate, mg/L 8.8 3.0 0.7 0.6 0.9
+
Phhsphate, mg/L 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2
- 0. 2 Fluoride, mg/L 2.8 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3 Oil and grease, mg/L-F5.'0 F2.0 F2.0 F2.0 F2.0 Temperature, *C 28 17 14 13 13 l
"l pH 6.9 6.5 6.7 6.6 6.7 U
Fecal coliform, NA 480 500-580 380 a
s number /L e~
Biological oxygen demand 4.2 l
(BOD) aNot available.
~,
Source: United Nuclear Corporation, Envirvamental Information (provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ' Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan.17,1983.
I.
' 'I r
l
~
l l
l
.u 8
[
34
. _ __ =
Table 4.3.
Results of the 1983 grab samples taken for analysis of wastewater-discharge from the facility
'D0 above Cooling DD DD* near a
a 4
cooling pond below the pond outfall cooling Thames outfall
. pond River pH-7.3
- 9. 6 8.6 7.2-Dissolved. oxygen, mg/L 11.4 10.6 10.6'
- 9.1 Nitrate as nitrogen, ag/L.
1.9 3.6 2.2 1.9 Phosphorus, mg/L 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.02 Chlorine, mg/L 10.2 7.9 9.0 9.0 Iron,~ ag/L 0.17 0.31 0.29 0.35
. Copper, mg/L 0.26 0'.24 0.36 0.38 Zirconium, ag/L
<2
<2
<2
<2 Biological oxygen demand 14
<6 13
<6 (BOD) (5-d), mg/L aDD = drainage ditch.
Source:
W.' F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation, letter with additional 1
information to Marc J. Rhodes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a
Docket No.70-371, Aug. 19, 1983.
l 1
4 3
i l
I i
I i-35
~--
Soil Soil samples are taken at 6 locations identified in Fig. 4.1.
Six locations surrounding the manufacturing facilities are sampled and analyzed semiannually for gross alpha and uranium.
All sampling is done within the first foot of soil.
Data indicates that there is no significant buildup of radioactivity in soil from past operations.
In addition, UNC has proposed, by letter dated l
August 19, 1983, an immediate and long term plan to sample and analyze subsur-face soil within the area of the septic tank drain field to determine if there is accumulation of trace element and uranium in soil.
The proposed plan is acceptable and is recommended as a license condition.
4.1.2.2 Nonradiological l
Gaseous l
Air quality monitoring at the Montville site is conducted for ambient nitrogen oxide concentrations at six monitoring stations surrounding the UNC facilities (Fig. 4.1).
The sampling is done continuously for a 24-h period every other month.1 Because of the insignificant levels of HF discharged, environmental monitoring for HF is not performed.
The past monitoring data on N0 shows 3
x standard (100 pg/m ) had been exceeded occasionally at the that the N0 onsitesampiingstations.
The offsite concentrations are below the standard l
(Sect. 4.2.1).
Liquid l
The same parameters as those monitored cosite are also monitored by the I
applicant on a routine basis in Trading Cove and the Thames River, both up-stream and downstream of the site.
A summary of the monitoring results is found in Table 4.2.
Assuming there is considerable water exchange between Trading Cove and the Thames River through the culvert under the railroad track-particularly as the result of the tidal influence in the river--the comparative results of the offsite and onsite monitoring programs show that levels of chemicals monitored are not increased in Trading Cove because of surface runoff discharge to the cove or in the Thames River downstream of the plant because of drainage discharge from the cooling pond (Table 4.2).
Groundwater from 17 onsite wells is monitored for selected chemical constituents (Fig. 4.1 and Table 4.1).
Only nitrate and chloride exceed drinking water standards in some samples from a few of the wells.
Percolation from the septic field is probably the nitrate source, and the brackish Thames River i
water accounts for the chloride.
Since the groundwater flow is to Trading Cove and the Thames River, both of which are brackish, and.there is no poten-tial for drinking water use, these occasional values in. excess of the standards are of no consequence.
Terrestrial ecology and land use There is no modtoring of the effects of plant operation on terrestrial ecology or land use at the Montville site.
Monitoring is not necessary because the potential impact.s are not significant (Sects. 4.2.2 and 4.2.4).
l l
36 l
4.2 Direct Effects and Their Significance 4.2.1 Air Quality Gaseous emissions from the plant stacks are discussed in Sect. 2.2.2.1.
Emissions of nitrogen oxide, trichloroethylene, and trichloroethane have the largest potential for impacts on the environment.
A total of 12.17 metric tons (13.4 short tons) of nitrogen oxide is released to the air each year from pickling operations.
To predict the annual average ground level concentra-tions of r.itrogen oxide in 16 compass sectors and at various distances from the UNC facilities, the staff used meteorological data from the Connecticut Yankee Power Station at Haddam Neck.
The maximum annual average concentra-tions occurred in the east-southeast sector. At the site boundary in this sector, about 425 m (1?94 ft) from the plant, the nitrogen oxide concentra-tions were calculated to be 16.1.-pg/m. At the site boundary in the northeast 3
sector, about 195 m (640 ft) from the plant, the nitrogen oxide concentrations 3
were calculated to be 46 pg/m.
This nitrogen oxide concentration, when added to ambient nitrogen oxide levels monitored at Norwich,3 does not exceed the 3
Connecticut ambient air quality standard of 100 pg/m.
The average nitrogen 3
oxide concentration for the years 1977-1980 at Norwich was 49 pg/m.
Over these 4 years, the nitrogen oxide concentrations showed no tendency to increase.
The Connecticut State maintains a system of periodic inspections for compliance. The Air Quality Division in the Connecticut Department of Environ-mental Protection indicated to the NRC staff that the applicant is in compliance with all air quality standards.
A total of 0.9 metric tons (1.0 short tons) of trichloroethylene and trichloro-ethane, which are photochemically reactive, are emitted to the air each year.
The daily average is about 3.5 kg (7.7 lb).
The State of Connecticut permits such photachemically reactive substances to be ieleased at a rate of 18.2 kg (40 lb) per day (R. Kroodsma, ORNL, personal communication with J. Royce, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Nov. 17,1983).
Isopropyl alcohol, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, and hexane, which are photochemically unreactive, are emitted at an average rate of 20.2 kg (44.4 lb) per day.
The allowable rate is 363 kg (800 lb) per day.
The UNC facilities thus comply with state regulations for emissions of these organic _ substances.
4.2.2 Land Use No additional buildings, major additions to existing buildings, or changes in operations are proposed by the applicant for this relicensing action.
Current operations have not resulted in any significant impacts on land use, and their continuation also should have no significant or unexpected impacts.
Emissions to the air do not violate national or state air quality standards (Sect.
4.2.1) and should, therefore, have an insignificant effect on plants and vegetation important to agriculture and other types of land uses.
4.2.3 Water Use Up to 2080 m3 (550,000 gal) of water is used per day on site; of this amount, 530 m3 (140,000 gal) is pumped from onsite wells.
The remainder is obtained 37
E from the Norwich municipal water supply.2 Because the topography of the facility area is such that there is considerable groundwater recharge, facility water use should have no effect on the surrounding area.
4.2.4 Ecological 4.2.4.1 Terrestrial Because no expansion of the UNC facilities currently is planned, no new losses of habitat for biota will occur as a result of this licensing action. Although emissions to the air could have a potential impact on biota, the emissions are in compliance with local air quality standards (Sect. 4.2.1), and impacts on biota are not expected.
Therefore, the population levels of plant and animal e,Jecies in the area should remain unchanged.
The primary long-term impact is the continued preclusion of wildlife populations on the land area occupied by buildings, parking lots, and associated facilities.
Because of the lack of endangered species and other ecologically important species in the area (Sects. 3.7.1 and 3.7.3), the potential for significant impact is small.
4.2.4.2 Aquatic Because of the limited amount of freshwater habitat on site, the ephemeral nature of the water courses, and the low number of aquatic species (Sect.
3.7.2), the impact on the freshwater biota from operation of the plar.t is minimal.
The staff expects no significant impact on the biota of Trading Cove and the Thames River in the plant vicinity'from the UNC's liquid discharge because of the insignificant change in water quality (Sect. 4.1.1).
An initial NPDES permit for liquid discharge for 60,000 GPD was issued to UNC by the State of Connecticut in 1971.
UNC requested in 1972 for increase to 250,000 GPD.
The NPDES permit is currently under review by the Department of Environmental Protection of Connecticut.
4.2.5 Radiological Impacts The radiological impacts of the UNC facility were assessed by calculating the maximum dose to the individual living at the nearest residence to the plant and to the local population living within an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the plant.
Except where specified, the term " dose," as referred to in this report, is actually a 50 year dose commitment for all internal exposures.
This means the commitment is the total dose to the reference organ that will accrue from 1 year of intake of radionuclides during the remaining lifetime (50 years) of the individual.
A conservative assumption is that the individuals spend all their time at the reference location and that all the food consumed is produced at the site.
The dose reflects the annual release of radionuclides from the combined effluents. Where possible, site-specific data are used for estimating dose.
4.2.5.1 Doses from airborne releases Emissions from building exhaust stacks are monitored continuously, and the average annual release ratesi over the period 1978-1982 are shown in Table 4.4.
The nearest residence is about 425 m west of the release stacks.
38
Table 4.4. Average annual release of radionuclides in the stack effluents of the United NuclearCorporatignfuel fabrication plant Radionuclides Release rate l
(Ci/ year) 234U 4.3 x 10 55 2350 1.2 x 10 6 238U 7.8 x 10 8 238U 2.1 x 10 8 aAverage annual release rate during the years 1978-1982.
Source: United Nuclear Cor-poration, Environmerital Information (provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
)
a Table 4.5. Fifty year dose commitments to the maximum exposed b
individual at the nearest residence from the airborne effluents of the United Nuclear Corporation plant Dose (millirem)
Pathway Total body Bone Lengs Kidneys l
Immersion in air 1.3 x 10 8 2.2 x 10 8 1.2 x 10 8 9.5 x 10 10 1
Exposuretgsurface 5.9 x 10 5 9.8 x 10 s 4.8 x 10 5 4.0 x 10 55 Inhalatiog 2.8 x 10 3 3.8 x 10 2 7.0 x 10 4 8.3 x 10 3 Ingestion 1.3 x 10 2 1.7 x 10 1 1.0 x 10 8 3.7 x 10 2 Total 1.6 x 10 2 2.1 x 10 1 1.7 x 10 3 4.5 x 10 2 l
a ifty year dose commitment for the intake of radionuclides resulting from l
F one year of plant operation.
bNearest residence is approximately 425 m west of the plant site.
cBased on an inhalation rate of 8000 m / year.
3 dBased on a maximum intake rate for adults of 280 kg/ year of vegetables, i
310 L/ year of milk, and 110 kg/ year of meat as given by the U.S.
l Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev. 1, October 1977.
39
(., -.
- .,,, n n <
~
, -..:a. n ~ : n n.- /. ;
m..ns,. ~.,
..; e ;-
v n.4.y :s. - w :. _.:
.-+y-
,3
.p 3
[.':g. -
- r _; ;n 3
Vj ;.
J.
y ::
WWW Doses were estimated using the AIRDOS-EPA computer code.4 The methodology is G.;. Y L designed to estimate (1) the rates of deposition on ground surfaces; (2) ground k;.$Q
+
surface concentrations; (3) intake rates via inhalation of air and ingestion
,%f i.1 of meat, milk, and vegetables; and (4) radiation doses to man from the airborne V
releases of radionuclides. The highest estimated doses to the individual living f^
closest to the plant and to the population living within an 80-km (50-mile)
@pm.:
m g
radius of the plant are calculated with the code.
Q;
'1 p
Meteorological dispersion factors, X/Q, were estimated using the Gaussian p'. ;[
[
plume model and diffusion coefficients for Pasquill-type turbulence.S'8 l:
l l
Because all the stack heights are less than twice the building heights, and rs K
also because of the topography of the site, ground level releases were assumed h/4,,;
5 with no credit given to the building wakes effect.
The X/Q values are sum-Q.1, a
marized in Appendix A.
M ji 4
- .f Q.
[.
Radionuclide concentrations in meat, milk, and vegetables consumed by man are i j:g estimated by coupling the output of the atmospheric transport models with NRC i-Y
1 Regulatory Guide 1.109.7 In lieu of site-specific information, average wind Q
~b j[:C;,L" f:
speed data for each segment and for each stability class, based on the 1975-1976 measurements at the nearby Connecticut Yankee Power Station, were used g.1 i
]8 for determining the dispersion and deposition of the radionuclides released.
- gn.O.S.
Other parameters used in the dose calculations are given in Appendix A.
.};f.y;,7
- sw e
=
Dose to the maximally exposed individual
{. y.' ' J 1..
- v...:2
+[
The 50 year dose commitments to the maximally exposed individual living at the 9Ke 4
nearest residence (425 m west of the plant) from the airborne effluents are
@./ y 3../
shown in Table 4.5.
The total-body dose of 0.013 millirem resulted primarily W& W from the ingestion (76%) and inhalation (22%) pathways. Approximately 97% of J. O c
'i-the dose was attributable to the 234-U released (Table 4.6).
The highest c '/ %.
x, organ dose of 0.17 was to the bone and was caused primarily by ingestion (76%)
,;$.D of 234U (97%).
M;J
?
- 7. ;g. u Hj The total-body and organ doses resulting from the airborne releases are only a 9.Q 9
small fraction of the applicable NRC regulations of 500 milliram/ year to the QlJ O
total body; 3000 millirem / year to the bones; and 1500 millirem / year to the M>
Q other organs, designated in or derived from 10 CFR Part 20.
Similarly, the M. $
doses are well below the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for "sN!
A the uranium fuel cycle (40 CFR Part 190).
The total-body dose is only about
%:0 : ^.
i 0.052%, the bone dose about 0.68%, and the lung dose about 0.004% of the EPA 0M C($g
.f.f standard of 25 millirem / year for the total body and these organs.
...;~ c
..l Additionally, the total-body dose of 0.013 millirem is only about 0.012% of fN i e N-
- j the background for the area (110 millirem / year), and thus the contribution to t
the existing background levels would be negligible.
4fk,1 J
- g.~M y.
Dose to the population within 80 km of the plant site gp)
.s bA 7
The 1980 population distribution with an 80-km (50-mile) radius of the plant M E.c' i
site is shown in Tables 3.4 and 3.5.
A total of 3,597,500 persons live within M2 this area. The population dose conmitments from the routine annual releases MN of radionuclides (Table 4.4) are shown in Table 4.7.
The total-body dose to U.. M 7.:
the population of 0.015 man-rem is only about 0.000008% of the population dose
.?
E of 1.8 x 105 man-rem resulting from natural background radiation.
- 4 ;c: ?
3 94 g) faf ',Q k
40 47.f
<J.,...
a4 a o.. m r..-
t.
.c
-..t
.m au +.. e m a. -.-
c.
, 1.1
..t..
.;.....m w X. f. W
'ng,,, A.-,v,y L y.1 ye, f, y l y,-
...r,
. 4..;'.}(.'
V 7 4 :.: Q, r..,' - :< y p 5 a. ;
h /,. 8,;. u A, ' ';~' i,,...:
Table 4.6.
Major contributions to dose to the nearest residence from the airborne effluents of the United Nuclear Corporation plant Percentage contribution to dose Radionuclide Total body Bone Lungs Kidneys 234U 97.0 97.3 93.6 97.3 23s0 2.8 2.5 6.2 2.5 236U 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 238U
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1 a
Table 4.7.
Fifty year d se commitments from the airborne effluents to the b
population living within 80 km of the United Nuclear Corporation plant Dose (man-rem)
Pathway l
Total body Bone Lungs Kidneys Immersion in air 1.2 x 10 9 2.1 x 10 9 1.1 x 10 9 8.9 x 10 10 Exposure to surface 1.1 x 10 4 1.9 x 10 4 9.3 x 10 5 7.6 x 10 5 c
Inhalation 2.6 x 10 3 3.6 x 10 2 6.6 x 10 4 7.9 x 10 3 d
Ingestion 1.2 x 10 2 1.7 x 10 1 3.7 x 10 4 3.6 x 10 2 Total 1.5 x 10 2 2.1 x 10 1 1.1 x 10 3 4.4 x 10 2 afifty year dose commitment for the intake of radionuclides resulting from one year of plant operation.
bBased on the 1980 population of 3,597,500 persons.
c 3
Based on an inhalation rate of 8,000 m / year.
dBased on a average intake rate for adults of 103 kg/ year of veget-ables,110 L/ year of milk, and 95 kg/ year of meat as given by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Regulatory Guide 1.109, Rev.1, October 1977.
41
4.2.5.2 Doses from aqueous releases The operations of the various facilities at the Montville site will not result in the discharge of radioactive liquid waste into any local surface waters.
All liquids that may have picked up uranium-bearing materials are piped into collecting tanks, sampled, treated if necessary, and discharged to the sanitary 3
sewage septic systems.
Quantities of about 3.8 m /d (1000 gpd) of liquid 3
radioactive waste are discharged along with 148 m /d (39,000 gpd) of uncontami-nated liquid to the sanitary sewage system.
The annual liquid waste discharge to the sewage system is shown in Table 4.8.
Since no radioactive wastes are normally released to local streams, there should be no dose to individuals through the aqueous exposure pathways.
4.3 Indirect Effects and Their Significance 4.3.1 Socioeconomic Effects As discussed in Sect. 3.3, employment at the UNC facility accounts for little of the employment in the region.
Continued operation would have no socio-economic impact, 4.3.2 Potential Effects of Accidents s
The fabrication of fuel for nuclear reactors for naval applications involves the processing of enriched uranium.
The only significant radioactive material present at the fuel fabrication facility is the uranium for fuel element fabrication.
Plant accidents at the UNC facility have been postulated and analyzed in the applicant's safety report.
Environmental impacts would result from postulated accidents involving nuclear criticality, equipment failure, industrial hazards, and natural disturbances.
Although the nuclear criticality accident has a very low probability of occurrence, there may be potentially significant or measurable environmental impact.
The radiological environmental impacts of the more probable postulated industrial eccidents are insignificant at this facility.
Impacts of accidents not involving the enriched uranium would be similar to those expected at other manufacturing facilities where nonradioactive materials are stored.
A spectrum of possible accidents related to the operation of the UNC facility and their potential consequences are presented in the following section.
However, it should be noted that there have been no major accidents related to plant operations in past years that have affected people or the offsite environment.
4.3.2.1 Criticality accident In evaluating the potential offsite effects of a postulated criticality event, the staff assumed accident conditions similar to those described in Regulatory Guide 3.34 (Rev.1)s in which an excursion occurs in a vented vessel of unfavorable geometry and produces a total of 1 x 1019 fissions over an 8-h period. The retention time within the building is based on an air exchange rate of 1.4 volumes /h from the recovery area.
It was assumed that 100% of the noble gases and 25% of the halogens were released into the building atmosphere.
The filters or other installed controls were not credited with any removal of these gases.
However, for the ground level release, the air 42
Table 4.8.
Discharge of liquid waste to the sanitary sewage system Enriched uranium Amount discharged Percent Year (m )
g Ci MPC,b 3
a a
1970 1.35 x 103 174 0.011 20.4 1979 1.43 x 103 109 0.008 17.5 l
1980 9.61 x 102 45 0.003 13.1 1981 1.20 x 103 85 0.006 19.3 1982 (six months) 5.60 x 102 51 0.004 17 aMaximum permissible concentration (MPC) for release to uncontrolled areas (10 CFR Part 20).
bThe curies and percent MPC is influenced by the specific activity o' the 2340, which has changed over the years.
Source: United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental Information (provided to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
l l
43
concentrations were reduced by a factor of three due to additional dispersion produced by the building wake.
The amount of radionuclides that would be released over the 8-h period of excursion is shown in Table 4.9.
The atmospheric diffusion model for the release is based on Regulatory Guide 3.34 (Rev. 1),8 with a wind speed of 1 m/s and uniform direction.
The release of radionuclides was considered to be a ground release, and a Pasquill Type F wind stability class was used for determining the doses at the nearest residence (427 m west of the site), because this stability class gave the maximum dose at these distances.
The offsite consequences from a nuclear criticality at the nearest residence (427 m west of the site) are shown in Table 4.10.
The total-body dose of 714 millirem and the highest organ dose of 749 millirem to the thyroid should not result in any injury to the nearest resident.9 The total-body dose is not significantly higher than the NRC standard for exposures to routine operating levels of 500 millirem / year, and the organ doses are less than the comparable standard of 1500 millirem / year.
4.3.2.2 Accidents involving nonradioactive materials Chemicals are stored in bulk quantities at the site.
Spills, fires, and explosions are the major potential accidents through which stored chemicals could affect the environment.
These potential accidents, their environmental effects, and the plant design features to minimize such effects are discussed in the following sections.
Major spills The chemicals potentially subject to spills include HNO, Na0H, liquid argon, 3
liquid alcohol or hexane, spent acids, and spent detergent.
The UNC has employed the following measures to ensure the integrity of chemical storage tanks: proper design and operation, safety relief valves, remote location, and routine visual inspection by trained plant personnel.
The chance of a major spill, such as the contents of a tank, is considered to be remote.
Should a spill of this magnitude occur, appropriate measures would be taken to recover or neutralize the spilled material.
Therefore, accidental spills would not be expected to affect offsite waters.
Fires and explosions Potential sources of fires or explosions are acetone, alcohol, zirconium machining chips and fines, natural gas and fuel oil, lubricating oils, compressed gases (acetylene, hydrogen, oxygen, propane), hexane, and methyl ethyl ketone.
Flammable liquids are used with appropriate safety controls such as safety cans, C02 extinguishing systems, inert gas atmospheres, thermally activated lid-closures on tanks, and proper ventilation.
Zirconium machine chips and fines are collected underwater and promptly burned outside the plant to eliminate the possibility of combustion or explosion.
The probability of a fire has been minimized through carefully engineered safeguards, strict control of combustible materials, and protective measures to control a fire if it does occur.
Safeguards include extensive sprinkler 44
a Table 4.9.
Release rate of volatile radionuclides to the atmosphere from a criticality accident Released into Released to Radionuclide thebuildigg outside atmosphere (Ci/8 h)
(Ci/8 h) sa Kr 1.6 x 102 3.19 x 101 m
ss Kr 1.5 x 102 7.6 x 101 m
85Kr 1.6 x 10 3
- 1. 5 x 10 3 87Kr 9.9 x 102
- 1. 6 x 102 88Kr 6.5 x 102 2.4 x 102 1
89Kr 4.2 x 104 3.5 x 101 131mXe 8.2 x 10 2 7.3 x 10 2 133mXe
- 1. 8 1.6 133Xe 2.7 x 101 2.4 x 101 135mXe 2.2 x 103 3.5 x 101 135Xe 3.6 x 102 2,4 x 102 137Xe 4.9 x 104 6.5 x 101 138Xe 1.3 x 104 1.8 x 102 131I 2.2 2.0 132I 2.8 x 102 8.5 x 101 133I 4.0 x 101 3.1 x 101 134I 1.1 x 103 1.1 x 102 135I 1.2 x 102 7.2 x 101 a8ased on 1 X 1013 fissions and approximate decay schemes based on building retention time (calculated from a ventilation rate of 1.4 volumes /h from the recovery area).
bIt is assumed that 100% of the noble gases and 25% of the halogens are released into the building atmosphere.
45
Table 4.10.
Maximum 50yeardgsecommitmenttothe nearestgesidence from the criticality accident Dose (millirem)
Exposure type Total body Thyroid Bone Lungs Airborne radioactivity 37 72 36 35 Prompt gamma 267 267 267 267 Prompt neutron 410 410 410 410 Total 714 749 713 712 aNearest residence is 427 m west of the site.
Accident parameters and calculations are based on informa-tion given by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Regulatory Guide 3.34 (Rev.10, July 1979). The total number of fissions produced during the 8-h excursion is assumed to be 1019 It is assumed that 100% of the noble gases and 25% of the halogens are released into the building.
46
systems, a 1135-m3 (300,000 gal) water storage tank with backup pumping capability, outside fire hydrants, portable fire extinguishers within the buildings, and a well equipped fire truck and fire brigade.
l Accidents that have occurred during the past 3 years of operation have been of a minor nature.
Accidents that have occurred were fuel oil overflow with a few liters going to floor drains, minor spills of acids or detergents during delivery or pickup, minor brush fires onsite, uranium contamination inside the plant due to spills or penetration, visible nitrogen oxide effluent upon fan failure or excessive bath temperature, minor fires on machines involving zirconium alloy chips and fines, minor fire in ductwork involving zirconium alloy fines containing uranium, and fire inside electrical switchgear inside the plant building.
None of these accidents had any measurable effect on the site or surrounding environment.
4.3.2.3 Transportation accidents Shipment of nonradioactive materials
)
Possible vehicular collisions and other accidents during shipment of nonradio-active materials to and from the UNC plant may result in a threat to human life.
Published accident statistics yield an accident probability of between 1 x 10 6 and 1.6 x 10 6 per kilometer (1.6 x 10 6 and 2.6 x 10 6 per mile),
with risks to human life being 0.51 injury per accident and 0.03 fatality per accident.
Total no,nradioactive material delivery and shipment requirements for this defense,related production facility are not available.
However, the staff has conservatively estimated about one shipment per day.
On this basis, and an estimated average round-trip shipping distance of 320 km (200 miles) per delivery, the probability of an accident involving shipments of nonradioactive materials is between 0.12 and 0.19 per year.
The estimated injury and fatality rates associated with this accident rate are between 6 x 10 2 to 9 x 10 2 injuries per year and 3.6 x 10 3 to 5.7 x 10 3 fatalities per year.
The nonradioactive material shipments to and from the applicant's plant do not present any unique transportation hazard over and above those handled by nonnuclear manufacturing facilities handling similar materials.
All hazardous and flammable materials will be packaged and shipped in accordance with U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations and any applicable state and local laws.
47 1
Shipments of radioactive materials The majority of the material shipped from UNC will be finished reactor fuel cores. The cores will consist of fully encapsulated uranium fuel elements and will be shipped in specially designed type B containers under government cognizance.
All radioactive materials other than completed cores will be shipped from the facility in exclusive-use trucks.
All containers and the transport vehicles are completely surveyed for proper loading, absence of defects that could affect container integrity, and levels of radioactive contamination before offsite shipment.
A criticality accident or major contamination incident as the result of a transportation accident is very unlikely because DOT and NRC container performance standards and vehicle-loading rules specify that containers and fuel assemblies must be able to withstand conditions of transport and hypo-I thetical accident conditions without either losir.g the contents or attaining a critical array.
To date, no transportation accioents with special nuclear material have ever resulted in criticality.
Small amounts of uranium could be released fram the containers as a result of a severe highway accident; however, the small amount and chemically unreactive k
nature of the material shipped in these containers would limit the environ-mental impact to the cleanup of several hundred microcuries in the immediate vicinity of the accident site.
An evaluation of possible accident situations shows that transportation accidents would usually result in no more than minor cleanup problems with no environmental impact of any consequence.
No significant external radiation exists from any uranium material transported from the site.
Protective action responses involve the notification of the state Department of Environmental Protection and the state police, and the prompt dispatch of health physics personnel to assist in controlling the accident site and coordinating any spill cleanup.
N' 4.3.2.4 Natural phenomena Tornado The probability of tornado occurrence has been estimated as once in 1300 years. Were the UNC facility to be struck by a tornado of sufficient force to damage a building containing uranium, radioactive material might be released to the atmosphere.
However, most of the uranium in the facility is packaged in rugged shipping containers or is intimately bound within fuel element structures, with only a small amount available at any moment that could be subject to dispersion. Although the ultimate fate of this material is impossible to predict with accuracy, the staff expects that dispersion of the material will result in minor offsite unsequences.
The staff also expects that any elevated uranium concentrations will be very brief and will result in a 50 year dose commitment to the public that is small compared with the dose commitments from background.
48
Earthquakes The chance of a major earthquake occurring near the site is improbable.
The UNC plant site is located in an area of Zone 1 earthquake intensity, corre-l sponding to Intensity V or VI on the Modified Mercalli scale of 1931.
The UNC plant was not designed for a specific earthquake level, but it is unlikely that the metal-framed, metal-covered buildings would lose their integrity with an Intensity VI earthquake.
4.3.3 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies At this time, the staff is not aware of any conflict between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state (Connecticut), or local plans, policies, or controls for the action proposed as long as proper agencies are contacted, proper applications are submitted, and proper monitoring and mitigatory measures are taken to protect the environment and public health and safety.
4.3.4 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources and Society The environmental effects of the proposed license renewal action as discussed previously are considered to be insignificant.
There may be adverse effects on national defense if reactor fuel were not available for the naval vessels.
The facility has not affected historical or cultural resources.
The short-term societal effects during operation are and will be minimal, and there will be minimal effects after decommissioning and reclamation because the site then will be required to meet federal standards for unrestricted use.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 1.
W. F. Kirk, United Nuclear Corporation, letter with additional i
l information to Marc J. Rhodes, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Docket l
No.70-371, Aug. 19, 1983.
2.
United Nuclear Corporation, Environmental Information (provided for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), Docket No.70-371, Jan. 17, 1983.
3.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Air Quality Summary 1980, 1981.
4.
R. E. Moore et al., AIRD05-EPA:
A Computer Methodology for Estimating Environmental Concentration and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases of Radionuclides, EPA 520/1-79-009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 1979.
5.
D. H. Slade, ed., Meteorology and Atomic Energy, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information, pp.94-104, July 1968.
6.
J. T. Sangendorf, A Program Evaluating Ateospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Station, NOAA Tech. Memo ERL-ARL-42,1974.
49
7.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purposes of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50," Regulatory Guide 1.109,- Appendix I, Rev. 1, October 1977.
8.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Assumptio'r.s Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of Accidental Nuclear Criticality in-a Uranium Fuel Fah-ication Plant," Regulatory Guide 3.34, Rev.'1, July 1979.
9.
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, The Effects of Atomic Weapons, Samuel Glasstone, ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., April 1972.
10.
U.S. Atomic Energy, Directorate of Regulatory Standards, Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants, WASH-1238, December 1972.
50
Appendix A METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATING RADIATION DOSE COMMITMENTS FROM THE RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES l
l l
l 51
I^
s Appendix A METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR CALCULATING RADIATION DOSE COMMITMENTS FROM THE RELEASE OF RADIONUCLIDES A.1 Methodology and Assumptions For Airborne Releases A.1.1 Methodology The radiation dose commitments resulting from the atmospheric releases of radio-nuclides are calculated using the AIRDOS-EPA computer code.1 The methodology is designed to estimate the radionuclide concentrations in air; rates of deposition on ground surfaces; ground-surface concentrations; i.7take rates via inhalation of air and ingestion of meat, milk, and fresh vegetables; and radiation doses to man from the airborne releases of radionuclides.
With the code, the highest estimated dose to an individual in the area and the doses to the population living within an 80-km radius of the plant site are calculated.
The doses may be summarized by radionuclide, exposure mode, or significant organ of the body.
Many of the basic incremental parameters used in AIRD05-EPA are conservative; that is, values are chosen to maximize intake by man.
Many factors that would reduce the radiation dose, such as shielding provided by dwellings and time spent away from the reference location, are not considered.
It is assumed that an individual lives outdoors at the reference location 100% of the time.
i Moreover, in estimating the doses to individuals via ingestion of vegetables, beef, and milk, all of the food consumed by the individual is assumed to be produced at the reference location specified in the calculation.
Thus, the dose estimates calculated by these methods are likely to be higher than the doses that would actually occur.
Meteorological dispersion factors, X/Q, were estimated using the Gaussian plume
'b model and diffusion coefficients for Pasquill-type turbulence.2 3 Radionuclide
~
concentrations in meat, milk, and vegetables consumed by man are estimated by coupling the output of the atmospheric trans,, ort models with the NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Terrestrial Food Chain Models."4 The models are described in ORNL/TM-6100.5 A.1. 2 Radiation exposure pathways and dose conversion factors Environmental transport links the source of release to the receptor by numerous exposure pathways.
Figure A.1 is a diagram of the most important pathways that result in the exposure of man to radioactivity released to the environment.
/
The resulting radiation exposures may be either external or internal.
External y
exposures occur when tne radiation source is outside the irradiated body, and
?
internal exposures are those from radioactive materials within the irradiated i
body.
Because aqueous releases of r?dioactivity are inconsequential, the j
aquatic pathway for radiological dose commitments is omitted in this assessment.
3; Factors for converting the radiation exposures to estimates of dose are calcu-i lated using the latest dosimetric criteria of the International Commission on i
Radiological Protection (ICRP) and other recognized authorities.
I 52
A-4 E54044 DWtECT ATMOSPHERC AQUATC RRADIATION RELEASES RELEASES I /
8 o
ir l
^
emerson
- =
=*-
SUBMERSON
/
ir MAN EXTERNAL ATMOSPHERC AQUATC RELEASES RELEASES
~
/
I 11 4>
<r ir
- ~
VEG A
!g
/
<r MAN INTERNAL Fig. A.1. Pathways for exposure to man from releases of radioactive effluents.
53
i External dose conversion factors.
Releases of radioactive gases and particulates to the atmosphere may result in external doses by exposure to and/or immersion in the plume and to contaminated land surfaces.
The dose conversion factors are summarized by Kocher in ORNL/NUREG-79,6 and those used in this report are shown in Table A.1.
Internal dose conversion factors.
Factors for converting internal radiation 7
exposure to estimates of dose have been computed based on recent models,8 and are summarized by Dunning et al. in ORNL/NUREG/TM-190/V3.9 The dose conversion factors used in this report are presented in Table A.2.
These factors are input data into the AIRDOS-EPA computer code, which is used to calculate the dose from inhaled and ingested radionuclides.
A.1. 3 Radiation dose to the individual Internal exposure continues as long as radioactive material remains in the body, which may be longer than the duration of the individual's residence in the contaminated environment.
The best estimates of the internal dose result-ing from an intake are obtained by integrating over the remaining lifetime of the exposed individual; such estimates are called dose commitments.
The remaining lifetime is assumed to be 50 years for an adult.
External doses are assumed to be annual doses.
The dose rate above the contaminated land surface is estimated for a height of 1 m.
Following the initial deposition of radionuclides, the potential for exposure of man may persist, depending on the influence of environmental redistribution, long after the plume leaves the area.
Concentrations of radionuclides at the point of deposition normally are reduced by infiltration of radionuclides into the s
soil, by loss of soil particles due to erosion, and by transport in surface water and in groundwater. When the effects of these processes cannot be quantified, a conservative estimate of dose due to external exposure to contaminated surface is obtained by assuming that the radionuclide concentra-tions are diminished by radioactive decay only.
The dose is estimated for individuals at the nearest site boundary at the nearest residence.
The intake parameters used for individual dose determina-tion are shown in Table A.3.
A.1. 4 Radiation dose to the population The total dose received by the exposed population is estimated by the summation of individual dose estimates within the population. The area within the 80-km (50-mile) radius of the site is divided into 16 sectors (22.5* each) and into a number of annuli.
The average dose for an individual in each subdivision is estimated, that estimate multiplied by the number of persons in the subdivision, and the resulting products are summed across the entire area.
The unit used to express the population dose is man-rem.
For this report, the population y
dose estimates are calculated for a population composed entirely of adults.
}
The parameters used for calculating population doses are shown in Table A.3.
A.2 Atmospheric Dispersion 4
The atmospheric dispersion model used in estimating the atmospheric transport y[
to the terrestrial environment is discussed in detail in NRC Regulatory n
9 54
+
~
h Table A.1.
Dose conversion factors for major contributor to the external exposure pathways Organ Radionuclide Total body Bone Kidney Lungs Exposure to ground surfaces (millirem / year per pCi/cm )
x 233U 7.1 x 102 3.0 x 102 1.0 x 102 1.7 x 102 t
23su 1.5 x 105 2.1 x 105 1.3 x 105 1.4 x 105 2360 6.4 x 102 2.4 x 102 7.0 x 101 1.4 x 102 238U 5.7 x 102 2.1 x 102 5.9 x 101 1.2 x 102 Immersion in air (millirem / year pcr pCi/cm3) 234U 6.8 x 105 7.1 x 105 3.7 x 105 4.1 x 105 23sU 6.8 x 10s 9,4 x 10s 5.9 x 108 6.3 x 108 2360 5.3 x 105 5.4 x 105 2.6 x 105 3.0 x 105 238U 4.6 x 105 4.5 x 105 2.2 x 105 2.5 x 105 Source: D. C. Kocher, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons, ORNL/NUREG-79, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, August 1981.
l 55
a Table A.2.
Dose conversion factors for internal exposure pathways Organ Radionuclide Total body Bone Kidney Lungs Inhalation (rem /pCi) 234U 6.4 87 19 1.6 23su 5.8 79 17 1.4 23s0 6.1 82 18 1.5 238U 5.7 78 17 1.4 Ingestion (rems /Ci) 234U 5.8 x 10 1
- 7. 8 1.7 1.7 x 10 2 2ssu 5.2 x 10 2 7.1
- 1. 5 1.6 x 10 2 236U 5.4 x 10 1 7.4 1.6 1.6 x 10 2 238U 5.1 x 10 1 7.0 1.5 1.5 x 10 2 aFactors for a particle size of 0.3 pm and solubility class D for inhalation and solubility class W for ingestion from information supplied by United Nuclear Corporation.
Source: D. E. Dunning, Jr., S. R. Bernard, P. J. Walsh, G. G.
Killough, and J. C. Pleasant, Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, Vol. II, ORNL/NUREG/TM-190/V3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1981.
56
Table A.3.
Intake parameters (adult)a used in lieu of site-specific data Maximum exposed Averageexpoged Pathway individual individual c
Vegetables, kg/ year 281 190 Milk, L/ year 310 110 Meat, kg/ year 110 95 3
Inhalation, m / year 8000 8000 afrom NRC Regulatory Guide 1.109.
bUsed for calculating population doses.
cThis value includes leafy vegetables.
Guide 1.111 (Rev. 1).
For particulate release, the meteorological x/Q values are used in conjunction with dry deposition velocities and scavenging coefficients to estimate air concentrations and steady-state ground concentra-tions. The atmospheric dispersion model estimates the concentration of radio-nuclides in air at ground surfaces as a function of distance and direction from the point of release.
Site-specific averages of annual meteorological data are supplied as input for the model.
Radioactive decay during the plume travel is taken into account in the AIRDOS-EPA code.1 Daughters produced during plume travel are calculated and added to the source term.
The area surrounding the plant site is divided into 16 sectors by compass direction (Sect. 3.3).
The meteorological X/Q values are calculated for the midpoint of each sector defined by the radial distances of 0.4, 1.2, 2.4, 4.0, 5.6, 7.2, 12.1, 24.1, 40.2, 56.3, and 72.4 km (Table A.4).
Concentrations in the air for each sector are used to calculate dose via inhalation and submer-sion in the air. The ground deposits result in external gamma dose and, in addition, are assimilated into food and contribute dose upon ingestion via the food chain.
The meteorological data required for the calculations are joint frequency distributions of wind velocity and direction summarized by stability class.
Meteorological data (Tables A.5 and A.6) from the nearest collection station (Connecticut Yankee Power Station) are used to calculate the concentrations of radionuclides at a reference point per unit of source strength.
Depletion of the airborne plume as it is blown downwind is accounted for in the AIRDOS-EPA code by taking into account the deposition on surfaces by dry deposition, scavenging, and radioactive decay.
Other parameters used in determining air concentration are shown in Table A.7.
l 57
F Guide 1.111 (Rev. 1).
For particulate release, the meteorological x/Q values are used in conjunction with dry deposition velocities and scavenging coeffi-cients to estimate air concentrations and steady-state ground concentrations.
The atmospheric dispersion model estimates the concentration of radionuclides in air at ground surfaces as a function of distance and direction from the point of release.
Site-specific averages of annual meteorological data are supplied as input for the model.
Radioactive decay during the plume travel is taken into account in the AIRD05-EPA code.1 Daughters produced during plume travel are calculated and added to the source term.
The area surrounding the plant site is divided into 16 sectors by compass direc-tion (Sect. 3.3).
The meteorological x/Q values are calculated for the mid-point of each sector defined by the radial distances of 0.4, 1.2, 2.4, 4.0, 5.6, 7.2,12.1, 40.2, 56.3, and 72.4 km (Table A.4).
Concentrations in the air for each sector are used to calculate dose via inhalation and submersion in the air.
The ground deposits result in external gamma dose and, in addi-tion, are assimilated into food and contribute dose upon ingestion via the food chain.
The meteorological data required for the calculations are joint frequency dis-tributions of wind velocity and direction summarized by stability class.
Meteorological data (Tables A.5 and A.6) from the nearest collection station (Connecticut Yankee Power Station) are used to calculate the concentrations of radionuclides at a reference point per unit of source strength.
Depletion of the airborne plume as it is blown downwind is accounted for in the AIRDOS-EPA code by taking into account the deposition on surfaces by dry deposition, scavenging, and radioactive decay.
Other parameters used in determining air concentration are shown in Table A.7.
58
f Table A.4. Ground-level x/Q values for particulates at various distances in each compass direction Distance x/Q toward indicated direction (m)
(s/m3)
N NNW NW WNW W
WSW SW SSW 425 0.171E-04 0.154E-04 0.169E-04 0.288E-04 0.390E-04 0.980E-05 0.825E-05 0.874E-05 1207 0.219E-05 0.195E-05 0.219E-05 0.370E-05 0.506E-05 0.126E-05 0.102E-05 0.109E-05 2414 0.597E-06 0.532E-06 0.610E-06 0.101E-05 0.140E-05 0.348E-06 0.272E-06 0.293E-06 4023 0.231E-06 0.205E-06 0.242E-06 0.394E-06 0.546E-06 0.136E-06 0.101E-06 0.110E-06 5632 0.126E-06 0.112E-06 0.134E-06 0.218E-06 0.304E-06 0.739E-07 0.530E-07 0.580E-07 7240
- 0. 778E-07 0.688E-07 0.837E-07 0.133E-06 0.185E-06 0.448E-07 0.309E-07 0.340E-07 u,
12068 0.286E-07 0.252E-07 0.321E-07 0.503E-07 0.706E-07 0.164E-07 0.102E-07 0.114E-07 24135 0.568E-08 0.496E-08 0.720E-08 0.111E-07 0.158E-07 0.311E-08 0.151E-08 0.177E-08 40225 0.134E-08 0.116E-08 0.203E-08 0.302E-08 0.421E-08 0.756E-09 0.283E-09 0.341E-09 56315 0.397E-09 0.329E-09 0.709E-09 0.101E-08 0.138E-08 0.196E-09 0.568E-10 0.686E-10 72405 0.155E-09 0.119E-09 0.306E-09 0.399E-09 0.484E-09 0.599E-10 0.142E-10 0.165E-10 S
ENE NE NNE 0.2'2E-04 0.417E-04 0.295E-04 0.296E-04 0.284E-04 0.228E-04 7
425 0.945E-05 0.141E-04 1207 0.118E-05 0.168E-05 0.351E-05 0.562E-05 0.381E-05 0.356E-05 0.344E-05 0.292E-05 2414 0.316E-06 0.437E-06 0.972E-06 0.161E-05 0.105E-05 0.935E-06 0.906E-06 0.797E-06 4023 0.119E-06 0.161E-06 0.381E-06 0.651E-06 0.409E-06 0.348E-06 0.338E-06 0.208E-06 5632 0.624E-07 0.845E-07 0.209E-06 0.368E-06 0.227E-06 0.186E-06 0.182E-05 0.169E-06 7240 0.366E-07 0.493E-07 0.129E-06 0.234E-06 0.139E-06 0.111E-06 0.108E- 06 0.104E-06 12068 0.122E-07 0.166E-07 0.477E-07 0.940E-07 0.526E-07 0.389E-07 0.382E-07 0.381E-07 24135 0.186E-08 0.262E-08 0.979E-08 0.239E-07 0.116E-07 0.700E-08 0.688E-08 0.762E-08 40225 0.351E-09 0.506E-09 0.255E-08 0.790E-08 0.331E-08 0.153E-08 0.145E-08 0.190E-08 56315 0.692E-10 0.103E-09 0.898E-09 0.337E-08 0.130E-08 0.466E-09 0.413E-09 0.657E-09 72405 0.164E-10 0.244E-10 0.429E-09 0.175E-08 0.666E-09 0.219E-09 0.183E-09
- 0. 314E-09
Table A.S. Frequencies of wind directions and true-average wind speeds Wind speeds for each stability class (m/s) a Wind toward Frequency A
B C
0 E
F G
L 1
0.049 1.14 0.0 1.02 1.27 1.10 0.40 0.40 2
0.038 0.94 0.0 0.80 1.28 1.16 0.60 0.40 3
0.050 1.67
- 0. 0 1.27 1.82 1.27 0.60 0.40 4
0.069 2.38 0.0 1.83 1.62 1.15 0.77 0.76
,a
'S 0.079 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.98 1.17 1.19 0.98 6
0.017 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.57 0.76 0.60 0.0 7
0.012 0'. 0 0.0 0.0 0.8'
~ 0.55 0.40 0.0 m
8 0.013 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.82 1.58 0.40 0.0 9
0.014 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.82 0.56 0.40 0.0 10 0.020 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.77 0.57 0.40 0.40 11 0.084 2.90 0.0 2.64 1.80 1.06 0.55 0.40 12 0.211 4.32 0.0 3.67 2.53 1.61 0.69 0.60 13 0.104 3.53 0.0 3.33 2.50 1.65 0.69 0.82 14 0.065 2.20 0.0 2.06 1.66 1.19 0.52 0.47 15 0.061 1.72 0.0 1.88 1.64 1.19 0.55 0.47 16 0.073 1.55 0.0 2.13 1.61 1.18 0.53 0.40 l
aWind directions are numbered counterclockwise starting at 1 for due north.
s-me
.g C
Table A.6. Frequency of atmospheric stability classes for each direction f
Fraction of time in each stability class ector A
B C
D E
F G
1 0.2041 0.0 0.0408 0.4490 0.2653 0.0204 0.0204
$r 2
0.1316 0.0 0.0263 0.4474 0.3158 0.0526 0.0263 3
0.0818 0.0 0.0599 0.4990 0.2994 0.0399 0.0200 g
4 0.0580 0.0 0.0435 0.3913 0.3768 0.0725 0.0580 5
- 0. 0
- 0. 0 0.0 0.3038 0.4684 0.1392 0.0886 1
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2353 0.6471 0.1176 0.0
?
7 0.0 0.0
- 0. 0 0.2500 0.6667 0.0833 0.0 li os 8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2308 0.6923 0.0769 0.0
_a 9
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2143 0.7143 0.0714 0.0 1
10 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2500 0.6500 0.0500 0.0500 11 0.1429 0.0 0.0833 0.4048 0.3095 0.0476 0.0119 12 0.2009 0.0 0.1182 0.4539 0.1939 0.0236 0.0095 13 0.2404 0.0 0.0865 0.3558 0.2404 0.0481 0.0288
[
14 0.1385 0.0 0.0769 0.3231 0.3385 0.0769 0.0462 i
15 0.1475 0.0 0.0328 0.3443 0.3607 0.0656 0.0492
=
16 0.2329 0.0 0.0822 0.3973 0.2329 0.0411 0.0137 r
W
" A C
f
-=
.j r
l Table A.7.
Other parameters used in determining exposure to air concentrations of radionuclides released in the building vent effluents 4
l Parameters
-Quantity or dimensions-Release height, m 18 Temperature (annual average for area), 'C 13.5
+
Rainfall (annual average), cm/ year 129 1
Height of lid (annual average), m
_961 Population within 80 km of radius of site, persons 1,647,400 aGround level.
1 i
l 62 m--.t y
y
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A 1.
R.E. Moore, C.F. Baes III, L.M. McDowell-Boyer, A.P. Natson, F.O. Hoffman, J.C. Pleasant,.and C.W. Miller, AIRD05-EPA.
A Computerized Methodology for Estimating Environmental Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases of Radionuclides, ORNL-5532, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, June 1979.
2.
D.H. Slade, ed., Meterology and Atomic Energy, pp.97-104, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 1968.
3.
J.F. Sangendorf, A Program Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Station, NOAA Technical Memo ERL-ARL-42,1974.
4.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Calculation of Annual Doses 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, Office of Standards Development, Washington, D.C., 1977.
5.
J.C. Pleasant, INGDOS--A Convention Computer Code to Implement U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Guide 1.109 Models for Estimating the Annual Doses from Ingestion of Atmospherically Released Radionuclides in Food, ORNL/
TM-6100, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1979.
6.
D. C. Kocher, Dose-Rate Conversion Factors for External Exposure to Photons and Electrons, ORNL/NUREG-79, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, August 1981.
7.
ICRP Task Group on Lung Dynamics, Deposition and Retention Models for Internal Dosimetry of the Human Respiratory Tract, Health Phys. 12, 173-207 (1966).
8.
I. G. Eve, A Review of the Physiology of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Relation to Radiation Doses from Radioactive Materials, Health Phys. 12, 131-62 (1966).
9.
D. E. Dunning, Jr., S. R. Bernard, P. J. Walsh, G. G. Killough, and J. C.
Pleasant, Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent to 22 Target Organs for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities, ORNL/NUREG/TM-190/V3, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, October 1981.
l l
l 63
N;;C PoRu 335
- 1. REPORT NUMBER (Assirsdby DDCJ U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f re en -
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-lll2
'dnI/i"r$me la'I'ksTe#"sm"e" Elf [rTeTd'dl of Special Nuclear
- 2. Itm bianki s
Material L ense No. SNM-368
- 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESS 0.
- 7. AUi HOR ($)
- 5. DATE REPORT CMLETED M ON TH f
l YEAR January f
1985
- 9. PERFORMING ORGANI TION N AME AND MAILING ADDRESS //nclude lip Codel DATE REPO[ ISSUED Division of Fuel le and Material Safety MONTH f l YEAR Office of Nuclear erial Safety and Safe juards Januarf 1985 U.S. Nuclear Regulat y Commission 6-(tea-[aa*>
Washington, DC 20555
- 8. (t e b/ank)
- 12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION N A E AND MAILING ADDRESS //ncludelip Codel PROJECT / TASK / WORK UNIT NO.
Same as above.
/
- Ill. FIN No.
- 13. TYPE OF REPORT PE RIOD C E RED (/nclussve datesl Environmental Assessment k
- 14. (Leave o/aokl
- 15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES Pertains to Docket No.70-371
\\
/
- 16. ABSTRACT Q00 words or less}
This Environmental Assessment is issue by the-
.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in response to an application by UNC Nav Pro cts, Division of UNC Resources, Inc.,
for the renewal of Special Nuclear Materia (S ) License No. SNM-368 for the operation of the existing fuel fabrication facility.
- 17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS 17a. DESCRIPTORS environmental assessment 17b. IDENTIFIERS!OPEN-ENDED TERMS [
- 18. AV AILA81LITY STATEMENT
- 19. SE CURITY CLASS (This report)
- 21. NO OF PAGES Unclassified Unlimited 22.eRiCE 2 g g R g g (ri,,soaswi NT4C FORM 335 11139
f p;
~
j:;, ;...;p
.. / -
[
' [UNtTED STdTEl-
,,,ue posTaoe a rees enio -
~ CUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.:
' WASHINGTON,.D.C.~ 20666
- ws7u.c. -
-~
~
PERMIT No. G 67 '
OFFICIAL BUSINESS -
. PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 4
iu
\\
3 A
4 4
1 o
i-1.
i I
j i
,6 0
4 i
t, h
f I'
.+
w j
l A.
e' 2
e h
L :-