ML20137Y835
| ML20137Y835 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1985 |
| From: | BABCOCK & WILCOX CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137Y745 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8512110159 | |
| Download: ML20137Y835 (55) | |
Text
-. _
.\\-
' ).
October, 1985
- n.,;
T e
. }
l f
1-p 1
I p
g' 4
i
,1 I
h' LYNCHBURG"RESEARCH CENTER t
a
, ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT i
)
p I'
}
r t
t
'4 F
F i
1 k'
4 4
r#
r
)
Babcock' 4 Wilcox Co.
Lynchburg Research Center Post Office Box 11165 Lynchburg,'Virginta 24506-1165 i O i
i agA21865!8?hsl$g4 B
4 d
i
+-y pen n yp=w.--erewy,rg--.y-c.,-e.,,y-g.-,
,,,,,,p.-y
-.,,mee.m.,n-.rm,.
.,,,,.--.m.-
=- ~
w-.w - r e e ew-w w o w v a e ew, _
-e-esw=*=+-1w-ww *+ w mef
October, 1985 O
TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 PROPOSED ACTION.
1-1 2.0 THE SITE 2-1 3.0 THE FACILITY.
3-1 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 4-1 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 5-1 6.0 EFFLilENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS.
6-1 O
O
October, 1985 (D
1.0 PROPOSED ACTION This environmental report is submitted by the Babcock & Wilcox Company, Lynchburg Research Center to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in support of its request for renewal of License SNM-778.
This action is taken pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regu-lations, Part 51.
~
1.1 BACKGROUND
INFORMATION Babcock & Wilcox, an operating unit of McDermott, Inc., is a major industrial company which manufactures and markets specially engineered industrial products and materials which help perform essential tasks for utilities, industries, institutions and governments throughout the world.
More than half of the unit's business is in the desigr., manufacture and erection of energy systems and components. The balance is in specialty steel tubing, refractories, advanced composites, automated nachinery, valves and process controls.
The production of steam supply systems has traditionally been a major p
part of B&W's business. Today, B&W is one of the leaders in the V
design and production of both nuclear and fossil power generating equipment for utilities, industry, ships, schools and hospitals.
The Research and Development Division provides the operating divi-sions of B&W with the technical leadership and skills necessary to develop new products and processes, and to examine and improve those of the present generation. The R&D Division is comprised of two research centers. One is located in Alliance, Ohio, which is also the division headquarters and the other in Lynchburg, Virginia which this report addresses.
The Lynchburg Research Center (LRC) was first known as the Critical Experiment Laboratory when it began operation in 1956 as a part of the Atomic Energy Division.
In 1957 the AEC issued License CX-1 for the operation of the first privately owned and operated critical experi-ment facility in the United States, which was located at the Laboratory. This facility was used to design and test the first nuclear core for the Consolidated Edison Power reactor. This was a thorium core, the first of its kind built in the U. S.
In 1958, additions to the Critical Experiment Laboratory included facilities for the nuclear merchant ship critical experiment, the Lynchburg Source Reactor (CX-12), and the Lynchburg Pool Reactor (R-47).
p The Laboratory expanded again in 1964 with the addition of the Nuclear d
Fuels Laboratory. This building included the Babcock and Wilcox Test 1-l'
U:
October, 1985 O
Reactor _ (BAWTR), _ an oxide fuel preparation laboratory, and a hot cell
- facility. At this time the laboratory name was changed to the Nuclear Development Center.
In~1966, the Nuclear Development Center became a part of the Research and Development Division and its present name was adopted.
In 1968, the Plutonium Development Laboratory was added. This facility was built to accommodate the equipment necessary to accommodate plutonium mixed oxide. fuel preparation and examination.
The LRC presently employes 180_ scientists, engineers, technicians and support personnel. Approximately 30% of the work.is. performed under NRC licenses. The remainder is in the areas of process control, non-
. destructive examination methods and instrument development, and non-nuclear ceramics.
Research and development utilizing source, byproduct and special nuclear ' material is performed primarily in one building. Building A is presently being decommissioned.
Building B houses the hot cell facility, the crane and cask-handling area, a radiochemistry laboratory, a counting laboratory, and a
' scanning electron microscope laboratory. The four hot cells are used to handle and examine materials that are highly radioactive.
Irradi-s
' ated commercial nuclear fuel assemblies have been partially dis-assembled and destructive and nondestructive examinations performed on the fuel rods. Reactor irradiated experiment capsules have been disassembled and studied-and examinations of primary system components are performed.
The cask handling area, the radiochemistry laboratory and the scanning el_ectron microscope laboratory support the hot cell operations.
Building C is presently being decommissioned.
The' Radioactive Waste Storage Building is used to house containerized
- radioactive solid waste subsequent to shipping for off-site disposal.
The Liquid Waste Disposal Facility is a " tank farm" where process area liquid wastes are collected, stored, sampled, diluted, and pumped to the waste ' disposal facility of the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division.
1.2 REGIONAL SITE LOCATION The selection of the Mt. Athos site as the location of the major portion of B&W's nuclear fuel activities was based on a number of criteria related to social, environmental and economic factors. The validity of.the choice has been demonstrated by the successful conduct of nuclear-related activities at the site since 1956.
O
^
1-2
October, 1985
,/
4 1.2.1 Social Factors The Lynchburg area possesses an exceptionally stable and productive work force. Additionally, the acceptance of nuclear activities as a safe and valuable industry has resulted in excellent community re-lations with B&W. The company is not aware of any adverse reaction to the location of the facility on the outskirts of Lynchburg.
Lynchburg, which is one of the major industrial centers in Virginia, has a solid and varied industrial base, a pleasant climate, active community organizations, and plentiful recreational opportunities.
1.2.2 Economic Factors The LRC provides its services principally for the company's operating division.
Three of its customers; the Nuclear Materials Division, the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, and the Nuclear Power Division are located in the Lynchburg area. Other company facilities extensively utilizing LRC services are located in Georgia, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The LRC is therefore centrally located in relation to its principal customers.
The Lynchburg area is serviced by two najor railroad systems, several commercial airlines, and a number of major trucking firms.
Campbell County and the Commonwealth of Virginia possess favorable tax structures for industry. Also, the stability of the local work force contributes significantly to productivity while reducing the economic penalty associated with a large labor turnover.
1.2.3 Environmental Considerations The LRC is located approximately four miles from the nearest major population concentration and occupies approximately 525 acres of land formerly devoted to agricultural pursuits. The site itself was selected after geological and hydrological investigations had de-termined its acceptability for nuclear activities on the basis of geological stability, groundwater flow characteristics, and hydro-logical considerations relating to the neighboring James River. The maximum flood crest recorded for the James was approximately 100 feet below the LRC, Additionally, the Center is only minimally affected by storms noving inland from the Atlantic Ocean and the hilly nature of the surrounding country causes meteorological conditions to be relatively stable.
1.3 PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE p
The proposed project under consideration is license renewal and there-Q fore this section is not applicable.
1-3
I October, 1985 I
4 i
i 1.4 PREVIOU'S ACTION ON APPLICATION i
i Table 1.1 provides a detailed history of AEC and NRC licensing
- t
(
. activities relating the the LRC.
r t
=
t 1
f l
t
{
i i
r h
f.
O a
I i
t i.
(
i 4
4 4.:'
i 1-i o
1-4
?
I i.
5r 5 y
--*-ww+
,.e*er,eph,,yww.,-w,-..,.ww---w~,we,-,-=-,-,,,,-,-,-w.w.-e-mw-.--w.wr---.---,-*
--=-------..-~~~1~~~v-
- +<
t October, 1985 IO}
(m-TABLE 1.1 AEC AND NRC LICENSE ACTIVITIES FOR THE LYNCHBURG RESEARCH CENTER Date Activity March 1957 CX-1 Issued February 1958 CX-10 Issued September 1958 CX-12 Issued September 1958 R-47 Issued May 1962 CX-19 Issued February 1964 TR-4 Issued March 1964 SNM-778 Issued September 1966 SNM-778 Reissued
/'
(Incorporated Licenses-(,
45-105-3, SMB-714, SNM-32, and SNM-744)
February 1972 -
CX-12 Terminated March 1973 Tr-4 Terminated June 1973 CX-1 Terminated June 1973 CX-19 Terminated March 1974 SNM-778 Renewed July 1980 SNM-778 Renewed July 1982 R-47 Terminated April 1985 CX-10 Authorized Dismantling O
1-5
October, 1985 O'
FIGURE 1-1 RABC0CK AND WILC0X COMPANY ORGANIZATION CHART McDermott, Inc.
Board Of Directors Babcock & Wilcox President & Chief Operating Officer Advanced Technology Group Sr. Vice President and Group Executive Research & Development Vice President Alliance Research Center Lynchburg Research Center Director Director 4
1-6
1 October, 1985 FIGURE 1-2 LYNCHBURG RESEARCH CENTER ORGANIZATION CHART 1
I Lynchburg Research Center Director i
Facilities Purchasing Personnel Quality.
Accounting Safety-A urance Manager Manager Manager Administration Lice sing Manager Manager i
Systems Development Laboratory Materials Engineering Laboratory Manager Manager 4
O 1-7
October, 1985
,/3 (j
2.0 THE SITE 2.1. SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT The Lynchburg Research Center is located on the James River about 4 miles east of Lynchburg, Virginia. The site, which comprises 525 acres (not all of which is used for the LRC), lies within Campbell Country and borders on Amherst County. Figure 2.1 shows the location of the LRC in relation to major population centers within the state.
Figure 2.2 shows the population centers and physical features within 5 miles of the LRC.
The irregularly shaped property is bounded on three sides by a large loop of the James River and on the remaining side by State Route 726, which closely follows the base of Mount Athos. This mountain rises rapidly from about 500 feet MSL to 900 feet MSL, making it the dominant feature of the surrounding landscape. The Babcock & Wilcox property consists of large sections of relatively flat floodplain along the James River lying at about 470 feet MSL. The interior of the property is largely composed of rolling hills, one of which rises to almost 700 feet MSL. Figure 2.3 shows the property boundary and depicts the topography within about a two mile radius of the LRC.
The land in the immediate vicinity of the plant is sparsely in-habitated.
The severe topography makes it unsuitable for commercial farming and the boundaries of nearby Lynchburg have not yet pushed this far out into the country. The Lynchburg Foundry, a producer of light metal castings, occupies a parcel of land which abuts the south boundary of the Babcock & Wilcox property. The Foundry is about 1/2 mile from the LRC.
The site is serviced by a spur of the Chessie System Railroad which runs through Babcock & Wilcox property. The property is also con-veniently located for truck and automobile access. About three miles from the LRC, State Route 726 connects with U. S. Highway 460, a major link between Roanoke and Richmond. The City of Lynchburg is serviced by the Lynchburg Municipal Airport from which ten flights leave daily for Washington, D.C., and other southern, eastern, and midwestern terminal s.
Of the 525 acres owned by B&W at this location, only 13.6 acres are utilized by the LRC. Other major B&W tenants at the site are the i
Naval Nuclear Fuel Division and the Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant.
The acreage assigned to each of these facilities is given in Table 2.1 and the locations of these separate facilities within the site are indicated in Figure 2.4.
O w
2-1
October, 1985
.p A 0.7 acre privately-owned cemetary lies within the property bounds.
This area is not affected by nomal operation or maintenance of the facility. Access is granted to the owner by easement.
2.2 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND AND WATER USES Information applicable to the Lynchburg Research Center is found in:
Environmental Report Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201 2.3 REGIONAL HISTORIC, SCENIC, CULTURAL AND NATURAL LANDMARKS Information applicable to the Lynchburg Research is found in:
Environmental Report Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant
[)
Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 v
License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201 2.4 GEOLOGY Infomation applicable to the Lynchburg Research Center is found in:
Environmental Report Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201 2.5 HYDROLOGY Information applicable to the Lynchburg Research Center is found in:
Environmental Report Babcock & Wilcox Conmercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 p/
License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201
(
2-2
October, 1985 2.6 METEOROLOGY Information applicable to the Lynchburg Research Center is found in:
Environmental Report Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201 2.7 ECOLOGY Information applicable to the Lynchburg Research Center is found in:
Environmental Report 1
Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Lynchburg, Virginia December, 1974 License SNM-1168, Docket 70-1201
2.8 BACKGROUND
CHARACTERISTICS Regional radiological data has been collected by the LRC since 1963.
Samples of vegetation, river silt, river water and air are routinely collected by the LRC. Analyses are performed on site when possible or by an outside contractor when equipment or techniques are not locally-available. Data collected for the three previous years (1982, 83, 84) are presented in Tables 2.2 through 2.6.
Figure 2.5 shows the general locations of sample points.
f O
2-3 a..
October, 1985
,N U
TABLE 2.1 ALLOCATION OF LAND AT THE MT. ATH0S SITE Lynchburg Research Center Acres Security fenced land occupied by buildings 4.0 (building ground area - 2.25 acres)
Land occupied by parking areas and driveways 2.01 Additional land suitable for future building 7.6 (tentatively allocated)
Subtotal 13.6 Comercial Nuclear Fuel Plant Security fenced land occupied by buildings.
2.5 (building ground area - 1.5 acres)
N
. Land occupied by parking areas and driveways 2.6 y_
considered for future building Additional land suitable for future building 20.0 (tentatively allocated)
Subtotal 25.1 Naval Nuclear Fuel Division Security fenced land occupied by buildings 19.0 (building ground area - 9.5 acres)
Land occupied by parking areas and driveways 17.3 considered for future building Additional land suitable for future building 199.0 Land unsuitable for building 251.0 Subtotal 486.3 Total 525.0 0
2-4
T October, 1985 O
TABLE 2.2 GROSS RADI0 ACTIVITY IN VEGETATION SAMPLES 1982 - 1984
' ~
a pCi/ gram S pCi/ gram
1.4 + 0.5 0.6 + 0.5 2.4 + 0.4 6
+1 2
1 T1 0.0 T 0.5 0.2 T 0.5 0.8 T 0.5 3
0 T1 0
+1 2
+1 2
T1 4
1 11 2
11 4
11 8
11 1983 1
1
+1 1
+1 1
+1 14
+2 2
2 T1 0
T1 2
T1 1
T1 3
3 T2 1
+1 1
+1 3
+1 4
0.910.2 1.5 _T 0.2 0
+1 0
+1 4
1984 1
2
+ 2-1
+2 0
+1 0
+1 2
0.2 T 0.5 1.2 T 0.7 4
T1 4
T1 3
0.7 T 0.4 0.5 T 0.3 1.2 + 0.5 0.0 + 0.5 4
2 11 5
11 1.110.7 3.310.8
- Gross beta minus K-40 1
4 2-5
.. ~
1 October, 1985 TABLE 2.3 GROSS BETA RADI0 ACTIVITY IN JAMES RIVER SILT SAMPLES 1982 - 1984 spC1/ gram 1/2 Mile 1/2 Mile 2 Miles 5 Miles Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Downstream Downstream 1982 1-12 + 1 37 + 3' 17 + 2 10 + 1 2
7T4 ST3 874 9T4 3
3T1 3T1 0T1 3T1 4
111 111 011 111 1983 1
3+1 4+1 4+1 4+1 2
4+1 4+1 4+1 3+1 3
16 T 3 4T2 372 4T2 4'
011 312 61_2 011 n
1984 1
5+2 7+2 7+2 6+2
(
2 10 T 3 11 T 1 5T1 6T1 3
3+2 1+1 0+i 0+1 4
8+2 1.6 + 0.4 571 0.0 T 0.5 NOTE:
The limit of detection (above natural background) is approximately 115 pCi/grae.
O 2-6
1-October, 1985 O
TABLE 2.4 GROSS ALPHA RADI0 ACTIVITY IN JAMES RIVER SILT SAMPLES 1982 - 1984 a pCi/ gram i
1 1/2 Mile 1/2 Mile 2 Miles 5 Miles Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Downstream Downstream t
1982 1
1+1 10 + 3 3+2 0.5 + 0.3 2
2T2 0T2 2T2 6
T2 3
4+2 5+2 4+2 8
T3 4
6T4 873
~ 472 8
T3 l-1983 1
4+2 6+3 2+2 2
+2 2
773 ST3 8T3 6
T3 3-3T3 ST3 4T3 4
T3 4
4 5+1 10 + 2 8+2 8
T2 1984 1
3+2 1+2 4+1 2
+2 2
10 + 3 2+3 8+3 9
T3 3
3 T 2-ST2 2T1 4
T2 4
817 912 1012 9
12 NOTE:
The limit of detection (above natural background) is approximately 24 apCi/ gram.
h i
F i
- O 2-7 4
,--,J.,.~.-..-,
.--,,,-_m,
,. -... _, _, - ~. - - - - - -.. - -.. -., - -.. - - - -., - - - -.. - - -, -
, ---,~,--, -
October, 1985 O
TABLE ?. 5 GROSS RADI0 ACTIVITY IN JAMES-RIVER WATER SAMPLES 1982 - 1984 apC1/ liter
-8 pCi/ liter Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 1982 1
0.0 0.7 1.3 2.3 2
0.0 1.7 1.3 2.0 3
0.0 1.3 9.3 5.3 4
0.3 1.0 3.7 3.0 1983 1
0.0 1.3 0.7 1.3 4
i 2
3.3 3.3 5.0 3.3 3
1.7
-2.7 4.0 1.7
-4 0 ~. 7 1.7 5.0 0.7 i
li 1984 1
1.0 0.7 5.0 1.3 2
3.7 3.7 8.0 11.0 3
1.3 1.7 2.7 4.3 0
4 0.7 0.3 2.3 2.0 4
NOTE:
LLD's are:
Gross Alpha:
3 pC1/1 Gross Beta:
5 pCi/l 4
[
S L
I 2-8
i October, 1985 Ob TABLE 2.6 GROSS RADI0 ACTIVITY IN BACKGROUND AIR SAMPLES MONTHLY AVERAGES, 1982 - 1984 Alpha Beta pCi/M3
- pCi/M3 Month 1982 1983 1984 1982 1983 1984 January-
.001
.002
.001
.03
.04
.03 February
.001-
.001
.003
.04
.05
.03 March'
.001
.001
.001
.03
.04
.04 April
.001
.002
.003
.04
.04
.04 May
.000
.002
.002
.04
.03
.03 June.
.001
.001
.003
.04
.05
.04 July
.001
.001
.004
.04
.05
.03 i
August
.001
.001
.000
.04
.04
.03 September.
.001
.001
.002
.04
.05
.05 October
.001
.003
.002
.04
.04
.05 November 001
.001
.002
.04
.03
.04 December
.001
.003
.003
.04
.04
.05 NOTE:
Air samples are collected on site in the unrestricted area east of Building A.
The LLD's are:
Gross Alpha: 0.003 apCi/M3 3
Gross Beta:
0.007 spCi/M,
e O
2-9
October, 1985 FIGURE 2-1 LRC LOCATION IN VIRGINIA 1
4 I
l{.
3e 9*10* ll.
8 D
2 A
G 5e E L, 13 6*
7, O.
5,0 10, 0 SCALE IN MILES L ARLINGTON (174,234)
A. JAMES RIVER
- 2. ALIXANDR1 A (110,938)
B. COWPASTORE RIVER
- 3. FREDERICKSBURG t14,4501 M S M RIVER
- 4. NEWPORT NEWS (138,17n D. AMHERST COUNTY (26,072) i ROANOKE(92,1151 E. BEDFORD COUNTY (26,728)
- 6. MARTINSVilli(19,653)
F. CAMPBELL COUNTY (43,319)
- 7. DANVILLE(46,391)
G. APPOMATT0X COUNTY (9,184)
- 8. LYNCHBURG (54,083)
- 9. 5TAUNTON(25,50s) la WAYNESBOR0(16,70D r
IL CHARLOTTESVILLI(38,880)
(NUMBERS IN PARENTHESES II ARE 1970 CENSUS DATA)
- 12. RICHMOND (249,621)
- 13. NORF0tX 1307.951)
O 2-10
October, 1985 FIGURE 2-2 FIVE MILE RADIUS OF LRC N
/
\\
130 8o/
woo
's e
LAKE 9
8 WRIGHT RD
+.
, EIG
/
Gil o" - a
?/
Mt E 2 MILES 3 MILES 4 MILES 5 MILES C
BO i!! *:
vYR$i 1
- E cSCHOOL
'{,i j" G
s 9,
![h..
609 Nog, 'k a 46o wg 4
660 4
RA 4
E AST BROC1 p
-C
% a Weg c N
Ry l
I i
S O
2-11
October, 1985
, - ~
'v)
FIGURE 2-3 TOP 0 GRAPHY AROUND BABC0CK & WILC0X SITE
'1, l
,f
~
+s5s w.h v. w ;.,y :(,
er e r'*% 4,%$5 Cu e,' hsi
'6[:x% Q
,&gQ.;Q,;r',;,J..;'r: n.";; ' f,\\.
- 4. -
Q.
r.
=
~
e"
' J L x+
eg N
bi?%(.tNat ?
y 3c-
'2
/; % ) p t e %s
.y M
p"
_2 d
'.j.= 4 a'f}x.:.,.
p~,.. ;!p ?
s.
ww y
- 'g 9,i. *,"
' %,4 f.:
/
s
.,s i
3
.,,s:%
- "g i
h}.., bt'h.. ?
f
- ':'"lx.' ' ' hL
'Y?-,a I+
ss
[,;,
Mih
'g. J.o O
's _'
)
a v.k W.'
,f
-@/d,,q.
kM s
3,,.e'....i M.. n d
-= z
,,r l,
- b p
- sn%
Lpsn w,<,3; c.,.
e _...
1.
4
-+o
.w%sSw v' ~l' o
4 4
_lq -Q,mQ$$$.,.l,n
?y..l ' y..Q 4
1g.
~
m.
h'Q
[
i hNfj m m
- ,y e m=cs
.v,1-.
gx ams.
7 5
N 's s
e Cr 4 g- /.
M_
_. L. ;.. k
,)l, 0.'.'l o) iv 2-12
- ll
l ll l
- l O
O
'I I 8.
=
s iy
-. i J
';. 3 1
lh i
=%)l' Ny'w M.P s9 s
B ugi!g[
AB C
I
~
L 0
\\ Ag,i_&j'l; lw, C
'p K
M F
O I
2 U
G
=
e p-l T
I R
N W
U 1
/
i, L
E 3
/
l 4jl
,q y i
A C
T 0
2 15 I
- , r(
~
H X
~
0 4
/
- i:,l,,g i
'g S
P
=-
R
.l s
w O
i"
=
P l
E l
[l R
^p z
T J,aV..
Y a'j
'3
/
i,i
~
~p-IO d
Oc t
,.I#
o I
f f 4g !,
be,r 1
8 1
9 8
5
October, 1985 FIGURE 2-5
. /p.2c( ]- '~~'.(
j At
+m 7 t
i
- % j
- /
14.
, \\
3 s
(
=
q.
e,
,/
t:,,
4<.
. s.
-i 1
/. -
NKi
.r fj~f '
'.j. (I,
a s
N' s'
=
pj p [r m, : ])],.s 4N, /g.
s
- cr/
~%
/
c~
,@p nY 1 A- }
a
\\
1 w v.
q, Y
' }3
.,m a
@r J
T
'y e
s..C' F
-vjf' x~,\\
.g
.,j r
A - '/ h f %. ' 9 - R.,
I : @ i
.i -
t x
~
)'
^
h
.x 9
i t
?l x
lf Yk*
p. /).
,.er A
<rmea
.s
.e N s.
as
=
i
=
s W#
G h$' ~ ) -ll-e,A, g _
q.
g s,s g
.g 3..
,f
}l
~~
g' ji 1[
. g.
E e
3
\\~ '-
W
[j:
D
!*/
>?)
~~l.I.
)
1 j
l lc.q-DR
']i O
4 2-14
i October, 1985
_ h('N 3.0 THE FACILITY 3.1 EXTERNAL APPEARANCE.
The buildings that comprise the LRC are all of masonry construction.
3.1.1 Building A 4
Building A is constructed of concrete block basically. The walls of the critical experiment bays are poured concrete. That portion of the building which faces the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (SSE),
has a red brick facade. All of the windows except those in the east corner and south second floor are solid pane, vertical rectangles. The exceptions are multipane, horizontal rectangles.
3.1.2 Building B Building 8 is. a two-story structure.
It is constructed of concrete block with a gray agrigate brick facade on the south face. A series of seven vertical rectangular projections are located on the south central face.
Six of the projections con-tain first and second floor vertical rectangular windows accented at the top and bottom by green stone slabs. The seventh contains (N
a second floor window and the front door. The building is 340
()
feet by 98 feet. The south lawn is landscaped with evergreen shrubs and hemlock trees. The remainder of the building is surrounded by a lawn of grass.
3.1.3 Building C Building C is a single-story building of concrete block con-struction. Outside dimensions are 225 feet by 174 feet at its deepest point. The front of the building faces south. The right-hand side of that face contains the the eight windows of the building and its front door. The block face is covered with painted stucco. A driveway abutts the front left-hand portion of the front of the building and the read right-hand portion. The front right-hand portion is a grassy lawn with evergreen scrub landscaping. Those areas of the building not abutted by the driveway as grassy lawns.
3.1.4 Building J Building J is the solid waste storage facility.
It is located in the rear of Building C.
This building is a single-floor concrete block square structure. The building contains no windows. A single personnel entrance and a large roll-away door are located on the south face and a large roll-away door is located on the north face. The building exterior is painted a beige. The building is surrounded by asphalt paving and a chain link fence.
3-1
October, 1985 gd 3.1.5 Liquid Waste Disposal Facility
.The Liquid Waste Disposal Facility is located to the southeast of Building C.
It is a single-story concrete block building covered with stucco and painted beige. This building has a single personnel entrance door on the north face and a double door on the south.. Grassy lawn abutts the building on the north, west and south sides and a concrete slab abutts it on the east.
3.1.6 Building D Building D is.a complex of six buildings.
Five of these are single-floor, concrete block buildings with grey agrigate brick facing on all sides. The central building is two stories high with a grey agrigate brick facing on three sides and red brick facing on the front or west face on the first floor. The facing.
of rock agrigate panels on the second floor accents the 23 single-pane vertical rectangular windows and overhangs the first floor entrance. This complex is landscaped with evergreen scrubs, small hardwood trees and evergreen trees on the west lawn. The remaining sides are abutted with grassy lawn.
3.2 PLANT OPERATION bQ Operations at the LRC are widely diverse and change frequently. A brief description of current operations is given in the sections that follow.
Due to the frequent changes in work performed in specific labora-tories, resources used and effluents for the LRC are presently in the following tables:
O 3-2
October, 1985 s,
i
^
TABLE 3.1 AVERAGE MONTHLY UTILITY USAGE, 1984
!~
Water 580,000-gal.
f Natural Gas 600,000 cu.ft.
Electricity 400,000 kwh i
i t
TABLE 3.2 TOTAL ANNUAL NON-RADI0 ACTIVE EFFLUENTS 1984 i
Ai r 2 x 1010 ft3 Sanitary Sewage 7 x 106 gal.
l-Solid Waste (Trash) 6 x 104 ft3 i
i j
d 4
i I
I
- O 4
3-3 i
b
7 ii, October, 1985 "TA$LE 3.3 RADI0 ACTIVE LIQUID WASTE RELEASES TO NNFD TREATMENT SYSTEM 1982 TO 1984 4
Microcuries Nuclide 1982 1983 -
1984 Mn-54 1.8 Co-58 9.6 11.0 Co-60 100.0 30.0 390.0 Sr-90 49.0 4.6 44.0 Y-90 49.0 4.6.
44.0 Sb-124 15.0 Sb-125 35.0
-s Cs-134 14.0 37.0 0
Cs-137 140.0 980.0 840.0 Ce-144 41.0 Gross Beta
.170.0 110.0 350.0 Gross Alpha 56.0 42.0 100.0 Pu-241 220.0 Plutonium 280.0
' Totals 1100 1200 1900
( rounded)
Total Volume, 294,000 180,000 384,000 1
gal.
t -
+
!O t
3-4
. ~.
October, 1985 7--
\\/
TABLE 3.4 GROSS RADI0 ACTIVITY RELEASED FROM 50 METER STACK 1982 TO 1984 1982 1983 1984 Gross Alpha Particulate 0.2 pCi 0.2 pCi 0.3 pCi Gross Beta Particulate 2.3 pCi 1.5 pCi 2.7 pCi Kr-85 0.09 Ci 0.09 Ci 14.0 Ci Tritium (3) 0.007 Ci 0.0007 C1 1.1 Ci NOTES:
1.
Stack flow is 25,000 cfm
.2.
LLD's for stack monitcr or stack sampling Kr-85 6 x 10-7 gCi/ml Gross Alpha 2 x 10-16a pCi/ml
> ()
Gross Beta 6 x 10-168 pCi/ml 3.
Tritium release is calculated based on opening tritium containing reactor components in the hot cell.
T I
3-5
October, 1985 TABLE 3.5 SOLID RADI0 ACTIVE WASTE 1984 1
Nuclide Quantity Byproduct Co-60 0.41 millicuries Sr-90 1.8 millicuries 4'
Y-90 1.8 millicuries Cs-134 1.2 millicuries Cs-137 15.0 millicuries Am-241 0.81 nillicuries Fissile and Pu U-235 17.6 gram Pu-238 1 x 10-6 gran Pu-239-0.05 gram Pu-240 4 x 10-4 gram Pu-241 5 x 10-6 gran Pu-242 4 x !.;-6 gran Source Material U-234 7 x 10-5 kil ogram U-238 0.45 kilogran Th-232 0.19 kilogram 1
Total -volume of waste:
2200 cu.ft.
i 1,.
l 1
3-6 i
+
.-.m..._,.
, -..,,,... - - ~ ~ - -. -, -., -
October, 1985 O'd 3.2.1 Building A Building A is in the process of being decommissioned. All account-able quantities of licensed material have been removed from the building. The only work in process under the licenses (CX-10 &
SNM-778) is decommissioning.
3.2.2 Building B This facility is comprised of four hot ce 1s, a hot cell operations area, a cask handling area, a transfer can 1 and storage pool, a hot machine shop for work on contaminated equipment, an experimental pool, radiochemistry laboratory, two metallurgy laboratories, a counting laboratory, a health physics counting area, a ceramics oven room, a machine shop, a failure analysis laboratory, a scanning electron microscopy laboratory and a fatigue & fracture laboratory.
. Radioactive solid, liquid and gaseous releases are combined in the totals for the Center, as is the nonradioactive effluents.
Figures 3-2 and 3-4 show the facility ventilation and liquid waste systems.
3.2.2.1 Hot Cell Facilities This facility consists of four hot cells, an operations area, the cask handling area, the transfer canal and storage pool and the hot machine shop.
eq)
The transfer canal and storage pool is used to receive, unload, load and prepare shielded casks for shipment.
It also is used for storage of radioactive material and for transferring radioactive material to and from the hot cells. The pool water is recircu-lated through ion exchange columns for cleanup. These resins are replaced when expended and handled as dry waste.
Particulates that settle to the pool bottom are removed periodically with an underwater vacuum cleaner and disposed of as dry waste.
The hot cells are used to perform destructive and nondestructive testing and examination of highly radioactive materials. These include reactor core hardware components and fuel rods removed from irradiated reactor fuel assemblies. The cells generate solid and gaseous radioactive wastes. The gaseous wastes consist of krypton which originates from fuel rods that are 9unctured for fission gas analysis. The iodine component has decayed prior to shipment to the LRC. High level solid wastes are placed in special containers, removed from the cells and placed in below grade storage tubes to await shipment in shielded shipping con-tainers off site.
The hot machine shop is used when repair of manipulators is required and for performing work on items that are radioactive but not to the extent that remote hot cell handling is required.
g t
i Solid radioactive waste is generated in the area.
O 3-7
October, 1985 f"h
()
The cask' handling area is a high bay roon used to receive and ship containers of radioactive material. The largest source of waste is generated in decontaminating shipping containers. Liquid waste in the form of scrub water is released to the liquid waste retention basins.
The operations area contains the manipulator operating stations, the fission gas analyzer and the electronic equipment associated with the nondestructive analyzers.
No radioactive wastes are generated in this area.
Nonradioactive solid waste is included in the total for the LRC.
3.2.9. 2 Experimental Pool This 30,000 gallon pool is used to develop underwater examination equipment. _ Radioactive material is not now handled in this pool.
3.2.2.3 Radiochemistry Laboratory This laboratory utilizes standard chemical fume hoods the exhausts of which pass through one prefilter and one HEPA filter.
Work of interest being presently performed is analysis of irradiated fuel samples, corrosion products, neutron flux dosi-meters and reactor coolant samples. Low level radioactive wastes y
are released through the liquid waste disposal facility. Other liquid wastes are solidified for off site burial. Solid waste is shipped for off site burial. Airborne and gaseous effluents are filtered and discharged through the 50 meter exhaust stack. All these contributions are included in the site totals.
3.2.2.4 Metallurgy Laboratory The netallurgy laboratory has equipment for structurt.) esami-nations on a nacroscopic and microscopic scale. FaciHties are available for all metallography preparations and examinations utilizing light-microscopy. A hot stage metallograph is avail-able for microscopic exanination of materials at high temperatures and in controlled atmospheres. An industrial x-ray unit is also available to this laboratory.
Wastes from the metallurgy laboratory are typically nonradioactive and solid. Water used for cooling is discharged to the storm drains.
ON 3-8
.~
October, 1985 ix.h 3.2.2.5 Counting Laboratory The counting laboratory contains several high resolution gamma spectroscopy systems coupled to computers for data processing. A liquid ' scintillation system is used for spectroscopy of low energy beta emitters. Gross counting and spectroscopy are performed on alpha and beta emitting elements.
The laboratory is not equipped with sample preparation facilities.
Preparation is performed in other laboratories and transferred to the counting laboratory and returned after counting to the sending laboratory. No releases are made from this laboratory.
3.2.2.6 Ceramics Oven Room This room is used for mixing, forming and sintering nonradioactive ceranic materials.
Wastes are primarily solids that are included in the LRC solid waste totals. Cooling water is discharged to.the storm sewer.
3.2.2.7 Scanning Electron Microscopy Laboratory Radioactive and nonradioactive specimens are prepared and examined
'in this facility.
Small amounts of solid wastes are generated and these are included in the LRC totals.
3.2.2.8 Fatigue & Fracture Laboratory This laboratory contains a closed-loop electrohydraulic load frame, and impact tester and a fatigue precracker.
Specimens are brought.into this laboratory for testing and returned to the originating laboratory for disposal.
3.2.2.9 Failure Analysis Laboratory This laboratory is equipped for performing examination and testing of components that have been removed from nuclear power plants.
Examination and testing includes visual, photography, dimensional measurement, metallographic preparation and examination, and corrosion testing.
Small amounts of solid and liquid wastes are generated and are included in the site totals. Ventilation is provided by filtered fume hood off-gas which draws air from the cask handling area.
C 3-9
-October, 1985' O) 3.2.3 Building C Building C is in the process of decommissioning. All accountable quantities of licensed material have been removed from the building.
The only licensed activity in the building is decommissioning.
3.3 WASTE CONFINENENT AND EFFLUENT CONTROL 3.3.1 Air Effluents The exhaust air from the LRC is made up of two streams, air exhausted from hoods, glove boxes, hot cells, and potentially con-taminated areas, and general building air necessary to maintain comfort.
Exhaust air from hoods, glove boxes and hot cells is passed through a prefilter and at least one stage of HEPA filtration prior to release via the 50 meter high stack. Room off-gas from areas where there exists the potential for airborne radioactive contamination is passed through a prefilter and one stage of HEPA filters and is released through vents at essentially roof height.
General building air is partially recirculated for energy conserva-tion and released at roof height.
3.3.1.1 Controlled Area Air Effluents Exhausts from hot cells, fume hoods and glove boxes are the main sources of supply to the 50 meter high stack. This stack is sampled isokinetically continually while work in these areas is in progress.. A drawing of the system is shown in Figure 3-1.
Ai r passing into the stack has been filtered through at least one stage of HEPA filters.
In the case of the hot cells, glove boxes and Building C fume hoods, two series stages are used. One perchloric acid fume hood presently installed, is an exception to the above practice.
This hood exhausts directly to the roof of Building B with no filtration.
Releases through the 50 meter stack are given in table 3.4.
3.3.1.2 Nonradioactive Effluents The nature of the work performed at the LRC is such that only small amounts of volatile chemicals are used. The single largest contributor is acetone, of which the Center consumed 100 gallons in 1983. On the basis that 100 percent of the material evapo-rated and was released through the ventilation system 1,82 lb/ day would result.
3-10
October, 1985 3.3.2 -Liquid Effluents Liquid effluents leave the LRC by three routes; the storm sewer which not only carries rain water but the major portion of cooling water, the sanitary sewage line which flows to the treatment facility at the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (NNFD) and the only noteworthy one of the three, the effluent from the liquid waste retention tanks which flows into the treatment facility at NNFD.
3.3.2.1 Contaminated Liquid Waste System Potentially contaminated and contaminated liquid wastes from laboratories are directed to the liquid waste disposal system.
The drain systen for Building B is shown in Figure 3-2.
A schematic diagram of the liquid waste retention tanks and piping is shown in Figure 3-3.
All waste tanks are thoroughly mixed and sampled prior to release to the NNFD system. Effluents must meet the limits of release to an unrestricted area, given in 10 CFR 20, prior to release.
If sampling indicates that the tank contents exceed this restriction, dilution is used.
A compilation of releases through this system is given in Table 3.3.
3.3.2.2 Sanitary Waste Effluents Untreated sanitary wastes are combined for treatment with those of the NNFD's at that facility's sanitary waste treatment facility.
The LRC's contribution to this facility is 1.9 x 104 gallons per day.
3.3.2.3 Storm Drainage Runoff from the parking lot, building roofs and surrounding land exits the LRC on the east side of the site, and flows through a natural dry stream bed to the James River. Water used for furnace cooling and similar uses drains into this system at a rate of 5000 gallons per day. The quality of this water is the same as the site process water.
3.3.3 Solid Wastes All solid wastes generated from LRC operations are monitored and disposed of as described below.
3-11 i--
.=.
~
4 l
October,1985
\\
q\\m,/
3.3.3.1 Contaminated Solid Wastes Contaminated solid wastes are disposed of by a NRC-licensed facility.
These wastes consist of filters, packing material,
~
decontamination equipment, contaminated laboratory equipment and
_ solidified liquids. These wastes are packaged and stored at the LRC until a sufficient amount has accumulated for shipment to burial.
Packaged wastes are stored in a building specified for o
this purpose. A fenced area adjacent to this building is used for storage of packaged LSA and fissile exempt material.
3.3.3.2 Uncontaminated Solid Wastes
~ '
Approximately.6 x 104 cubic feet of uncontaminated solid wastes are generated at the LRC per year.
These wastes are routinely monitored to ensure that they are not radiologically contaminated and disposed of by a private contractor at the Lynchburg sanitary l andfill.
Salvageable materials, such as metals, are sold or recycled.
O f
i 3-12
~
~
i
,['
i O oT@} W@ T I
C C
e(
a m WIH v
A T
A s
P esi E*
C H
r r
e e C
r d
r te ta o
A e
o e
i p
d o i d d H
c D
P m
aH is i
A e
e d
F a e
=
D e H is er l
l r
r ee e e
y s eo eNtt t e s a
e r
cl g iu w e wp e.
nh e eFl s
s r
o e ec r s
s ee e al r eme s p
ne i eel e b
r e
e r
a 8
OD.i r $ P $ F P' A P P C i g J.
- = - = - " - - - -
t%qODPSHP A@@h s
A_
HMH TE A".
RA_
E P
Y
,Oj R
A S
O.
T P
T 'i t
~
H S I
S Ht s
Y
'C rlFdc.
l E
L
'G l
}
H A
N C
p A
N AB D
K 0
C
^
A A
D H
A A
A A
^
A A
R A
EL TS I
7 O
R P
l A
H U T
A IL O
W A
F T P P
F t
) i
/
I O
E S
f j
I 3
)
ql
[
Ov rL ESS HS A
EH CL HP I
^
i S
j YT HE A-
.H PM Q
6 N
1 H,,
[a CT U
E D
C8 J,
N O
IT a
A O
R 4
@a I
b T
PL A
A L
L ac T
O H,,
E N
S E
O V
H N
IA dI E
NIP HO L
H, A
I M
T8 J,
YA L
L A
N A
a.
[P J
r 3
O ww i 4
!l it i
. ij' jl l1 j',}
1i
!a, ii,
s
(%\\
J V
h i
a
.TO Ll0UID 2" HS P (19) p
' WASTE DISPOS A L TO u Ouno 72 FD06) l s..,....
......f. 2" FW W 45T E
[2"HSP (3)
DISPOSAL i
- * \\
f(SY )J'gff I
,g 8
e v.k l
- f 1 T -
r-c;p 4-2" GUTTER DRAIN (IF) 2.FD P-2 w-y 8
2j4
... 4 (S)
(S)
(3) 2 i
d
'~
2"HSP [
fy (S) 2"H S P (20)
i 2" FD ge) j w
(3)
(S) 2"HSP o
(3)
/
O 2" HD (7) 2" HSP(7 )
h 1
2*CO\\
H (3)
--g J
DRAIN ll) #
2"W-%
2"HD 2"CO (4 )
(
ER (6 )
(8) g" FD 2=FD y
/ UN
%(2* FD (ll) 1 2
(3) m I I 2
O g
2"HSP(IO)
(6 )
2" FD c
2 HD f
g3g
-4 M
a i
(7) 2" HSP m
m
/ N2"GuiTER M
t A
DRAIN (18 )
(3)
O 2*HSP O4) 2"HSPGs) 3~
l g*HSP(2) 2"HSP(2) 2"CO (2) 2*HS P(161 N
1
(.,, g,33 2*FD CO, Cleon Out g(12)
HSP. Hot $1ond Pipe
/
f g
g 2" HSP (l)
L m
FD. Floor D.oin 2" FD 04) s f HSP(2)
Deo!n i
HSP D 2)
- -V
- * Y'*8 2" CO w 3=.
2" HSP
'2" FD (12I l-SP Ha i Swnp Pump (3) 2* HSP (l)
$4) 2-SP No. 2 Senp Pump i
w
@. Stainless Steel Tank ROOM NUMBERS OORS Plugged M
. Drain Line en the 81Sement m
1 HEALTHPHYS4CS 11 STORAGE POOL "E
=
12 850LAftON AREA Copped 2 PROCEssanET.LAS W
=
13 HOTINSTRua#ENTREPANI 3,3 y,g, 3 H8GH TEMPERATURE LAS 14 EXPEROMENTAL A$$ERABLY AREA 4 CERAM6CfORMING
{
15 CASK ltANOLH6G AREA S LOAGM4NUTlON TECHNOLOGY o
16 PR4 MARY CELL ISA&EnsENTS O
$ HEALTHPHYSICS 17 EXPERIMENTALPOOL ft 7 HOT CHANGE ROOne IS $AAAPLE PflEP,LAS O
S IW ALTH PHVs4CS 19 f A3 LURE ANALYS88 LAS 9 LOOP $AAAPLING ROOed 20 CHEMacAL DEVELOPMENT LAS te RAOf0CHEMi$fRV EAb CD U1 1
1
October, 1985 s/
FIGURE 3-3 LIOUID WASTE RETENTION TANKS AND PIPING SYSTEM
=
f w
f a
a u
l I
WI
!.. I I ;Ii h 4:*!!!.
q l
l
!jl!!;'-
~
g, _
1!:!!:;:":su-
?
l i
l i
l WHi nii
.6
,6 j :.2..,, ' " _
7.g 3
b;i 1
i i
-(:
, ~.
h c :'
1 f
s,
..)
._.I.
i T*
te k=
i
,t yi-i L
a i
, r J
1 m-u..-
i s-
- il... I y"_
e y!
li::;:
-~
l
.., !i d 1.:
i
_1 -
s.
J M.
4 iii
.y
,./ -
T_. N 1
4.*
[N I::
,, ' _i_ Ji M
T a; iiij gM
.b g
11!:
i e **
e-
.:n S f.
i 13 jg{
s-a c
g r
i.IN..:
iH I
k/
15 i
l3 l
--E i
I'
., ut.,.
i I.
I
-e!.-
11 If l
lm
- L l;
g 3
i lIll j-
[ N:i f:lj,"
-f t t:ii!
ir llij e
g ei i +4 4 i3 II II,,.
_L gj j e:!in
.N'
,,i,.
f 11 l
I[
@ -I i
s-a..
t*
. ; i is,
.. x i O
'*n I
i
'r g!! 1[I
_m iiI111l$l11111 3
7 g
II,j i
I i
i i i iisilitili 1 2 5
- 8 si s.
9 I!
il j
7 i
'y llf 6
s
.dlg:
r i
I T4
, 1::
t:
.9: ----J.-
p 14
.1342;F:'ig i
n ii i
-vg w V
T4 it i i!
i 3-15
October, 1985 4.0 ~ ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND PLANT CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 4.1 EFFECTS OF SITE PREPARATION AND CONSTRUCTI N The facility, for which a renewal of the operating license is being sought, is already in existence. At this time, the major structures are completed and in operation, and the unused land has been graded and landscaped or allowed to return to its natural state.
Any social, economic, or ecological impacts of construction are now history.
Undoubtedly, construction aided the economy of the region by providing employment, and presumably small areas of land were removed from biological productivity and dedicated to research and development use.
There is no evidence to indicate that the social, economic, or ecological impacts of construction were harmful, or even of a very great magnitude.
4.1.1 Land Use The site was originally used for farming and consequently much of the land had already been cleared long before construction of the LRC.
Since cessation of farming, much of the land has been retaken b
by shrubs and trees.
In addition, areas that were denuded of vege-V tation before construction have been reforested with pine trees and grassy meadows.
The natural landscape has been altered to accommodate buildings, parking lots and access roads.
Each of these has been designated to minimize undesirable environmental effects. Overall, these altera-tions have not had an adverse effect on terrestrial life.
Signifi-cant portions of the site remain suitable for plants and wildlife species.
No observable erosion, dust, or excessive noise caused by traffic or plant operation is evident.
a.1.2 Water Use Changes in the contour of the land that were required for con-struction of parking lots, roadways, and buildings did not signifi-cantly alter the natural drainage patterns of surface water flow.
4.2 EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATIONS 4.2.1 Radiological Impact G
Lj 4-1 i
October, 1985 iV 4.2.1.1 Airborne Effluents As stated in the note in Table 3.4, air releases from operations at the LRC are in all probability attributable entirely to back-ground for long-li.ved particulate activity._ During irradiated fuel examinations, Kr-85 is released. Table 3.4 shows that about 14 Ci of Kr-85 may be released as a result of these operations in a year. The exposure to a person living in the City of Lynchburg from this type of release is 0.00007 man-rems assuming the following:
o The variability of the winds to Lynchburg which is due west of the LRC is 4.5%.
The City of Lynchburg is five miles wesi of the LRC.
o o The population of Lynchburg is 60,000 people, o An individual exposed to an integrated cloud of 1 Ci sec/m3 = an exposure of 7 x 10-4 Rem.
4.2.1.2 Liquid Effluents Referring to Table 3.3, during the period July through December, O
1983, 0.98 millicuries of Cs-137 was released to the NNFD waste treatment system. This is the highest release of the period covered.
The man-rem exposure for a release of 0.98 millicuries of Cs-137 per year to the James River is given below.
1.
The nearest munipical water systen utilizing the James River, downstrean of the LRC, is the city of Richmond.
2.
The 1970 census gives the population of Richmond as 250,000.
3.
The average flow rate of the James River is 5500 ft3 per second.
o Concentration at Richmond:
0.98 x 103 pCi (5500 ft /sec)(365 days)(24 hr/da)(3600 sec/hr)(2.83 x 104 ml/ft )
3 3
2 x 10-13 pCi/ml.
=
4-2
October, 1985
[)g-(
o An adult drinks 370 liters of water per year, o
The dose ~ ingestion conversion factor is 7.14 x 10-5 mrem /pCi ingested.
o Activity ingested:
(1.02 x 10-12 pC1/ml)(3.70 x 105 ml) = 7.39 x 10-8 pCi o
Man-rem exposure in Richmond is:
(0.074 pC1)(7.14 x 10-5 mrem /pCi)(250,000 people) 1.3 man-millirem.
=
4. 2. 9.
Chemical Discharge Chemical discharges from the LRC are made through the liquid waste disposal system. Based on the receipts of hazardous chemicals, less than a liter per day is discharged. These discharges are made to the NNFD liquid waste treatment system and is included in that facility's sample results.
4.3 RES0llRCES COMMITTED The following resources were committed for the facility:
1.
The land 2.
Structural materials 3.
Nonrecoverable consumables used during construction.
The only land permanently affected by construction was the four acres enclosed by the security fence of which 2.25 acres is occupied by buildings, and 2.1 acres in parking lots and driveways.
Since the site is in an unpopulated rural area with abundant unoccupied land, the dedication of 6.1 acres for the facility has no noticeable effect on the natural ecosystem, and it does not permanently foreclose other options for human development.
O 4-3
-.. ~ -.. _ _
l l
October, 1985 0
4.4 ~ DECOMMISSIONING AND DISMANTLING
Reference:
I Babcock & Wilcox Research and Development Division Lynchburg Research Center Renewal Application-License SNM-778 October, 1985 i
I w
O I
4 i-1 1
L O
i 4
4-4 l
October, 1985 h(_)
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ACCIDENTS 5.1 GENERAL-Several accidents have been postulated and analyzed for the LRC. Some of these are unique to our type of operation and do not fall into the categories normally considered for a fuel fabrication facility.
5.1.1 Power Failure, Hot Cell A potential hazard would be total utility power failure to the LRC site, along with failure of the standby engine to start.
It is standard practice to secure all hot cell operations in a safe manner whenever an LRC power failure occurs.
In this assumed situation, the Hot Cell ventilation is maintained by one fan connected to the emergency bus. One fan is adequate to maintain a delta P of 0.25 inch of water over the cell face. However, emergency power from the motor generator is provided to both fans, and this emergency power source is checked once a week to ensure startup. This notor generator is equipped with an automatic starting nechanism and a backup manual starter if the automatic starter should fail.
Hot cell emergency lighting is sufficient to permit limited operations to safely secure the cell.
l.
Ventilation is maintained through the normal duct work, which con-tains a prefilter and absolute filters that remove particulate material s.
The Hot Cell operations that produce radioactive gases are handled in such a way that these gases are contained. Fission gases can only be released to the cell atmosphere by manual oper-ation of a valve.
The gas is released only after an estimate of gross activity is complete. Gas release of this type is allowed only during normal ventilation conditions and is stopped immedi-ately in the event of an emergency. Thus, it is apparent that, even with a complete loss of power to the facility, the surrounding area is adequately protected.
The hot cell ventilation air joins that from the clean areas in the manhole behind the main building. Failure of any number of fans in other parts of the system would not cause a backup into that portion of the system, since the suction from the stack fan would provide an air velocity greater than 100 fpm from the manhole. Backdraft dampers are provided at the manhole and in the blower discharges to reduce leakage.
The following conditions must exist to permit the leakage of con-taninated air from hot cells:
1.
Failure of utility power,
[G3 2.
Failure of emergency bus power, 5-1
October, 1985
.O'Q 3.
Failure of standby engine to start.
It is concluded that three such events limit the credibility of such an accident.
5.1.2 Ruptured Fuel Element There is the possibility that a shielded cask falling into the hot cell pool might cause a research reactor fuel element to rupture.
The worst possible condition would be the sudden and gross release of all fission gases in the transfer canal. Except for iodine, these gaseous fission products would escape to the cask handling room; however, the cask handling room is maintained at a negative pressure with respect to the outside environment.
Exhausted air and any gaseous fission products would pass into the hot cell, through the absolute filters, and up the 50-meter stack.
The point of maximum concentration of a release from a 50-meter stack during noderately stable conglitions is 3300 meters downwind, as given in Figure A.4, TID-24190.ll)
An individual at this point would receive a maximum dose of 0.0545 Rems as shown in Table 5-1.
The data presented in Table 5-1 were taken from the following reference publications:
p Column 2 - Table 7.1, Reference 1.
,.'t Column 3 - Tables.5 and 6, Reference 2.
Column 4 - Table 7.1, Reference 1.
Column 5 - Figure A.4, Reference 1.
O 5-2
s.
1 October, 1985
..'(
TABLE 5.1 DOSE FROM GASE0US FISSION PRODUCTS Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Total Ci mci /cc
. In Fuel Equiv To Max Ground
- Dose, Isotope Element (E) MeV 10-3 Rem /h Conc, mC1/cc Rems Kr-85 180 0.24 4.3 0.5 x 10-6 0.0001 Xe-133m 1,500 0.84 1.24 0.42 x 10-5 0.0034
~
Xe-133 55,000 0.19 5.48 1.52 x 10-4 0.0280 Xe-135 14,000 0.62 1.67 0.39 x 10-4 0.0230
. Total Dose:
0.0545
- As an-example of the method used to calculate the dose from each isotope, the calculations for Xenon-133 are presented below. The following as-A sumptions were used for these calculations and to establish the values in
(
Table 5-1.
x 1.
The release occurs over a one-hour period.
2.
The element has been cooling for one day.
3.
The element has operated at 0.5 MW for one year.
4 The iodine is trapped in the water and does not escape.
Reference 2 gives the formula 2.5 x 10-5 g, 3
(Ci/m )
x =
u for calculating the maximum concentration.
For Xe-133 (T1/2 = 5.3 days) for maximun concentration would be 1.52 x 10-4 pCi/cc, demonstrated as follows:
3
-5.55 x 10 3600 15.2 x 10-5 Ci/m 3
x =
=
2.5 5-3
Octobar, 1985 Exposure at the concentration 2.6 x 10-6 y Ci/cc (from Ref. 2, page 22)'
=
a
[(E) will give an exposure of 1.0 Rem in one 40-hour week.
To increase the exposure to 1 Rem, the concentration must be increased by a factor of ten (10).
2.6 x 10 Ci/cc MPC
=
a E(E)
For the concentration to give a 1 Ren exposure in one hour, the concen-tration must be increased by an additional factor of forty (40).
1.04 x 10-3 Ci/cc MPC
=
a p
E(E) xs The concentration of the cloud radioactive gas that exposes a person standing in the center of it to 1 Rem /h is as follows:
1.04 x 10-3 Dose (1 Rem /hr)
Ci/cc
=
E(E) 1.04 x 10-3 5.48 x 10-3 Ci/cc.
Ci/cc 1 Rem /hr
=
=
The exposure at the maximun concentration is the ratio of the maximun concentration (15.2 x 10-5 ci/m3) to the concentration that will give 1 Rem /h (5.48 x 10-3 Ci/cc) or:
1.52 x 10-4 gg 5.48 x 10-3 O
5-4
/
October, 1985
,r'\\
V From this analysis, it has been shown that the total dose an individual would receive in an accident described in this section would be 0.054 Rems.
This is an acceptable exposure for an accident.
5.1.3 88W Mark B Fuel Assembly Rupture Assumptions 1.
One Mark B fuel assembly is dropped or crushed causing the rupture of all 208 fuel pins.
2.
Fuel assembly burnup, 40,000 MWD /T.
3.
Fuel assembly cooling time,150 days.
4.
30% of all noble gas escapes.
5.
10% of total iodine is released to the pool water.
6.
The pool decontamination factor for iodine is 100.
7.
All krypton gas released in the pool escapes into the Cask f3 Handling Area.
It then is pulled through the hot cells,
()
absolute filters, and is exhausted up the 150-foot stack.
8.
Release occurs over a two-hour period.
Section 5.12 describes a fuel element ' rupture in the Cask Handling Area.
In the referenced analysis, the krypton inventory considered was 180 Ci.
Using similar assumptions for the method and distribution of release, but an inventory for PWR fuel of 6.51 x 103 Ci, the calculated krypton exposure at 3300 meters (point of highest ground level concentration down wind) is:
1 x 10-4 Rem 3
1.1 x 10-3 Rem.
x 6.51 x 10 Ci x 0.3
=
2 1.8 x 10 Ci The iodine release for this accident is calculated using Safety Guide 25 and the above referenced analysis.
F I F PBR (X/Q) 9 0
=
DF 0F p
f m /S)(1.48 x 10 )(2.5 x 10-5) 3 6
(0.1)(1.39 Ci)(1)(1)(3.47 x 10-4 p
=
V 5-5
October, 1985
,a Y,
Where tnyroid dose (rads).
D_
=
Fg fraction of fuel rod iodine inventory in fuel rod void space
=
.(0.1).
core iodine inventory at time of accident (curies).
I
=
fraction of core damaged so as to release void space iodine.
F
=
fuel peaking factor.
P
=
breathing rate = 3.47 x 10-4 cubic meters per second (i.e., 10 R
=
cubic meters per 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> work day as recommended by the ICRP).
OFp effective iodine decontamination factor for pool water.
=
0Ff effective iodine decontamination factor for filters (if
=
present).
(l X/Q atmospheric diffusion factor'at receptor location (sec/m3),
=
(,/
R-
=- adult thyroid dose conversion factor for the iodine isotope of interest (rads per curie). Dose conversion factors for Iodine 131-135 are listed-in Table I, TID-14844.(3)
These values were derived from " standard man" parameters recommended in ICRP Publication 2.(4) 5.1.4 Sodium Potassium Fire - Hot Cell An accident in the hot cell could be a fire caused by the ignition of the sodium-potassium alloy used in irradiation capsules.
Since the use of conbustible or flanmable materials is severely re-stricted, the area of conflagration would be limited to the capsule itsel f.
Fire extinguishers are available for immediate use through control mechanisms nounted in the cell face and plumbing to the actual incell work area. Fire is not expected to enter the venti-lation system under these conditions.
The occurrence of explosions is quite unlikely, since explosive materials or gases are not routinely handled. Where solvents are used for decontanination, adequate ventilation is provided, and volatile material is limited to quantities that, when vaporized and mixed throughout the volume of the hot cell, would not result in the accumulation of an explosive mixture.
. O m
5-6 1
1 October, 1985 (3
'O 5.1.5 Zircaloy Fire, Hot Cell 5.1.5.1 General As a part of post-irradiation examination of PWR spent fuel, the fuel rods are cut into sections with a wetted abrasive cutting blade.
The grindings are collected in a water-filled, shallow netal pan.
The grindings are mixed with " Metal X" fire ex-tinguishing medium and transferred to a 4-inch diameter by 12-inch long sealed radioactive waste container after no more than ten cuts have been made.
An accident is postulated wherein the zircaloy grindings burn in the collection pan in the hot cell.
-5.1.5.2 Analysis of Accident It is assumed that multiple operator and supervisor errors occur which allow grindings from 100 rod cutting operations to accumu-late in the collection pan. Material from 100 cuts would include about 16 grams of zircaloy and 1.6 x 102 grans of spent fuel which
'(]
contains about 2 curies of plutonium.
It is also assumed that the V
water evaporates from the collection pan so that the grindings become dry. Auto-oxidation of the exposed zircaloy grindings is postulated to ignite all zircaloy grindings, thereby releasing 4 x 104 calories of heat in a very short period of time as would be expected for zircaloy grindings burning in air.(5)
It is assumed that the intensity and turbulence of the fire would cause some of the plutonium-bearing spent fuel to become airborne in the hot cell and that 1% of the plutonium, which was in the collection pan, is carried in the off-gas to the HEPA filter. The heat of combustion is dissipated in the hot cell to the extent that the heat in the off-gas does not damage the filter.
The HEPA filter is required to be 99.95% effective.(6)
The off-gas from the HEPA filter is released into the stack plume.
5.1.5.
Results of Accident A tool of (2 Ci Pu)(0.01)(0.0005) = 10 Ci Pu is released to the environment. The maximum possible amount of Pu in a breathing zone it, calculated to be 5 x 10-6 nCi (see calculation below).
The maximum allowable lung burden for plutonium is 16 nCi.
No estimates have been nade of the actual amount of plutonium which would be retained in the lungs.
Such a consideration would reduce the actual burden roughly an order-of-magnitude.
n{v 5-7
October, 1985 O
V 5.1.5.4 Conclusion of Accident Analysis The postulated accident would result in a naximun possible exposure to the public of less than one millionth of a maximum allowable lung burden for plutonium.
5.1.5.5 Calculation of Postulated Accidental Dispersion of Plutonium j
Basis
-1.
The method presented by Slade(7) may be use.
2.
Release and exposure occurs over a 600 second period.
3.
The breathing rate for an exposed person is 5 x 10-4 m3 sec.
/
4.
Stack height is 50 neters.
5.
Meteorological conditions are moderately stable (Pasquill F).
6.
Average wind speed in direction of dispersion is 2.5 m/sec.
From TID-24190,5 i) Figure A.4, the maximum ground level concen-tration is 3300 meters down wind and the dispersion factor 2.5 x 10-5 m-2 Where:
x s/Q'
=
Q' release rate,
=
n sec
=
0sc ii average wind speed.
=
maximum concentration at ground level.
x
=
2.5 x 10-5,-2 (17 nC1/sec) 1.7 x 10~4 nCi.
7 2.5 m/sec 3
m (concentration)(breathing rate)(exposure Amount breathed
=
period)
(1.7 x 10-4 nCi)
(5 x 10~4 *sec ) (600 sec) 3 m
5 x 10-5 nCi.
^
=
5-8 i
l October, 1985 L
5.1.6.dbsoluteFilterFailure,HotCell A ' mechanism for the failure of the absolute filters cannot be postu-
-lated, but for the sake of analysis, the following assumptions are made:
1.
The filters fail.
2.
The radioactive material is released over a 600-second period and is dispersed up the stack.
3.
The filters are contaminated with a maximum of one curie of Ru-106 (this assumption is consistent with the fact that the filters are unshielded, and one curie of activity is about the maximum that-could be allowed without too high a gamma back-
. ground in the working area).
The height of the stack is 50 meters (h = 50 neters), and the accident is assumed to occur during moderately stable conditions; the'refore, the maximum concentr9 tion is 3300 meters downwind, as given in Figure. A.4, TID-24190.t8) This is off the site; however, it'is the point of maximum ground concentration, and the exposure would be less at other places. Using the formula in Figure A.4, n
TID-24190, the concentration at this point is 1.67 x 10-8 p Ci/cc,
()
shown as follows:
2.5 x 10-5 (,-2)
Yi/Q'
=
where 7, 2.5 x 10-0 0' i
3 Q'
1.67 x 10 Ci/s,
=
=
600 2.5 m/s.
=
p 2.5 x 10-5
-2 (1.67 x 103 g
pCi/s),
y, 2.5 m/s Y=
1.67 x 10-2 pCi/m3 1.67 x 10-8 Ci/cc.
=
O 5-9
-... _ -. _ - _. ~ -
'I October, 1985
\\
The MPC for the general population (as stated in Table II, Column 1, 1
10 CFR 20) is 2 x 10-10 pCi/cc for a 168/ hours exposure.
Since the postulated accident is a 10-minute exposure, an individual would receive 0.083 MPC at the point of maximum concentration. This is demonstrated by the following:
1.67 x 10-8 10 min 0.083.
x
=
2 x 10-10 60 x 168 This exposure to an individual (0.083 of the MPC allowed for one week) is acceptable for an accident.
4 O
4 r
f i
l O
5-10
.=.
October, 1985 O
v REFERENCES 1
1 Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USGPO, TID-24170, Figure A.4 (1968).
2 " Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation,"
Health Physics, Vol. 3, June 1960.
3 Dose Conversion Factors Taken from " Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites," TID-14844, J. J. DiNunno, R. E. Baker, F. D. Anderson, and R. L. Waterfield (1962).
4 Recomendations of the International Comission on Radiological Pro-tection, " Report of Comittee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959)," ICRP Publication 2 (New York:
Permagon Press, 1960).
5 Fire Protection Handbook,13 Ed., National Fire Protection Association, 1969, p 5-79..
6 USAEC License SNM-778, Docket 70-824, February 15, 1974, Condition 21.
7 Slade, D. H., Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USAEC, July 1968, p 163.
8 Ibid, p 410.
i
- O 5-11
~
,y
.--s
,, - ~
q
.s.,--
,.,,-w,,,-,-v
,,-m--,-,
_r-.
-n,,-
e
-n-
.--w-r
-r-
October, 1985
(
6.0 EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS 6.1 PRE 0PERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS Environmental nonitoring prior to construction and operation of the first facility in 1956 was not performed.
6.2 OPERATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAMS 6.2.1 Radiological Monitoring Program 6.2.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Airborne effluents that are potentially contaninated are exhausted through the 50-neter stack, where practicable. This stack is sampled continuously. Sanple air is drawn through a fixed filter whiu is routinely changed and counted on a low background, gas flow proportional counter to detemine gross alpha and beta activity. The sensitivity of this counting systen is 8 x 10-17 pCi/nl for gross alpha for the present counting period. Ai rborne effluents that cannot practicably exhaust through the 50-neter g3' stack are individually sampled if there is the potential for these d
streans to contain 10% or greater of the applicable 10 CFR 20 limits. These samples are counted as described above.
Liquid sampling is perfomed on each of the waste water tanks prior to discharging to the liquid waste treatment systen at the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division.
Tanks are stirred and a one-quart sample withdrawn.
A measured amount of this sample water is evaporated to dryness on a planchet and counted in a low back-ground, gas flow proportional counter for gross alpha and gross beta. The sensitivity of this system is 3 x 10-7 pCi/ml for gross alpha and 3 x 10-7 pCi/ml for gross beta for the present counting period. Ganna spectroscopy is used for isotope identification if the gross technique results in unusually high activities.
6.2.1.2 Environnental Monitoring The Janes River is sampled periodically both upstrean and down-stream of the NNFD discharge point (see Figure 2-5).
Sanples are evaporated to dryness on a planchet and counted on a low back-ground, gas flow proportional counter.
Sanoles are counted to detemine gross alpha and gross beta. The lower limit of detection for this systen is 3 pCi/L for gross alpha and 5 pCi/L for gross beta, for the present counting period.
Sanples of Janes River silt and plant life in the vicinity of the r
LRC are periodically taken (see Figure 2-5).
These samples are y]
nomally analyzed by an off-site commercial fim.
6-1
- ~ _ _.
October, 1985 4
Rain water is continuously sampled on site. Measured amounts are evaporated to dryness and counted on a low background, gas flow
. proportional counter for gross alpha and gross beta. The lower limit of detection for the system is 3 pCi/L for gross alpha and 5 pCi/L for gross beta, for-the present counting period.
6.2.2. Chemical Monitoring f
The liquid effluents from the LRC that potentially contain harmful t
chenicals are released to the liquid waste treatment system of the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. That division analyzes effluents to chemical constituants and therefore this is not performed at the LRC.
6.2.3 Meteorological Monitoring Wind speed and direction nonitors are nounted at the top of the 50-neter stack and at a point about midway up the stack. The infor-
- nation transmitted from these monitors is recorded on a continuous basis.
Outside air temperature is neasured and reorded continuously at locations on and near the stack at elevations of 50 neters and 3 meters.
1 L
1 O
U 6-2 m
. m
.