ML20148A222
| ML20148A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 05/06/1997 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148A193 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705080142 | |
| Download: ML20148A222 (101) | |
Text
. . - - -. ._ -
i 1
1 i
I i
f Environmental Assessment
- for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1097 1
l General Electric Company l Nuclear Energy Production Facility Wilmington, North Carolina i k
l 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docket 70-1113 l J
4
)
May 1997 i
4 9705000142 970506 PDR ADOCK 07001113 B PDR
-w. . - . . s - -a- . - - - - , - - .-a .s. --.n- , ~ . .s-. ~ , _ a -~ . - - _
1
- l 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
Section Page 1
Li s t o f Fi g u res . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
- Li s t o f Tab les . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v !
- Abb reviations and Acrony ms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii !
i l
- 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 In trod uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1
- 1.2 Description of Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 4
{ 1.3 Description of the Proposed Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.4 Need for the Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4
{
5 1.5 References for Section 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. 4 I
- 2. THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 Cu rrent Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 1 2.1.1 Fuel Fabrication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.1.2 U raniu m Scrap Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4
{
- 2.1.3 Liquid Waste Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 6 2.1.4 S olid Waste Manage men t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. 8 2.1.5 Gaseous E ffluent Con trol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 2.2 D ry Conversion Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 2.3 References for Section 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.12
- 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 S ite Desc ri ption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2 Meteorology and Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2.1 M eteo rolog y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 3.2.2 Air Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 3 3.3 Demography and Environmental Justice............................. 3.5 3.3.1 De m og raph y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 5 3.3.2 Environmental Justice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 3.4 Lan d U se . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 9 1
3.5 Cultural and Historic Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 1 3.6 Hyd rology and Water Quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12 3.6.1 S u rface Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12
- 3. 6.2 G round water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.12 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.17 3.7.1 G eol ogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .17 3 . 7. 2 S oil s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .18 3 . 7. 3 S ei s mici ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.18 I
l I
i l
l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 1 3.8 Biota.......................................................................3.18
- 3. 8.1 Terrestrial Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. I 8
- 3. 8.2 Aquatic Resou rces. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.19
- 3. 8. 3 Threatened and Endan gered Species. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.20 3.9 References fo r Section 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3
- 4. EFFLUENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PROGRAMS 4.1 Effluent Monitoring Prog ram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1.1 Gaseous Effluent Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1.2 Liquid Effluent Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 4.2 Environ mental Monitoring Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.2.1 A mbien t Ai r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 8
- 4. 2. 2 S urface Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. I 1 4.2 . 3 S ed i m en t. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. I 1 4.2.4 Vegetati on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 12 4 . 2 . 5 S o i l . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 12 4.2. 6 G ro u n d wat er. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12 4.3 References for Section 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.24
- 5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVE 5.1 Impacts fro m Normal Operation s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.1.1 Non radiological Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.1.2 Radiological Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 5.2 Human Health Impacts from Facility Accidents.................... 5.10 5.2.1 Severity Category I Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.10 5.2.2 Category II Accidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12 5.2.3 Nonradiological A ccidents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.14 5.3 Summary of Environ mental Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.15 5.3.1 Licen se Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16 5.3.2 Impact of Licen se Termination. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.16
- 5. 3. 3 Concl u sion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.17 5.4 References for Section 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.17
- 6. Regulatory Con sultation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Attachment DOSE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY A.1 Impacts from Routine Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.2 A .1.1 Atmospheric Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .2 A.1.2 S urface Water Releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A.7 A.2 Radiological Impacts from Facility Accidents........................ A.7 A.3 Re ferences. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .10 P
i l
4 iii l l
l l
1 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1 The role of the General Electric Nuclear Energy Production Facility in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 1.2 Site map of the G E Wilmington facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 2.1 Schematic of the fuel fabrication process at GE............................. 2.2 2.2 Schematic of the ammonium diuranate (ADU) conversion process....... 2.3 2.3 Schematic of the Dry Conversion Process (DCP)........................... 2.11 3.1 Location of the GE Nuclear Energy production facility near Wilmington , North Carolina. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 3.2 Annual wind rose for Wilmington, North Carolina for the period ,
of 1989 through 1995............................................................3.4 l
3.3 land use in the vicinity o f the G E facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 1 l
3.4 Location of the Rose Hill Plantation grave site at the GE facility......... 3.13 !
3.5 Generalized potentiometric surface of the water-table aquifer............. 3.15 I 3.6 Generalized potentiometric surface of the principal aquifer................ 3.16 4.1 Sampling locations of the North Carolina Division of Radiation 1 Protection su rveillance program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9 4.2 Locations of the GE ambient air monitoring stations....................... 4.10 1 4.3 The G E soil sampling location s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13 I 4.4 Locations of the PL Series of wells around tiw Final Process Waste Water Treatmen t Facili ty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.15 4.5 Locations of the WT Series of wells around the Waste Treatment Fac i l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 16 4.6 Locations of the Z series of wells near the former zirconium sl udge storage area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.18 4.7 Locations of the GE plant water supply wells................................ 4.19 4.8 Locations of the FX Series of wells along the western perimeter of the FMO/FMOX buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 4.9 Locations of the F Series of wells around the FMO/FMOX and Fuel Components Operation (FMO) buildings............................... 4.22 4.10 Locations of the CW Series Wells around the Waste .
Treat m en t Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. 2 3 I iv
. i l
1 a
l LIST OF TABLES l Table Page 3.1 Labor and employment chuacteristics in the Wilmington, North Carolina area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5 l j 3.2 Economic characteristics of maoufacturers in the Wilmington, l No rth Carolina area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 5 ;
4 3.3 Incremental population data within 50 miles of the GE facility........... 3.6 !
- 3.4 Distribution of race surrounding the GE-Wilmington facility............. 3.8 3.5 Median household income distribution for areas surrounding the G E-Wil mington facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 3.6 Land use in the vicinity of GE-Wilmington.. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 3.10 3.7 Pre-operational conditions of the pdncipal aquifer at the GE site......... 3.17 3.8 - Federal threatened and endangered plant species in North Carolina...... 3.21
- 3.9 Thn:atened and endangered animal species in North Carolina............. 3.22
, 4.1 Measured gross alpha activity released to the atmosphere from
- d i sch arge stac ks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2
- 4.2 Nonradiological air effluent data for 199 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . 3 4.3 Effluent monitoring results from the final process basins.................. 4.5 4.4 Average nca-radiological monitoring data at the site dam................. 4.6
, 5.1 Comparison of average monthly sampling results for the treated j process waste discharges to the Northeast Cape fear River with j NP D ES permit cond ition s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 5.2 Annual radiation doses from routine airborne releases at G E-W il m i n g ton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 7 5.3 Annual radiation doses from releases to surface water at G E-Wil min g to n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 8 5.4 S u m mary o f accidents eval uated. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 1
- 5.5 Summary of radiological impacts from potential accidents................ 5.14 6.1 S u m mary of regulatory consultations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 A.1 Meteorologicaljoint frequency data for Wilmington NC from 199 1 t o 199 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . 4 A.2 Atmospheric pathway exposure parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .5 A.3 Population distribution within 50 miles (80 km) of the GE-
- Wil mington facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . 6 i
A.4 Unit dose factors for an MEI located 200 meters south of the fuel
- manufacturing buildings due to routine atmospheric releases............... A.6 A.5 Unit dose factors for the population within 50 miles due to routine at mospheric releases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A .7 A.6 Unit dose factors for the MEI due to acute atmospheric releases of uranium.............................................................................A8 i
V f
a LIST OF TABLES (continued)
A.7 Unit dose factors for the surrounding population due tc, acute atmospheric releases of u raniu m. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. 8 A.8 Source term for the postulated criticality accident scenario................. A.9 1
a 5
i .
d 1
4 4
I Vi
l Abbreviations and Acronyms ADU ammonium diuranate conversion process ALARA as low as reasonably achievable BOD 5 biochemical oxygen demand CaF 2 calcium fluoride CEDE committed effective dose equivalent CEQ Couacil on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations C degrees Celsius COD chemical oxygen demand Ci Cune em centimeter DCP dry conversion process EA environmental assessment EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERPG emergency response planning guidelines
'F degrees Fahrenheit FMO/FMOX Fuel Manufacturing Operation Facility / Fuel Manufacturing Operation Expansion Facility ft feet g gram Gd203 gadolinium oxide GE General Electnc Company HEPA high efficiency particulate air HF hydrofluoric acid HO 2 water ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection in inch kg kilogram km kilometer L liter Ibs pound LLW low-level radioactive waste m meter MCL maximum contaminant level MCLG maximum contaminant level goal MEI maximally exposed individual mi mile mci microcurie mg , milligram mL milliliter Vil
i Abbreviations and Acronyms (Continued)
I j mrem millirem i NAAQ national ambient air quality standard i
N2 nitrogen NCDEM North Carolina Division of Environmental Management NCDRP North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection i NEPA National Environmental Policy Act j NH 3 ammonia NH4 0HF ammonium fluoride NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES national pollutant discharge elimination system
, NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission OSHA Occupational Health and Safety Administration pCi picocurie pH negative log of the hydrogen ion concentration i POG process off-gas ,
ppm parts per million I RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act s second SNM Special Nuclear Material as defined in 10CFR70.4 I Sv Sievert l TCE 1,1,1-trichloroethylene l TEDE total effective dose equivalent j UBC uniform building code 1 UNH uranyl nitrate hexahydrate l UF6 uranium hexafluoride j UO2 uranium dioxide U3 0, triuranium octoxide or " yellow-cake" l UO2F2 uranyl fluoride ;
URLS uranium recovery from lagoon sludge- i URU uranium recovery unit USGS United States Geological Survey y year viii
- . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ __ _ __ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _. ~_
4 1.0 Purpose and Need for Action ;
1.1 Introduction l On May 23,1989, the Nuclear Energy Production facility of the General Electric (GE) Company i requested the renewal of its Special Nuclear Material License (SNM-1097) for 10 years [1]. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) pursuant to the
}
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of l
1%9 [2,3,4]. The purpose of this document is to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed l
1 1.2 Description of Operations The GE facility in Wilmington, North Carolina, is authorized under SNM-1097 and North Carolina State Materials License 65-317-1 to possess nuclear materials for the conversion of low-enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) to uranium dioxide (UO 2), and to fabricate and construct nuclear assemblies for commercial light water reactors. The role of the GE facility in the nuclear fuel cycle is shown in Figure 1.1. The manufacturing operations are supported by uranium scrap recycling, waste treatment and disposal, laboratory operations, and manufacturing technology development. This EA addresses the impacts of all of these activities authorized under SNM-1097.
A site map, showing the location and arrangement of buildings at the GE-Wilmington site, as well as their relative distance from the site boundary is shown in Figure 1.2. The site includes the following major
. facilities: (1) the GE Aircraft Engine facility, (2) the Equipment Manufacturing facility where auxiliary equipment for nuclear reactors is manufactured, (3) the Fuel Components facility where zirconium components for fuel assemblies are manufactured, and (4) the nuclear fuels complex. NRC licensed activities take place within the fuels complex, which includes the Fuel Manufacturing Operation (FMO/FMOX) buildings, the Dry Conversion Process (DCP) building, the Waste Treatment Facility, process basins and other support facilities.
The present application for license renewal involves a proposal to install and operate a Dry Conversion ;
Process (DCP) for the production of UO2 powder from UF., whleh will eventually replace the current i NRC-licensed Ammonium Diurante (ADU) process. The DCP is an environmentally cleaner, technologically improved, and a more efficient conversion process for making UO2 Powder. Although the two processes would initially be operated simultaneously, as the DCP process is brought up to production capacity, it would eventually replace the ADU process.
1.1
. .= ..- .. . - . - .
- c ..
Mining 1 r Milling Ir Fluorination I
1 P Enrichc.:,,. A 1 P ,
UO2Product 2 Conversion to Available to Others Uranium Dioxide 1 r Operations of Fabrication H GeneralElectric Wilmington, N.C.
1 r Assembly
< J i
1 P i Electric Reactor Core i Power Nuclear Power Plant i
1 r Irradiated Fuel i
Figure 1.1 'Ihe role of the General Electric Nuclear Energy Prtxiuction Facility in the Nuclear Fuel Cycle.
1.2
4 LEGEND LEGEND P Parking Area 1 Fuel Manufacturing Operation 2 Fuel Components Operation Roadway Stop Sign N.N.N 3 Aircraft Engine Manufacturing "Y.
f
' A 4 Equipment Manufacturing Operation g Traffic Light .N.N. 5 Final Process Lagoons /
Property Line N.s 6 Waste Treatment Facility 1 7 Warehouse
.N 8 Dry Conversion Process (DCP)
.g.g9 Fuel Manufacturing Operation Expansion
- *N.g.% . ._._._._._._.
T .
- N i Drainage Ditch *,s \*
\
Em loyees w f M e \ 3 \. ~\.
. M.y j water Tank
, - \. #,-
V' ' site Maint. I _/ j -
=6
/ Bldg. MMC f /$,'6 P g .{.
1 '-
Cl}
- I ~
Offee Bldg. P -
g
$ g .. 9,g-u oxs [P uv i _,_ g
[ __
myso q .
F 1 pos
\
rP1\. m
.I i \.
t M 0 W 1200'
-=% - w scale in I-eet ,
f Figure 1.2 Site map of the GE Wilmington facility. j
J .,
1.3 Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is the renewal of the GE License SNM-1097 for 10 years with inclusion o conversion process (DCP). With this renewal, GE will use the DCP as well as the existing ADU proce to convert UF, to UO 2 and will continue to manufacture fuel assemblies for light water reactors.
1.4 Need for the Proposed Action The GE facility performs a necessary service for the commercial nuclear power industry by conv 2
UF. to UO and by fabricating light-water reactor fuel assemblies. Currently, GE is one of four such producers oflow-enriched uranium fuel operating within the United States. Denial of the license renewal for the Wilmington GE facility would require expansion of production capacity at an existing site or transfer of fuel production activities to a new site.
1.5 References for Section 1 1.
GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " License Renewal Application, USNRC Materials License SNM-1097 (NRC Docket No. 70-1113)," May 23,1989.
2.
U.S. Code offederalRegulations, " Regulations for Implementing the Procedure; Provisions of the National Enviromnental Policy Act," Parts 1500-1508, Chapter 5, Title 40, " Protection of Environment."
3.
U.S. Code offederalRegulations, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing Regulatory Functions," Part 51, Chapter 1, Title 10, " Energy."
4 National Environmental Policy Act, as amended,42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq.,1970.
- 5. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " License Renewal Application, USNRC Materials License SNM-1097 (NRC Docket No. 70-1113)," April 5,1996.
1.4
2.0 The Proposed Action Initial operations with enriched uranium at the GE-Wilmington facility were authorized by the United States Atomic Energy Commission (USAEC) on January 13, 1969. The license was subsequently renewed by the U.S. NRC on May 24,1976 and, most recently, renewed on June 29,1984 for a five year term.
On May 23,1989, GE submitted a renewal application, placing the license under the timely renewal provisions of 10 CFR Part 70.38 [1]. This application was subsequently replaced by a revised application, dated April 5,1996 [2].
The proposed action is the renewal of NRC Materials License SNM-1097. This would allow GE to continue production of uranium dioxide (UO 2) powder, pellets, and fuel rods, as well as to continue support operations such as scrap recovery, waste disposal, laboratory analyses, and manufacturing technology development. In addition, GE would begin operation of a new dry conversion process (DCP) foi converting uranium hexafluoride (UF.) to UO ,2 which will eventually replace the current ammonium diuranate (ADU) process. An interim period of one year is estimated where both processes will be concurrently operated, allowing the DCP to gradually come up to production capacity. A schematic of the fuel fabrication process at GE is shown in Figure 2.1.
The alternative to the proposed action is license termination. In this case GE would begin decontamination and decommissioning procedures. Operations at the GE facility are described in the following sections.
This information is drawn mainly from GE's license renewal application dated April 5,1996 and supplemental information dated May 14, 1996 [2, 3].
2.1 Current Operations 2.1.1 Fuel Fabrication At GE, the fuel fabrication process begins with the receipt of low-enriched uranium (less than 5 weight percent 23sU) in the form of uranium hexafluoride. The UF., shipped in Model 30-B cylinders, is converted into UO2 Powder through a multi-step process using water hydrolysis and ammonia precipitation, referred to as the ammorium diuranate process.
A schematic of the ADU process is shown in Figure 2.2. The initial step in the conversion process is the vaporization of UF.. This is accomplished by gently heating the UF. cylinder in a vaporization chamber.
Each vaporization chamber is independently connected to a ventilation duct which may be activated to exhaust the chamber atmosphere to the roof scrubber in the event of unusual leakage from the cylinder.
As the cylinders are heated, vaporized UF. continuously flows through the cylinder pigtail valve to the hydrolysis receiver s ;aem, where it is contacted with water to form hydrolynd uranyl fluoride (UO2 F2 )-
Ammonium hydrc ide (NH.OH)is added to the UO F2 2 Product to precipitate ammonium diuranate l
((NH.)2UO2F2), vh..h is then concentrated in a dewatering centrifuge. The dewatered /.DU precipitate is pumped to a r:uthg, gas-fired kiln, or calciner, where it is heated in an atmosphere of steam, hydrogen, 1 l
2.1
l i
l l
l l
I Receive I UNH From I UF, Uranium Recovered Recovery Ammonia U0 3 Convers. ion Conversion Add Back (UO2 ) (UO2 )
--* U Scrap --+ F Waste : N Waste I --+ HF Waste ,
- -* U Scrap : U Scrap 50 %
HF Sold Powder :
[
Preparation 1
1 1r l
Pellet Pressing
--* U Scrap 1
! o 1 Pellet I Sintering
--* U Scrap
- E Pellet Grinding Gad Rod U Semp Fabncation n Rod Load /
- RodWeld 1
Bundle Bundle Hardware Assembly
]
1 l Package / Ship l Figure 2.1 A schematic of the fuel fabrication process at GE, including the current ADU com'ersion process and the proposed dry conversion process. Uranium scrap (U Scrap), fluoride (F),
nitrate (N) and hyrdrogen fluoride (HF) waste streams are generated in the process.
! 2.2
Shipping Cylinder UF6 1 r
? Circulating Vaporization Air Chamber ,
Heater UF6Vaporization Steam p g Hydrolysis ,
, Steam UOgF2
, 7 NH40H Precipitation c HO2
, 7 ADU Slurry ((NH4 )2U03 7
- H2O)
Fluoride H2O + HF Centrifu9e Waste 2 Stages Treatment System Steam + dissociated NH3+ N2 UO2
- Powder Calciner Storage Figure 2.2 Schematic ot' the ammonium diuranate (ADU) conversion process.
2.3 l
l
and nitrogen to defluorinate the ADU, converting it to UO2powder. Offgases from this process are water-scrubbed and filtered through high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters before venting.
The liquid overflow from the dewatering centrifuge may be recycled, if necessary, to ensure the precipitate is completely removed. Uranium is further removed from the waste ammonium fluoride (NH.OHF) solution through ion exchange. The liquid is then treated to remove residual uranium and other constituents, such as fluoride and ammonia, at GE's Waste Treatment Facility located west of the manufacturing (FMO/FMOX) buildings.
He UO powder 2 produced in the ADU conversion process is blended with proprietary additives in rotary slab-blenders to adjust uranium enrichment and assure the homogeneity of the UO2 powde*'s physical properties. The powder is pressed into pellets, sintered in a reducing atmosphere, and ground to a finished shape. Finished pellets are then inspected befoc., being loaded into zirconium fuel rods. Rejected fuel pellets, as well as miscellaneous scrap uranium, are recovered and recycled. The loaded fuel rods are fitted with end caps, welded, and assembled in bundles. Finally, finished fuel assemblies are temporarily stored at the GE site to await shipment to reactor sites.
In a parallel, but separate, production process, gadolinium oxide (Gd 2 30 ) is mixed with UO powder for the purpose of making neutron absorber fuel. These pellets are kept segregated from the standard UO2 pellets and are later added to fuel rods in specified locations, as prescribed by the work order.
2.1.2 Uranium Scrap Recovery Uranium scrap, which does not meet quality standards or which has been mixed with foreign material, is recycled through scrap recovery operations. GE wrrently processes approximately 175,000 kg of uranium-bearing scrap material each year. The matedst is processed in the Uranium Recovery Unit (URU) of the manufacturir g facility using oxidation followed by dissolution or teaching in nitric acid, and solvent extraction to remove impurities. The resulting uranyl nitrate solution is converted to UO2 powder.
Oxidanon All uranium-bearing scrap from the fuel manufacturing and uranium recovery operations, including wet sludges resulting from waste treatment processes and dry UO 2powder / pellets known to be contaminated with gadolinium, is first oxidized in a muffle furnace. UO powder 2 or pellets not bearing gadolinium are oxidized in a separate, lower temperature furnace and are not mixed with other sources of scrap prior to being transferred to the dissolution process.
l l
2.4 l
l l
l l
l l
l
Dianintinn and i enching After oxidation, uranium from scrap materials is recovered through dissolution or teaching. In the dissolution process, the material is dissolved in nitric acid solution to produce a crude uranyl nitrate solution, which is subsequently pressure filtered. Undissolved solids obtained by filtration are collected, washed, and partially dried before being sent for reprocessing or burial. Nitric acid vapors generated during dissolution are withdrawn from the system via the dissolver off-gas system, collected in the condenser, and drained back to the dissolver.
Uranium scrap materials from the incinerator ash and other uranium recovery operations that contain high amounts of insoluble solids are leached, rather than dissolved, in nitric acid solution to produce a uranyl nitrate solution. This solution is filtered and the solids are collected by filtration or counter-current 1 discharge. (Counter-current discharge refers to a process where the solids in the acid flow channel are propelled forward by paddles which offer little resistance to the counterflow of the nitric acid extractant liquid.) ne filtrates are combined with the liquids from the dissolution process. Nitric acid vapors generated from this process are treated in a similar manner as for the dissolution process.
Concentration Liquid from the dissolution and leaching processes is concentrated by evaporation and is then fed to the solvent extraction system. Concentration is accomplished by passing the solution through a reboiler to evaporate the excess water contained in the various waste streams. The liquid is recycled until the desired uranium concentration is reached, ne resulting water vapors produced are removed and recovered through an overhead condenser and processed at the Waste Treatment Facility.
Solvent Wernction A solvent extraction process is used to remove soluble metal impurities from the uranyl nitrate solution.
The separation of uranium from the solution is achieved by preferential transfer of the uranyl nitrate into - .
an organic phase consisting of tributyl phosphate mixed with n4odecane. The aqueous waste steam, l stripped of uranium, is discharged to the Waste Treatment Facility for additional processing. The organic stream is then scrubbed to remove the trace metal contaminants. The purified uranyl nitrate can be removed from the organic phase by stripping with slightly acidified water. De purified uranyl nitrate solution is then processed through a product concentrator and then stored prior to conversion to uranium
' dioxide on line 5 in the manufacturing facility.
UranyLNitrate ennversinn Uranyl nitrate conversion to UO 2is a continuous uranium process using ammonium hydroxide.
Concentrated uranyl nitrate product from solvent extraction is transferred by enrichment batch from scrap recovery product storage to uranyl nitrate conversion feed storage. Ammonium hydroxide is added to precipitate ammonium diuranate. Following the completion of precipitation, the ammonium diuranate slurry is fed to the dewatering centerfuge. De ADU sludge from the dewatering centrifuge hopper is piped into a dedicated calciner, after which the UO 2powder passes through a passivator system that stabilizes the powder to prevent oxidation. The powder is then collected in 5 gallon containers, weighed, and forwarded to the UO2 Powder treatment process.
i 2.5 i
l i
f a
l .l.3 Liquid Waste Management i
{ This section discusses liquid effluents generated at the site and describes the waste water treatment i processes currently used at the site that are pertinent to the licensed material. Typical liquid effluents include fluoride waste, nitrate waste, low-level waste, storm water runoff, and sanitary waste. He liquid
! effluents are treated as necessary prior to discharge to the Northeast Cape Fear River in order to maintain ;
compliance with effluent discharge permit limits.
. hwide Wmes, Trentment i
j De chemical conversion of uranium hexafluoride to uranium dioxide pmJuces an ammonium fluoride !
waste liquid containing low concentrations of uranium. His waste stream is first treated in the fuel i manufacturing area through an ion exchange process to remove the uranium. Den, the nearly uranium-j free waste stream is piped to the Waste Treatment Facility where it is heated and reacted with lime to
! precipitate calcium fluoride and ammonium hydroxide. The reaction products are pumped to a steam
^
stripping column where ammonium hydroxide is removed and condensed for recycle to the nunufacturing
- process.
I 1
l With the ammonia removed, the aqueous calcium fluoride (CaF2) solution is mixed with flocculent and !
! settled in an overflow clarifier. Clear effluent from the clarifier is pH adjusted and gravity fed to a i j process basin system to allow additional settling of solids prior to eventual effluent discharge. He CaF l j solids from the claritier are filtered and stored in warehouses in preparation for off-site disposal or sale, j depending on the remaining uranium concentration. De filtrate is returned to the clarifier.
RadWante. Stre.ams j Various other radioactive waste streams are generated in the fuel manufacturing operation. The sources of
! these liquids in:lude the analytical laboratory, decontamination facility, incinerator, the URU furnace
! scrubber, general equipment cleaning and maintenknee, and general housecleaning liquids. To precipitate j uranium, these liquids are treated with lime in a reactor tank. The uranium precipitate is then concentrated
- into a sludge by circulation through a filter system. The filtered slurry is centrifuged to remove solids, which are then sent to the scrap recovery operation to recover the uranium. De filtrate is discharged
)
through a receiver and quarantine tanks to the process basin system after pH adjustment.
l 4
Laundry water from protective clothing washing machines is sufficiently low in uranium content to be discharged through a uranium measurement system directly to the final process basins.
hwide and DmAWacta Pream Reming Liquid wastes consisting of essentially uranium-free effluents from the RadWaste and fluoride waste treatment are combined in a mixing tank at the waste treatment facility where the pH is adjusted to 12.5 or higher, which is conducive to precipitation and settling of residual contaminants (such as fluorides). The effluent from the mixing tank then flows to an aeration basin that provides sufficient residence time for precipitated material to seide, before discharge to the final process basins. De effluent of the final process lagoons is pH adjusted to within a range of 6 to 9 to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit and controlled to assure uranium concentra"on in the final l process effluent is less than 5 ppm in one day or less than a daily average of 0.2 ppm for a month.
2.6
1 1
This effluent. along with effluent from sanitary waste treatment, is discharged to a drainage ditch that is hydraulically connected to the site dam and then to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The developed areas of the site were graded during construction so that storm-water runoffis also directed into this channel.
He site dam can be utilized to contain runoff from developed areas as well as to impound material for additional treatment, if necessary, before effluent is released to the river.
Nitute_ Waste Treatment The n trate waste treatment system is an accumulation of radioactive waste streams that are gererated primar:ly from uranyl nitrate conversion, acid flushing of process equipment, and tubing etching processes As with the fluoride waste streams, these liquids are treated with time to precipitate the uranium. This uranium precipitate is concentrated into a sludge by circulation through a filter system.
He filtered slurry then is centrifuged to remove any solids. The solids are sent to scrap recovery to recover uranium. %e filtrate, which is nearly uranium-free, is discharged to an accumulation tank.
In addition to the nitrate waste streams mentioned above, the solvent extraction process of uranium recovery generates a nitrate aqueous waste liquid which is low in uranium and contains various impurities rejected by the solvent extraction process. After analytical confirmation oflow uranium content, the solvent extraction aqueous waste is combined with liquid effluents from the primary nitrate waste treatment and transferred to a 20,000-gallon conical-bottom settling tank at the Waste Treatment Facility.
Lime is added to the settling tanks to adjust pH, and a polymer flocculent is added to enhance settling. The concentrated solids are removed from the bottom of the settling cone and filtered. The filtered solids are collected in cans and retained for recovery or shipped offsite for disposal. The decant liquid is sampled and analyzed to ensure limited uranium content and then pumped to a dedicated basin for storage, aging, and further settling. After analytical confirmation of a uranium concentration of less than 5 ppm, the stored nitrate effluent is transferred offsite to a nearby paper manufacturer where the nitrates provide nutrients in a biological treatment facility.
l I
IIranium Reenvery frnm Imgann hige Uranium is recovered from wet sludge stored in the fluoride, nitrate, and final process basins at the Uranium Recovery From Lagoon Sludge (URLS) facility. De sludge consists mostly of calcium salts contaminated with varying amounts of uranium from the neutralization of acid waste streams with lime.
The sludge in the basins is dredged and transferred to a settling tank, where the supernate is then decanted and returned to the settling basins. De settled sludge is treated through a two step leaching process.
Resultant vanium bearing liquids are fed to a solvent extraction process and solids are contained for off-site disposal.
De uranium-bearing solvent discharged from the extraction process is passed through a strip column to recover the uranium in a carbonate solution. The barren solvent is then fed through a column and returned as regenerated solvent feed to the extraction operation. Uranium is precipitated from the carbonate solution using magnesium hydroxide. The uranium precipitate is stored for reprocessing, and the liquid is sent to the Waste Treatment Facility.
l 2.7 ,
1 1
Lnitary Wacte Treatment Sanitary waste is routed through an extended activated sludge aeration plant, that consists of a collection of drains, a lift station, and a treatment facility. The treated effluent achieves typical water quality standards and is eventually mixed with storm water and treated process waste water before flowing to the Northeast Cape Fear River. Several small septic tank systems also manage wastes at facilities that are remote from the main buildings.
2 From 1971 to 1995, sludge was taken from the extended aeration plant and applied to 2 acres (0.01 km ) of nearby diked land, 'Ihe diked area was originally used as a sanitary waste stabilization lagoon, prior to the installation of the extended aeration facility in 197/. However, on February 17,1995, sludge application to soil ceased with the addition of the sludge drying process at the sanitary waste treatment facility. Sludge is now dried and shipped off-site to Pinewood, South Carolina [4].
RCRA Havardnus Wmate Manmoement Some Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous wastes are generated at the facility which do not contain uranium. 'lhe disposition of these RCRA wastes varies. For example, halogenated solvents from degressing, non-halogenated solvents from cleaning, and sludge resulting from zirconium electroplating and etching operations are stored in drums and shipped offsite to a RCRA-permitted disposal facility. Alkaline cleaners, on the contrary, are pH adjusted and then discharged to the aeration basin in the final process lagoon system.
2.1.4 Solid Waste M ;- ---xt Solid wastes generated from manufacturing processes vary in type and amount. Examples include packaging and construction materials, worn-out tools and equipment, spent process chemicals and oils, and by-products of scrap recovery processes. The waste may be classified as contaminated or uncontaminated.
Unennsaminnend hlid W2ste Non-contaminated solid wastes include coolant concentrates, dye penetrants, scrap metal shavings, plant trash, and scrap wood. Some chemical compounds resulting from processing have beneficial reuse, such as zirconimn metal scrap. Waste that cannot be recycled, given an.y for community uses, or sold for profit is compacted and sent to the county incinerator / landfill.
Ennemminatad klid Waste Contaminated articles, such as paper, rags, mops, plastic, wood, worn-out protective clothing, damaged tools and equipment, and similar materials that are no longer serviceable, are collected in designated containers to prevent loss of contents and spread of contamination. Containers are located at points in the plant where such wastes may occur. 'Ihese materials are segregated into noncombustible and combustible categories in the decontamination facility for further processing.
Non-Combustible Waste. Solid waste that is contaminated with uranium and is non-combustible includes filters from air cleaning systems, pumps, motors, valves, and segments of process piping. The site 2.8
- ~ _ _ - _
generates approximately 364,000 kilograms each year of this material [5]. After a decontamination process to remove uranium compounds, a decision is made either to dispose of the item using burial offsite, or to pursue further decontamination for possible reuse.
Other non-combustible solid wastes generated at the GE facility are calcium fluoride sludge and uranium sludge. Calcium fluoride sludge results from the treatment of ammonium fluoride liquid generated by the ,
ADU process. From 1%8 to 1972, CaF sludge 2 contaminated with uranium was buried on the GE site in
.several shallow trenches, called the Northwest CaF2 Storage Area, and in two shallow basins and an L-shaped trench, called the Central Storage Area, near the site lagoons. Since 1972, the sludge had been accumulating in the lagoons at the Waste Treatment Facility. When the fluoride waste treatment portion of the uranium recovery unit was started, the uranium concentration in the calcium fluoride sludge was reduced to a point that it was possible to dispgse of most of it as a non-uranium bearing material at a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility. For a brief period, the licensee was able to ship some of the CaF sludge to a facility in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania where it was used as a fluxing agent in the steel industry [6, 7].
GE plans to remove the calcium fluoride sludge from the storage areas and the lagoons to onsite storage in new warehouses west of the manufacturing buildings. Excavation of 70,000 cubic feet of calcium fluoride material from the Northwest burial site began in February 1996. Following removal of the CaF2 , GE plans to reduce residual radioactivity to levels suitable for unrestricted use [6,7].
Sludges containing primarily uranium result from the uranium recovery operation. 'Ihese sludges are filter insolubles from solvent extraction feed and precipitated filter cake from treating solvent extraction aqueous waste. These materials are dried, collected, analyzed for uranium content, canned, and then shipped to an NRC-licensed offsite disposal site.
Combustible Waste. Combustible solid waste contaminated with uranium generated in the fuel manufacturing cycle consists of rags, mops, shop paper, plastic, and worn-out protective clothing.
Approximately 182,000 kg of combustible trash is generated by the fuel manufacturing operation each year
[5]. These items are decontaminated to the extent possible and placed in proper containers for on-site incineration. The incinerator is equipped with a scrubber system to treat the offgas prior to discharge to the atmosphere through a stack. The ash generated from the process is cooled and then removed and screened where the ash and metalk!!nkers are separated into 5-gallon metal containers. These containers are scanned for uranium content and transferred to storage. The ash is processed through a uranium recovery process or sent directly to an off-site low-level radioactive waste disposal site.
j 2.1.5 Gaseous Fffluent Control Gases released to the , tmosphere from the GE facility include general ventilation air and process offgases l (POG) from UF. cor.vecsion and UO2 fuel fabrication processes. General ventilation air may contain j uranium particulatr.s emitiu from process enclosures and hoods or dispersed during powder handling operations. POG systems, ine'uding process vessel vents and furnace and calciner offgases, may contain uranium particulates as well as hydrogen fluoride (HF) and ammonia (NH 3) compounds.
2.9 i
The exhausts from the processing areas are tiltered through a double step of high efticiency particulate air (HEPA) filters (99.97% efficient for 0.3 micron particles) to control emissions of uranium particulates. <
ne POG systems consist of appropriate permitted scrubbers, when necessary, and a stage of HEPA filtration or double HEPA filtration. Where grinding, mixing, milling, or open UO 2powder exists, vented hoods and glove boxes are used. All furnace usage takes place in a vacuum.
Air is recirculated by the general ventilation systems from areas of low potential for contamination to arens for higher potential for contamination and HEPA filtered before being returned to work areas. Uranium process areas are maintained at negative pressure relative to the atmosphere and surrounding clean work ,
areas. This same gaseous effluent control approach of air flow control and filtration will be used in the !
dry conversion additions, and emissions are expected to decrease. )
2.2 Dry Conversion Process The dry conversion process (DCP) production plant is currently under construction at the GE-Wilmington facility and planned for completion in 1997. A schematic of this process is shown in Figure 2.3. The
)
DCP is housed in a three-story concrete structure on the north side of the current fuel manufacturing '
facility and comprises three identical parallel production lines for the conversion of uranium hexatluoride to uranium dioxide powder and/or granules, and a hydrofluoric acid treatment unit for the recovery of HF byproduct from the UF. conversion process. l In the DCP, UF. gas is contacted with superheated steam in a static calciner to form uranyl oxytluoride (UO 2F 2). The reaction product is then passed to the second part of the rotating gas-fired calciner through means of an internal screw conveyor. There, superheated steam and hydrogen from dissociated ammonia are constantly injected to reduce the UO F powder to UO2 . The UO 2powder then flows into cooling 2 2 hoppers where nitrogen is introduced in order to initiate cooling of the powder and separate it from the steam.
The UO 2powder produced in the conversion process is sifted, and with any recyclable UO2 that may be available, is mixed to achieve homogenization. The material is then blended with additives to improve the l i
ceramic properties of the fuel, granulated, and transferred to the Pellet Fabrication Plant previously described.
Wastelianagement and Effluent Contrnis Offgases from the conversion process include gaseous hydrofluoric acid (HF), steam, hydrogen, and nitrogen. These gases are evacuated at the top of the static reactor where they are tiltered before being removed to an HF treatment unit. There, production of concentrated hydrofluoric acid solutions (50% by weight HF) is accomplished using a condensation process. Non-condensable gases are washed in two columns promoting further recovery of HF in dilute hydrofluoric acid solutions (less than 10% weight HF). The offgases are scrubbed in two parallel water washing columns which reduces the HF concentration to approximately 1.5 mg/m' before discharged through HEPA filters to the atmosphere.
The concentrated hydrofluoric acid is sold on the chemical market as a byproduct, reducing the amount of fluoride wastes produced. The dilute hydrofluoric acid produced is combined with fluoride waste streams 2.10
4($
,.<I#
'D Ci N o erY qy er
" Sng g, o r
WE Nt qta' Nr 4k 01 90$
fo# 9
{.....
1
\ .
up.#
1......
e,.-- \: --
g' '
g g erPowder 1 -
i t
5 '+ ' e-cone e
i :
13.f,,', .
i Press peed BW i.... \
\
1 \ :
4
..,}
g,3 @tnatic of k DO Nd#
- 2. I 1
---e-.. - -r - - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
.. . - . . . . - = - .-- - - - - - - - . . - --- .-
from maintenance operations and is treated at the Waste Treatment Facility. The volume of fluoride liquid routed to treatment from the DCP is anticipated to be approximately 380 cubic meters per year, resulting in 75,000 kg of calcium fluoride per year. In comparison to the ADU process, the waste fluoride liquid volume will be reduced by almost 100%, and the calcium fluoride generation resulting from treatment will be reduced by approximately 92% [51. The DCP is also expected to result in the reduction of solid combustible waste by 70% and a reduvioa in non-combustible solid waste by 77% [5].
Dry Recycle Ernem With utilization of the DCP, the requirement for wet scrap recovery will be significantly reduced, mainly due to direct dry recycle of U 30 . In the dry recycle process, discrepant powder, clean-out powder, green (or unsintered) pellets, sintered pellets, grinder swarf, and UO2 powder are oxidized in a electrically-heated, rotating tube furnace, which converts the material to U30, and removes organic contaminants.
The material is then milled to reduce the particle size and blended to adjust the enrichment. Finally, the recycled U30, is added back into the homogenizer in the DCP.
Alternatively, UO may 2 be blended in the dry recycle area and then transferred for feed to the wet scrap recovery process previously described. In this case, a nitrogen blanket will be used to prevent oxidation of the material while blending. The exiting nitrogen will be sent through a cyclone separator and a HEPA filter before it enters the plant exhaust.
l 2.3 References for Section 2
- 1. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " License Renewal Application, USNRC Materials License l SNM-1097,"(NRC Docket No. 70-1113), May 23,1989.
- 2. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " License Renewal Application, USNRC Materials License SNM-1097,"(NRC Docket No. 70-1113), April 5,1996.
- 3. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, "GE-Wilmington Supplemental Information to the Application for Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-1097," (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 14,1996.
- 4. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, "1996 Supplement to Environmental Report,"(NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1996.
- 7. NRC Inspection Report No. 70-1113/95-04, June 2,1995, 2.12
3.0 Affected Environment 3.1 Site Description i
The GE-Nuclear Energy Production facility is located approximately 6 miles (9.7 km) north of the city l of Wilmington, North Carolina, in New Hanover County, as shown in Figure 3.1. The facility lies on l 1664 acres (6.7 km2 ) of land along U.S. Highway 117. New Hanover County is located in southeastern North Carolina on the southern coastal plains between the Atlantic Ocean on the east, the Cape Fear River on the west, an<i Pender County on the north. 'Ihe Atlantic Ocean is approximately 10 miles (16.1 km) east and 26.4 miles (42.5 km) south from the facility. The surrounding terrain is typical of coastal Carolina with an elevation that averages less than 40 feet (12.2 m) above mean sea level, and is characterized by level to gently rolling terrain consisting of heavy forest, rivers, creeks, lakes, and swamps or marsh lands. Approximately 182 acres of the southwest portion of the GE-Wilmington property are classified as swamp forest.
The environment surrounding the GE facility, including the climate, geology, hydrology, demography, and j historic resources of the Wilmington area will be discussed in the following sections. This information is j mainly drawn from GE's 1989 Envirnnmental Renort and 1996_Supnlemental Fnvironmental Renorr, which were submitted to the NRC in support of license renewal [1,2].
3.2 Meteorology and Air Quality 3.2.1 Meteorology ;
The climate of the southern coastal region where the GE facility is located is unusually mild for its latitude because ofits maritime location. Generally, summers are warm and humid and winters are short and mild i resulting in an average annual temperature of approximately 17.5'C (63.5"F). During the summer, cool ocean breezes arrive early in the afternoon and moderate the temperatures inland. As a result, excessively hot temperatures are rare. From 1958 to 1987, the highest average monthly temperature was 26.6*C (79.9'F) and occurred in July. The highest temperature recorded in the Wilmington area was 40"C ;
(104.0*F)in June 1952.
During winter, many polar air masses reach the Atlantic coast, but the cold temperatures are significantly reduced by warm ocean air and by the effects of the Appalachian Mountain Range to the west. As a result, the winters are short and mild. The coldest temperatures generally occur in January and average ;
7.7*C (45.9"F). In winter, the temperatures rarely stay bel,ow freezing throughout an entire day. The ;
most severe cold experienced in the region since 1870 was -15'C (5*F) in February 1899. !
l Precipitation is plentiful and distributed fairly evenly throughout the year with an annual average of 129.3 cm (50.92 in). The largest amount of rainfall occurs in summer, principally through thunderstorms.
Thunderstorms commonly yield heavy bursts of rainfall and occur one out of three days during the summer months of June through August. The highest average monthly total of 18.22 cm (7.41 in) of rain occurs in July. In winter, precipitation is primarily the result of large, low-pressure systems that yield steady rainfall for 1 or 2 days at a time. From 1958 to 1987, the lowest average monthly rainfall was 6.6 cm (2.61 in) and occurred in November. A measurable amount of snowfall is rare, and hail occurs less than once per year.
3.1
i 1 1
i ColHity, l
! u/ Castle Hayne i
M I l #M/ New Hanover j
i
% ul ca==tv
{
l f
i 17 i .i
)
! - i (
i I
I l IF( Wihmington
'[j 1 -
i i WrightsvWe
! i n ach 3
i 4
N
- e
- o 5,
g' e i \
9 l
Brunswick County g/ b Atlandc Scaan i
i
- \\
i , , .
Carolina
- 4* j i '
Beach :
i l l
j 4
- Figure 3.1 Location of the GE Nuclear Energy Production facility near Wilmington, North Carolina.
)
i i
! 3.2 l
l
.- l l
l l
A wind rose for the 1989 to 1995 period is shown in Figure 3.2. The predominant wind directions m Wilmington, North Carolina, are from the southwest and northeast. The mean hourly wind speed in the vicirdty of the site is 7.9 miles per hour (mph) with a range of 5.9 to 12.5 mph March is usually the
" windiest" month (average monthly speed of 9.1 mph), while August winds are generally the calmest (average monthly speed of 6.7 mph) based on data from 1989 to 1995.
Severe weather conditions in the Wilmington area include tornadoes and hurricanes. Tornadoes occur l frequently in North Carolina. In fact, between 1950 and 1988, North Carolina averaged 12 tornadoes a year. However, in New Hanover County, only 6 tornadoes were reported between 1950 and 1988. The closest tornadoes to affect the Wilmington area were at Oak Island in 1985 and in Onslow County in 1986 and 1988. Oak Island is located about 30 miles (48.3 km) south of the GE facility and the Onslow County I tornadoes occurred about 80 miles (128.7 km) east-northeast of the facility. l l
The Wilmington, North Carolina area is subject to the effects of coastal storms and occasional hurricanes !
because ofits proximity to the Atlantic Coast. These storms affect the North Carolina coastal area an l average of one to three times per year and produce high winds, above normal tides, and heavy rains. The probability that the Wilmington area will be directly hit by a hurricane in any given year is about 6 percent. However, on average, a hurricane strikes the area with sufficient force to damage inland property only once every 10 years.
The strongest winds recorded in the Wilmington area were in September 1958 during Hurricane Helene.
inland wind speeds averaged 88 mph with gusts to 135 mph. The plant buildings on the GE site are designed to withstand sustained winds of 125 mph, with substantial margins of safety. The highest tide 4
recorded in the Wilmington area was caused by Hurricane lone in September 1955. The tides were as I much as 10 feet above normal. Developed areas of the GE site are located on the eastern portion of the l property, which is well above the 100-and 500-year floodplain and 35 feet above mean high tide [3].
3.2.2 Air Quality Air quality is measured against the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The U.S.
Environmental Protection. Agency (EPA) established the NA.AQS primary standards to protect human health and secondary standards to protect against damage to the environment and facilities. The pollutants regulated under NAAQS are total suspended particulates, defined as inhalable particulate matter with an l aerodynamic diameter less than 10 microns; ozone; nitrous oxides; sulfur oxides; carbon monoxide; and i lead.
The Wilmington area is considered by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM) and the EPA to be an " attainment area" with regard to air pollution, meaning that air quality parameters are within ambient air quality standards throughout the year. A nearly constant sea breeze and the area's flat landscape help keep the Wilmington area from suffering urban pollution by dispersing pollutants and reducing their concentrations.
3.3
' N
- ~
/ \
/ /
- \
/ ' .- =. x \
/ /
/ / x \ \
/
/ /
\ \ \
/ _
\ a \,, "'
/ / \ws l
/ e w l
/
\
l A _/
3
" )s; F5 m i
l E
\ / l
\ , /
/
\
\ \
N
~ sl-
/ / /
\
{ ,
/
/
-/ / )
< g
~~
/ ;
_s /
N /
% /
S CALM WINDS 10.49% WIND SPEED (KNOTS)
NOTE: Frequencies +2I 7 10 11-16 E7 21 indicate direction 13 4-6 und is .
1 Hgure 3.2 Annual wind rose for Wilmmgton, North Carolina for the period of 1989 through 1995. The source is the National Oceanic and Atmospleric Administration (NOAA), National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.
3.4 i
a 3.3 Demography and Environmental Justice 3.3.1 Demography The GE facility is located in New Hanover County, North Carolina, approximately six miles north of the city of Wilmington. Tables 3.1 and 3.2 list various labor and employment characteristics for the area based on the 1990 Census information and more recent data compiled by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census in 1995. More than 40% of the county-wide labor force is concentrated in the city of Wilmmgton. The trade sector (wholesale and retail) is the largest employment sector in the Wilmington area economy, accounting for 27% of labor employment. The manufacturing sector, including the GE plant, is the second largest employer accounting for 14% or 3984 workers.
The incremental 1990 population distribution within a 50 kilometer radius of the site is presented in Table 3.3. The data are presented as a function of 16 directional sectors and 16 radial distances. The total population within an 80-kilometer (50 mile) radius of the site is approximately 327,007, with approximately half the population (120,284) residing in the city of Wilmington.
Table 3.1 labor and employment characteristics in the Wilmington, North Carolina area.
Labor Employment and Earnings Characteristics Wilmington City New Hanover County total labor force 27,665 63.692
% change in labor force (1980-1990) 43 % 31 %
% unemployment rate 7.3 % 5.9%
% employment in manufacturing (1990) 14.4 % 15.8 %
% employment in trade 27.2 % 26.1 %
% employment in finance, insurance, and real 17.3 % 17.7 %
estate: health services: and public admin.
Table 3.2 Economic cnaracteristics of manufacturers in the Wilmington, North Carolina area.
Economic Characteristics of Regional Manufacturing New Hanover County total establishments 154
% of establishments with 100 or more employees 14.3 %
l value of shipments $2.004.5 million l value-added by manufacturers $1,009.! ullion total firm earnings $323 million all manufacturing employees 11,100 annual payroll of manufacturing employees $285 million i production workers in manufacturing 7,500 annual wages of production workers $173 million 3.5
t Table 3.3 Incremental population data within 50 miles of the GE facility.
Distance in miles Sector 0.6 - 0.9 0.9 - 1.6 1.6 - 2.2 2.2 - 3.1 3.1 - 4.3 4.3 - 6.2 6.2 - 9.3 9.3-15.5 15.5-21.8 21.8-31.1 31.1-43.5 43.5-49.7 Total N 3.8 11.4 19 38 76 152 380 1,178 1,748 4,902 6,916 4,332 19,756 NNE 3.8 11.4 19 38 76 152 380 1,178 1,748 4,902 6,916 4,332 19,756 NE 3.8 11.4 19 38 76 152 380 1,178 1,748 4,902 34,944 21,888 65,340 ENE 3.8 11.4 19 38 76 152 380 1,178 1,748 4,902 6,916 4,332 19,756 E 18 55.2 92 184 368 736 1,840 5,704 0 0 0 0 8,997 ESE 18 55.2 92 184 368 736 1,840 5.704 8,464 0 0 0 17,461 SE 33 99 165 330 660 1,320 3,300 22,940 0 0 0 0 28,847 SSE 33 99 165 330 660 1,320 3,300 22,940 0 0 0 0 28,847 S 33 99 165 330 660 1,320 3,300 22,940 0 0 0 0 28,847 .
SSW 7 21 35 70 140 280 700 2,170 3,220 0- 0 0 6,643 SW 7 21 35 70 140 280 70G 2,170 3,220 0 0 0 6,643 -
w WSW 7 21 35 70 140 280 700 2,170 3,220 0 0 0 6,643 ;
b W 5.3 15.9 26.5 53 106 212 530 1,643 2,438 6,837 9,646 6,042 27,555 WNW 5.3 15.9 26.5 53 106 212 530 1,643 2,438 6,837 9,646 6.042 27,555 NW 33 99 165 330 660 1,320 3,300 10,230 1,518 4,257 6,006 3,762 31,680 NNW 33 99 165 330 660 1,320 3,300 10,230 1,518 4,257 6,006 3,762 31,680 TOTAL 248 745.8 1,243 2,486 4,972 9,944 24,860 115,196 33,028 41,796 86,996 54,492 376,007 1.0 mile = 1.6 kilometers Source: Reda, R. J. of GE Nuclear Energy, Letter to T. Ikenberry of Pacific Northwest Laboratories, September 18,1996 (Docket 70-1113).
- i i
L
1 l
3.3.2 EnvironmentalJustice l
The software program, LandView, was used to identify minority or economically distressed populations surrounding the GE-Wilmington site in order to determine the possibility of environmental justice issues. ;
Environmental justice is the process of identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high ;
and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations (4].
LandView is an EPA / Census / National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration geographic information system that contains demographic and economic data from the U.S. Census Bureau [5]. Using the LandView software, information on race and income were identified for small areas, called census block groups, surrounding the GE facility. Block groups are usually small areas bounded on all sides by visible features such as streets, roads, streams, and railroad tracts and by invisible boundaries such as city and county limits. 'Ihe block group is the smallest area for which the U.S. Census Bureau has tabulated income data. The following information is available for each block group: the number of persons; the median household income; the number of persons who reported their race as White, Black, Native American, Asian. or Other; and the number of persons who reported their ethnicity as Hispanic [6].
1 Tables 3.4 and 3.5 contain information on the area surrounding the GE facility. Only block groups whose centroids are within four miles of the facility were considered. This information is from the 1990 census.
Table 3.4 shows the percentage of people by race and ethnicity in each census block, as well as in the state and county. Table 3.5 shows the median household income for each area. The GE-Wilmington facility is -
located in census block 0011500-1 in New Hanover County.
An environmental justice potential occurs if an area's percent minority or the percent economically distressed households are at least 20% higher than the county or state level. The percentage of blacks in 1 block group 0011500-5 is 36.5% higher than in the state of North Carolina and 38.5% higher than in New Hanover County. This block group is located southwest of the facility and the cendoid of the area is approximately three miles from the plant. Block group 011602-4, southeast of the facility, also has a ;
relatively large black population, which is 14.9% higher than the state black population and 16.9% higher than the New Hanover County black population. The possibility of disproportionately high human health or environmental effects to these minority populations due to facility operations will be considered in section 5.
l 3.7
Table 3.4 Distribution of race surrounding the GE-Wilmington facility.
I AREA WHITE BLACK NATIVE ASIAN OTHER HISPANIC
% % AMERICAN % % %
i North 75.6 22.0 1.2 0.8 0.5 1.2 Carolina New 78.9 20.0 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.8 l Hanover l County Block 88.5 10.5 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.2 Group l 0011500-1 l (GE- site)
Block 89.8 9.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.7 Group l
0011500-2 Block 94.3 3.0 1.9 0.4 0.4 .l.7 l Group 0011500-3 Block 98.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.0 Group 0011500-4 Block 40.9 58.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 Group 0011500-5 Block 84.1 14.1 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.2 Group 0011602-3 Block 62.5 36.9 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.1 Group 0011602-4 l
l 3.8 l _ _ . . . . _
Table 3.5 Median household income distribution for areas surrounding the GE-Wilmington facility.
AREA Median AREA Median Ilousehold flousehold INCOME INCOME North $26,647 Block $27,863 Carolina Group 0011500-4 New $27,320 Block $29,012 Hanover Group County 0011500-5 Block $31,719 Block $38,036 Group Group 0011500-1 0011602-3 (GE-Wilmington)
Block $33,419 Block $23,250 Group Group 0011500-2 0011602-4 Block $37,500 Group 0011500-3 3.4 Land Use Approximately 182 acres (73.7 hectares) of the site property, which borders on the Northeast Cape Fear River, are classified as swamp forest. Most of the land within a five-mile radius of the GE-Wilmington site is wooded and undeveloped, as shown in Figure 3.3. Farms, single-family houses, and some commercial activities are located along or near U.S. Highway 117. Some residential development in the area is in the form of subdivisions, with the number ranging between 5 to 100 homes per subdivision.
Within 5 miles (8.1 km) of the site are a few churches,3 public schools,2 private schools, a county medium retentica facility, small commercial establishments, and the county airport. Vicinity land use is summarized ir. Table 3.6.
3.9
Table 3.6 Land use in the vicinity of GE Wilmington. j Land Use Catecory City of Wilmington Unincorporated Area Percent of Acres Percent of Acres Utilized Developed und Utilized Developed Land Residential Total: 5,808 37.7 11,100 56.I Single-Family 4,788 31.1 9,510 48.1 Multi-Family 1,020 6.5 224 1.1 Mobile Homes 0 0.0 1,366 6.9 Others & Institutional 1,620 10.5 635 3.2 Commercial 1,314 8.6 857 4.3 Transportation, 4,007 26.0 2,900 14.7 Utilities, and Communication Industrial 1,258 8.8 1,932 9.7 Recreational Total: 1,302 8.4 2,372 12.0 Commercial 712 4.6 1,075 5.4 Public 590 3.8 1,297 6.6 Total Developed 15,408 100.0 19,786 _ 100.0 Undeveloped 3,369 75,437 Water 511 18.982 Total Acres 19,308 114.205 3.5 Cultural and Historic Resources The Wilmington area has a rich historical background, including French and Spanish explorations, an English settlement, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, and the influx of immigrants from European countries. The city of Wilmington was founded in 1732, incorporated as a city in 1740, and named in honor of the Earl of Wilmington, Spencer Compton.
Historical sites and national landmarks include Moore's Creek Battleground, Fort Fisher, and Green Swamp. Moore's Creek Battleground is a national park near Wilmington, which commemorates a small but decisive battle between Loyalists and North Carolina colonists in 1776. Fort Fisher, located 30 miles I (48.3 km) south of Wilmington at the mouth of the Cape Fear River, protected the Wilmington port for the Confederacy during the Civil War, in addition, Green Swamp, located 25 miles (40.2 km) southwest of GE, is the closest natural landmark that is listed on the National Register of Natural Landmarks [7].
The residential Historic District of Wilmington is currently being rebuilt to restore mansions dating from 1771 to the late 19th century. This progressive effort is being conducted to set apart the older part of Wilmington from the more urban and modern areas. Currently, tive historic sites in Wilmington are listed on the National Register of Historic Places [7].
3.10
~
ll I
E k e Castle Hayne f' '-
Y
-N-
/ '
j Project Area f*
/.# %'%.
F/
\,
g s.
W i y,
f
' ^ '
s i
tig; ,, 4.. ;1H,
'I %.
- . It
$. 5 I I I 1 Mlle g
5 + a "
l'
- =
j 1lHh.
c 8. l' *1:
? 9 t -
} ,n 1l 1
N l
,n,,.
[ hi, , Wrightsboro ' S ngle Family Flesidential s ; 'i,. ' .,
Multi-Family Residential
', '"" ',.
;;, s Mobile Homes un
- g. . . 3 Office & Institutional
, y C ,-
g,y, Commercial it -" j0 1 meade Transp., Utilities, & Hi to-
<g "'
' A z ' h' ,;
Communication
.l!
;;; ., . ,'"' '88 lIll
'T '
> Industrial
.,,n ,>
T.
, ; gy mith . Public & Commerical Rec.
., N Figure .l.3 Land use in the vici.aty of the GE facility.
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____i_____- __ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - ____. _
A rice plantation called Rose Hill was originally located on the GE-Wilmington property and a grave site still remains (Figure 3.4). This sensitive area was not disturbed during plant construction and no future plans are underway to encroach on this area. GE has permitted archeological investigations in sensitive areas of the site and provided permission to visit the grave site. 3.6 IIydrology and Water Quality 3.6.1 Surface Water New Hanover County is a peninsula that is bounded by the Atlantic Intracoasta! Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean on the east and the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers on the west and north. The 2 2 Northeast Cape Fear River has a total drainage area of approximately 4507 km (1740 mi ) and an average gradient of 0.27 ft/ mile (5.1 cm/km). The river flows from its source,160.9 km (100 miles) to the north in Wayne County, and empties into the main fork of the Cape Fear River 10.3 km (6.4 miles) south of the GE facility. Downstream of the contluence, the river widens into an estuary that leads to the Atlantic Ocean 32.2 km (20 miles) further south. Tributaries of Northeast Cape Fear River consist of several small l creeks. Prince George Creek, one of the largest tributaries of the Northeast Cape Fear River, is located about 8.1 km (5 miles) north of the site and has a drainage area of 6.2 km2 (2.4 mi 2). ; 1 The Northeast Cape Fear River receives surface storm runoff and treated waste water discharges from the plant site through an eftluent stream channel. On the eastern part of the site, some of the storm water empties into Prince George Creek. Along the site boundary with the Northeast Cape Fear River, the water is brackish and has a tidal range of 0.3 to 1.52 m (1 to 5 feet). The river is 76 m (250 ft) wide adjacent to the site property. Chemical parameters of river water were obtained by GE in 1968, before operation of the plant began. The data showed the river water was generally acidic with a pH of 6.7 to 6.9. Concentrations, occurring naturally, of ammonia, nitrate, tiuoride, chromium, copper, and nickel were low. No communities or ! individuals downstream of the GE-W site use the river for a fresh water supply. The city of Wilmington ) receives its drinking water supply from the main channel of the Cape Fear River approximately 20 miles ! (32.2 km) upstream from the confluence between the main channel and the Northeast Cape Fear River. l 1 3.6.2 Groundwater I l l Two primary aquifers lie beneath the GE Wilmington site, the shallow " water table" aquifer and the I underlying principal equifer. The water table aquifer is contained primarily in permeable surficial deposits of tertiary and quaternary sand approximately 3 to 6 m (10 to 20 ft) below land surface. In the eastern (developed) portion of the site, this upper sand aquifer is generally separated from the underlying principal aquifer by 1.5 to 4.6 m (5 to 15 ft) of sitt and clay deposits that form a confining layer. The principal aquifer is a contined aquifer that lies within the Peedee and Castle Hayne Formations. The most productive units within these formations are consolidated limestone and sandstone. Where the contining layer is thin or absent, the principal aquifer is considered to be semi-contined.
'lhe source of the water table aquifer is direct recharge from infiltration. The shallow aquifer discharges primarily into streams and drainage canals, but also discharges into underlying aquifers in some areas.
Coarse sands within the surficial deposits provide moderate to large yields and the tiner-grained deposits produce small yields. The shallow aquifer is a source of fresh water for residential, commercial, and 3.12
* .. 1
\ l i.1 f.)
}ra# . _.-), gl }
, 4 j ^J. .. l I I .\1 $U, l b ,e' dJu l ,
/
/ lhl.!RM -
= 5}
7. I---g i 5
./ L a. /W(F[rhd!pi__! :
1 l
/ ! ; e >p %.
- ~ i
./
pl i
'. O . ,
/ JJ{
c
/ !
h l$ I
}f s ban A !! P}E ,
)
' l t
/
/
\.[d }l
,$" N1!'s c 'N
*/ l
// 7
%wg ' .,
l 'N, l
\
1
%.k IN -
, N S
g
/ 15
!3 a
sN;' L \ z }/'/
.i ',;
~ ~\ _N,l'j/
'w. //
f ~ ~
/*'
gl '\.
\, --
7 ' s \ t
\. & \ .j -
i [ '\.
\ !
(-w. ra i
,/
Figure 3.4 Location of the Rose Hill Plantation grave site at the GE facility. 3.13 l
l l t ! mdustrial facilities in the area. l l Figure 3.5 shows a potentiometric surface representation of the water table aquifer. The site effluent i l i stream channel significantly influences groundwater movement at fs site. Groundwater in the water table l aquifer flows generally from the north and the south toward the effluent strea:r , which discharges into the Northeast Cape Fear River to the west or percolates into the principal aqui'er where the ditch penetrates i through the confining layer. l The contours indicate mounds under die final process basins and the waste treatment basins. The contours also indicate a high groundwater elevation in the vicinity of the FMO/FMOX buildings. Thi. may represent a groundwater divide along the southern boundary of the site or may be due, in pan, to historic leaks from slab tanks containing uranyl nitrate solutions located in the fuel manufacturing building. Iraks occurred from the mid to late 1970's until discovery in 1991. GE's corrective actions and the imructs or the leaks on groundwater quality are discussed in 2ctions 4 and 5. Groundwater level data collected from the principal aquifer indicates that one source of groundwater is recharge from an upland area. This upland area is located about 9.7 km (6 miles) southeast of the site near Murraysville. From the recharge area, groundwater within the principal aquifer flows to the north and west toward and discharges to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The upper portion of the principal aquifer in the region contains fresh water. However, chloride concentrations increase with depth and near j the effluent discharge area. I Figure 3.6 shows a potentiometric surface representation of the principal aquifer. As a result of pumping at the supply wells, a cone of depression exists around these wells. The pumping it. duces radial groundwater hw towards the center of the cone of depression. Cones of depression probably occur. around oter individual supply wells during pumping conditions. The contours also ladicate that groundwa'er flows toward the Northeast Cape Fear River along the western part of the site. The flow velocity v nhin the principal aquifer was estimated at about 91 m/ year (300 ft/ year) with greater velocities withir, the cene of cep==ian. Groundwater quality of the principa! aquifer was determined in 1968 before the GE plant was built. Groundwater samples were analyzed for a standard series of constituents and the results are summarized in : Table 3.7. ; i 1 1 t 4
- i t 3.14 l l
, l l
.-n * .d i
u.i r; e- : I
%:]v ,
o !. p g
/ '
[ #j/!Af{I!1!djl ijj
%.1,E
@T8db -
i { F . I " Iw @
. 'Q ,: .
a \ i -
- a 1 .
, 1 N, !
i . I
/ (' i e
8 i
\ '
- , \
\' ~~N V /g e i
'6 -
M / I [ 1 itIs i E
\ II
. O I * '
x.1 3.f: ( (( n 3.15 l
A _ , ,*4.--4 ' _q,jg=.v.e +^'*"#
- o. .
- I L
i
)
.t \
- sj"h .I i
iv,' L !
!! / s 9.3 g :
3
/ f. Q (/\ ( fi g
}] ] 1
- / de . .
t , il
/<4dif,l , . . . b>i a f
4' M 8 .
.n a w 3 .
a s \ ' I 1 [ . 5 { i
\ *
( 1 J' s e
, ,o y
.f'-
f
\ ; )
)Y
~
e\ .
)
;Ik
\ . \t i
lI L.. ' I ( i - 1 s .. N -J t i,l, s l 1 g
.. f h ,}
4-3.16
-, ,- 0 l Table 3.7 Pre-operational conditions of the principal aquiler at the GE site [1]. ' Concentration
' Parameter Concentration Parameter ppm ppm chloride 40 calcium 100 i
.0.09
~ sulfate 1 iron ! nitrate 0 magnesium 7 total hardness 107-123 sodium 57 i alkalinity 0 manganese 0.01 pH 7.3 bicarbonate 132 total solids 200 carbonate 0 f:ee carbon dioxide 13 hydroxyl 0 silica 17 , 3.7 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity The GE site lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. In southeastern North Carolina, the coastal plain slopes gently to the east and southeast and has relatively flat topography. The coastal plain has meandering rivers and streams with broad, marshy flood plains. 3.7.1 Geology in New Hanover County, the Castle Hayne formation lies unconformably above the Peedee Formation. The Peedee Formation, which is approximately 213.4 m (700 ft) thick, consists of uncorsolidated sand (olive green to gray in color) and silt (greenish gray to dark gray in color) and massive black clay interbedded with consolidated calcareous sandstone and impure limestone. The Peedee Formation contains four water-bearing units in the sand, one in the uppermost sand bed and three in underlying sand beds. The uppermost aquifer contains fresh water and the three lower units contain brackish to saline water. Castle Hayne rocks consist of shell and limestone, sandy shell conglomerate, siliceous limestone, and shell beds. ; The Castle Hayne and Peedee Formations are undifferentiated at the GE site because of indistinguishable ) lithologies between the formations. These formations comprise the principle aquifer beneath the site, I which is differentiated from the overlying shallow aquifer. As discussed in subsection 2.6.2, the shallow I aquifer is contained in permeable surficial deposits of tertiary and quaternary sand, and in the eastern portion of the site, is generally separated from the underlying principle aquifer by sitt and clay deposits. 3.17 l l
a , 3.7.2 Soils Soils at the GE site are composed of the Wrightsboro-Onslow-Kenansville association and the Dorovan-Johnston association. The Wrightsboro-Onslow-Kenansville association occurs in the eastern portion of the site where plant facilities are located. The Dorovan-Johnston association occurs in the western portion of the site adjacent to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The eastern-most soils, which have somewhat poorly-drained to well <! rained characteristics, consist of fine sandy loam, loamy fine sand, and fine sand on the surface. The subsoil consists of sand clay loam, clay, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, and l clay loam. In the western portion of the GE site, the soils drain very poorly due to a muck, loam, or sandy loam surface layer and a muck or sand subsoil. 3.7.3 Seismicity North Carolina lies within an intraplate region of the North American tectonic pbte and has relatively low seismic activity. However, seismic activity is moderately high compared te other intraplate regions, which produces large earthquakes. He Wilmington area has had nine reported earthquakes between 1800 and the present. The largest earthquakes to affect the area occurred in 1884,1886, and 1958. The 1884 and 1958 l Wilmington area earthquakes rated a 5 on the Modified Mercalli Scale that classifies earthquakes according l to damage potential. The 1886 earthquake occurred in Charleston, South Carolina, and was the largest earthquake ever reported for the Atlantic seaboard. It had a rating of 10 in Charleston, which translated to a 4- to 5-level event in the Wilmington area. The Charleston earthquake has been the subject of intense study because of its significance in terms of earthquake hazard. This earthquake has not been related to any known geologic structure. Recent, historic, and paleoseismic data indicate that earthquakes rated higher than 7 occur 3 times every 200 years over the entire Atlantic Seaboard stretching 3000 km (1864 miles ). This rate converts to one earthquake event per 1,000 km (621 mi) per 1000 years. The GE Wilmington site is located in Zone 1 of the Uniform Building code (UBC 1973). The code requirements indicate that structures in Zone 1 must withstand intensities of 5 and 6 on the Modined Mercalli Scale without receiving damage earthquake. Earthquakes produced by small faults along the Atlantic seaboard have the potential to cause damage, even if the faults do not reach the surface [8]. 3.8 Biota Needham reported that swamp forests of the Northeast Cape Fear River system contain a very high diversity of bird life that is significant in maintaining the biotic diversity of the area [9]. In 1989 GE indicated that the area waters are important nursery areas for commercially valuable species of fish. 3.8.1 Terrestrial Resources A wide diversity of natural and man-made habitats exists within the boundaries of the GE site and the surrounding lower Cape Fear region. The presence of marshes, swamps, and upland vegetation have permitted 13 major biotic communities to develop. Of these communities, five are the result of human activity and include old fields, borrow pits, ditch areas, operational areas, and one that had been planted 3.18
e with slash pine (Pinus elliottli), a non-native species. The remaining eight communities are natural and are - composed of species native to the region. These are Upland Pine-Hardwood Forest, lengleaf Pine-Turkey Oak-Wire Grass Complex, Pine-Shrub Wire Grass Savannah, Pond Pine Pocosin, Swamp Forest, Marsh, Open Water, and Woodland Pond. These habitats contain a wide ranging collection of plant and animal species. At the present time, the dominant large mammal onsite is the white-tailed deer, which is estimated by GE, in their 1989 Environmental Report, to be present at a population level of up to 1 deer per 15 acres (6.1 hectares) of land. The report states that this level may increase when the populations move from open grazing and grassy herbaceous areas to the oak dominated forested areas in the fall and winter. While occasional reported sightings of the black bear have been noted by the GE staff, more common observations of squirrels, opossums, raccons, mink, bobcats, mice, bats, muskrats, otters, frogs, toads, and snakes have been made. The wide diversity of habitats in the area also permit it to be occupied by several resident and transitory bird species during the year. GE states that based on their observations, there have been no apparent changes in the numbers and types of these species [1]. 3.8.2 Aquatic Resources Aquatic biota on the site property occur in three primary areas. These areaa are the effluent stream channel, swamp forests, and marshes. Along the eftluent channel, kno en as Brickyard Creek, the bank and berm are stable, allowing colonization of wildlife, amphibians, rept les, birds, insects, and vegetation. The signtlicance of the effluent channel as an aquatic community is important because the channel receives treated effluent from plant operations. Brickyard Creek was a small, natural creek that was enlarged during development of the site. The creek flows through a swamp forest and marsh in the western portion of the site property and is host to many aquatic organisms. Only a few aquatic research studies have been conducted in the lower Northeast Cape Fear River. At least ' 19 species of marine tinfish and 3 species of invertebrates, that have commercial value, use the lower Northeast Cape Fear River and its tributaries as nursery areas. Shallow waters had the highest diversity of species, and the deep waters contained higher numbers of a given specimen, but fewer species types. Finfish species were found to correspond with particular zone types, such as croakers on the bottom in deeper waters, menhaden near the water surface, and killifish in shallow waters. The distribution of fishes was consistent wi.h the distribution of major food organisms (such as, plankton and benthos invertebrates) on which they feed Major groups of food organisms included amphipods, copepods, insects, and ostracods. ; i I A study of young clupeids showed the Northeast Cape Fear River was used heavily by American shad, blueback herring, and atewife as a nursery area. The habitat distribution of American shad was reported as the lower 108 km (67 mi) of the Northeast Cape Fear River between its mouth and the North Carolina j Highway 24 bridge. The distribution of blueback herring stretched for about 71 km (44 mi) upstream l from the river's mouth. Alewife resides from the mouth of the Northeast Cape Fear River to about 40 km i (25 mi) upstream. The Atlantic sturgeon, which repopulates in the Cape Fear River system, is a rare species in North j Carolina. Many specimens have been caught in the Cape Fear and Northeast Cape Fear Rivers and have ! ranged from 0.09 kg (3 oz) to 90.7 kg (200 lbs) in size. The lower Northeast Cape Fear River is ! described as a valuable nursery area for the Atlantic sturgeon. Other species that depend heavily on the Northeast Cape Fear River include Cape Fear spike (a species of clam) and hickory shad. 3.19
.. . I 3.8.3 Threatened and Endangered Species As seen in Tables 3.8 and 3.9, several animal and plant species are native to North Carolina itself or 7
specifically shown to be associated with the New Hanover County area. Therefore, the range of these
- species may include the GE site. Surveys made by GE at the site as recent as 1989, have shown no permanent residence of any threatened or endangered species exists on the site itself [1]. However, i several rare aquatic species inhabit the Cape Fear region, as shown in Table 3.8. These species may be found in close proximity to the site either on a year-round basis, or as a seasonal or transient status, such as the different whale species listed.
4 a { Several species of rare fish inhabit the Cape Fear River system. The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser a brevirostrum), which is on the federal protected and candidate list, inhabits the lower Northeast Cape Fear River. Other fish species in the area that are significant, according to the state of North Carolina, are the American and hickory shad, alewife, and blueback herring. ] i i 1 i 4 e i j i I k I i f i 2 I l 1 4 4 i 4 3.20-t f
Table 3.8 Federal threatened and endangered plant species in North Carolina [10]. Common Name Scientine Name Sensitive Joint-Vetch Aeschynomene virginica Seabeach Amaranth Amaranthus pumihis Small-Anthered Bittercress Cardamine micranthera Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Spreading Avens Geum radiatum Roan Mountain Bluet Hedyotis purpurea var. montana Schweinitz's Suntlower Helianthus schweinitirli Swamp Pink Helonias bullata Dearf-Flowered Heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Mountain Golden Heather Hudsonia montana Small Whorled Pogonia Isotria medeoloides Heller's Blazinstar Liatris helleri Pondberry Lindera melissifolia Rough-Leaved Loosestrife Lysimachla asperulaefolia Canby's Dropwort Oxypolis canbyl Harperella Ptilimnium nodosum (=)luviatile) Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxil Bunched Arrowhead Sagittariafasciculata Green Pitcher-Plant Sarracenia oreophila Mountain Sweet Pitcher-Plant Sarracenia rubra ssp.Jonesii _American Chaffseed Schwulbea americana White Irisette Sisyrinchium dichotomum Blue Ridge Goldenrod Solidago spitamaea Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana Cooley's Meadowrue 7halictrum cooleyi Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare 3.2 I l 1
Table 3.9 Threatened and endangered animal species in North Carolina [10]. I Status 4 Federal N.C. Common Name Scientific Name Occurrence SC Carolina Gopher Frog Rana ca;jo capito Y j SC Brown Pellican Pe!<can .s occidentalis Y SC Snowy Egret Egretta thula Y SC Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea Y { _ SC Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor Y j\ SC Glossy Ibis Plegadisfalcinellus Y SC Black Vulture Coragyps atratus Y SC Cooper's Hawk Accipter cooperil N \ l l E E Peregrine Falcon Falco perigrinus N J E/T T Piping Plover Charadius melodus Y T Gull-Billed Tern Stema nilotica TR l SC Black Skimmer Rynchops niger Y SC Northern Saw-Whet Owl Aegolius acadicus T f I E E Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Y 1 SC Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa TR l C2 SC Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Y i C2 SR Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus henatowil Y j E E Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Y i SC Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus Y SC Izast Killifish Neterandriaformosa Y ] SC Star-Noecd Mole Condvlura christata Y l 1 C2 SC Southeastern Bat Myotis austroriparius Y C2 SC Rafinesque's Big-Eared Bat Plecotus rafmesquli Y . SC Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis Y , I T Eastern Woodrat Neotoma f7oridana TR i floridana E Sperm Whale Physeter macrocephalus Y E Fin Whale Balaenoptera physalus TR i E Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealu TR , E Humphack Whale Megqptera nomengliac TR E Right Whale Eubalaena glacialis TR l T T ine-chend Turtle Caretsa caretta Y E/T T Green Turtle Chelonia mydar Y f Lepidochelys kempli Y
- E E Atlantic Ridley (Turtle)
SC Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Y TISA T American Alligator Alligator mississipplensh Y SC Mimic Glass Lizard Ophisaurus mimicus Y C2 SR Southern Hognose Snake Neterodon simus Y I C2 SC Northern Pine Snake Pituophis melanoleucus Y melanoleucus l C2 SR Rare Skipper Problema bulema Y b C2 T Cape Fear Threetooth Triodopsis soelneri Y l E = endangered; T = threatened; C2 = USFWS reviewing statues of species; SR = significantly rare; SC = NC reviewing status; Y = present year round and breeds in county; N = present year-round in the county, but does not breed; TR = present only as a transient or non-breeding summer resident in the county. 3.22
.- , _ J--
,0 3.9 References for Section 3
- 1. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C., " Environmental Report," GE NEDO-31664, Class 1, (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1989.
- 2. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C., "1996 Supplement to Environmental Report,"(NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1996.
- 3. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C., " Environmental Report," GE NEDO-30153,83 NED 051, (NRC Docket 70-1113),1983.
- 4. U.S. NRC, EnvironmentalJu.sticalrLNEPA nocuments, NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 1-50, Rev.1, April 1995.
- 5. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census, "LandView' II, Mapping of Selected EPA-Regulated Sites, TIGER /Line*
1992, and 1990 Census of Population and Housing."
- 6. Sobel, Phyllis, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. NRC, Memorandum to Michael Weber, l Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Branch, " Summary of Experiences in Using LandView l Software to Perform Environmental Justice Reviews," April 11, 1995.
- 7. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register of Historic places: Annual Listing of Historic Places. Federal Register 44(26) 1979,45(54) 1980,46(22) 1981,47(22) 1982, 48(41) 1983,49(26) 1984, 45(232).
- 8. Seeber, L., and J.G. Armbuster,1988. " Seismicity Along the Atlantic Seaboard of the U.S.-
Interplate Tectonics and Earthquake Hazard," In the Geology ofNorth America, 7he Atlantic ContinentalMargin: U.S. Vol.1-2, Geological Society of America.
- 9. Needham, R.N.. Greeding mrds nf n Rnnthenstern River _Stwamp Forest, M.S. Thesis, University of North Carolina at E!mington,1982.
- 10. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service WEB SITE, Endangered Species Home Page, USFWS state species, Region IV, Southeastern United States Threatened and Endan2ered Species, formatted from 50 CFR 17.11,12, Nov 94: www.fws. gov / r9endspp/endspp.html.
3.23
. l I
4.0 Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs I 1 The monitoring program at the GE-Wilmington facility is comprised of gaseous, liquid, and solid effluent I monitoring and environmental monitoring of air, soil, vegetation, groundwater, and surface water. This !
- program provides a basis for evaluation of public health and safety impacts, for establishing compliance with environmental regulations, and if necessary, for development of mitigation measures. Monitoring activities are described in more detail in the following subsections. Waste management and effluent )
q controls are described in Section 2. l The information contained in this section is mainly drawn from the 1989 Envirnnmental Rennrt and the 1996 %nnlement in the Fnyirnnmental Renort submitted by GE in support oflicense renewal [1,2]. 4 4.1 Effluent Monitoring Prograin i i The GE facility produces gaseous, liquid, and solid waste streams. Gaseous and liquid effluent streams are monitored at or just prior to the point of release. Gaseous effluents are sampled in the exhaust stacks and j liquid effluents are sampled from treatment outfalls. Action limits, specified in plant operating procedures, , are set to ensure investigation of unusual concentrations and corrective actions as necessary. Trends in the l gaseous and liquid effluent monitoring data are reviewed annually by GE's Safety Review Committee to l j determine whether changes are needed in systems or practices to achieve as low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA) eftluent goals [3]. , i l
- 4.1.1 Gaseous Effluent Monitoring Gaseous effluents released from the GE facility contain both radiological and nonradiological constituents.
l Continuous sampling of airborne radiological effluents is currently conducted at 30 locations. The samples i are analyzed on a daily or weekly basis for gross alpha activity. Daily analysis is performed for stacks which have previously had a larger contribution to the total activity released. Table 4.1 shows the average alpha activity released from GE facility for the period of 1978 through 1995. The total gror.s alpha activity released has varied from 4092 to 76.1 microcuries per year ( Ci/y). The data indicate a generally decreasing trend in uranium released in air emissions. The GE Wilmington staff estimate that replacing the ADU process with the DCP will result in an additional 50% reduction in the quantity of uranium released [4]. GE also monitors nonradiological releases for a number of constituents including nitrogen oxides, ammonia, organic material, particulates, and metals in compliance with air permits issued by the North Carolina Department of the Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). Sources of these effluents include the incinerator, scrubber exhaust systems, storage tanks, boilers, and generators used in the fuel manufacturing operation [5]. Currently, the GE facility is classified by NCDEM as a " Synthetic Minor Source" and is required to report effluent data to the state every three years [6]. Table 4.2 shows the effluent data for 1996 [5]. 4.1
.- - .- ..- .- .. . - - - .. .- .~ . . - -- .. - - _
Table 4.1 Measured gross alpha activity released to the atmosphere from discharge stacks. Year Number of Total Volume Total Gross Ave. Alpha Discharge Stacks Discharged Alpha Activity Concen. at Discharge Points x 10' m' pCi x 10* pCi/m 2 1978 29 1.42 4092 2.874 1979 29 3.% 1694 0.428 1980 31 3.59 1051 , 0.293 I 1981 31 3.94 1105 0.281 1982 33 4.18 624 0.149 1983 34 4.22 565 0.134 1984 35 4.% 857 0.173 1985 35 4.20 1202 0.286 1986 33 4.13 2091 0.506 1987 38 4.20 294 0.070 1988 34 4.09 116 0.028 1989 34 3.53 121 0.034 1990 35 3.68 76 0.021 1991 34 3.80 84 0.022 1992 35 3.67 118 0.032 1993 31 3.58 88 0.024 1994 29 2.87 125 0.043 1995 30 2.38 116 0.049 d 4.2 4
l 1 J Table 4.2 Nonradiological air effluent data for 1996 15]. l CONSTITUENT EMISSION CONSTITUENT EMISSION RATE RATE l Pounds ner year Pounds ner year I nitrogen oxides 120,085 arsenic 1,411 l l ammonia 25,827 beryllium 1,411 l l carbon monoxide 10,855 cadmium 1,411 i 1 volatile organic 7,929 manganese 1410 i compourals sulfur dioxide 6,482 hydrogen chloride 121 l l particulate matter 4,439 hexane 52.54 j benzene 1,462 methyl butyl 39.29 l tertiary butyl ether fonnaldehyde 1,450 hydrogen fluoride 31.37 ) polycyclic organic 1,424 toluene 19,49 matter l mercury 1,413 acetaldehyde 17.93
]
chromium VI 1,412 2,2,4 10.4 l trimethylpentane - lead 1,412 xylene 9.66 nickel 1,412 fluorides 5.92 1 Specific emission limits are specified in the air permits only for the incinerator and for the new dry conversion process. For the incinerator, the emission limits are 0.166 lb/y for arsenic and 1.66 lb/y of cadmium. In 1996, the emission rates of arsenic and cadmium from the incinerator were 0.004 lb/y and 0.04 lb/y, respectively. With Air Permit No.1548R11, NCDEM established a hydrogen fluoride emission limit of 0.63 lbs/ day for j the new DCP. However, GE representatives expect that HF emissions will increase to only 0.12 lbs/ day when the DCP becomes operational [7]. Hydrogen fluoride emissions are therefore expected to remain well below release rates which could produce significant offsite impacts. 4.3 l
4.1.2 Liquid Effluent Monitoring Liquid effluent streams from the GE facility include industrial process waste waters, sanitary waste water, and storm water runoff which discharge into the Cape Fear River. In addition, an ammonium nitrate byproduct stream is generated during operations, which is sold to a local paper manufacturer. Monitoring of each of these effluent streams is discussed below. Industrial Process Waste Waters Treatment of liquid radioactive waste streams has been discussed in Section 2. These waste streams originate from the ADU process, as well as from protective clothing and equipment decontamination, laboratory sinks, and floor drains. The eftluents are treated to remove uranium, nitrate, fluoride, and ammonia before being discharged to the final process basins. The effluent of the final process basins is pH adjusted to a range of 6 to 9 to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit and controlled to ensure the uranium concentration in the final process effluent is less than 5 parts per million (ppm) in one day or less than a daily average of 0.2 ppm in a month. The outfall of eacn of the two final process lagoons is sampled using flow proportional composite samplers. Typical radiological analyses include uranium (daily composite), gross alpha and gross beta (weekly composite), and technetium-99 (6-month composite). Data from 1989 through 1995 is shown in Table 4.3 and indicates average yearly uranium concentrations of 0.09 ppm or less. These concentrations are well below NRC release limits in Appendix B of 10 CFR Part 20. It is estimated that replacing the ADU process with the DCP would result in an 85% reduction in the quantity and concentration of uranium . released in these liquid effluents [4]. Nonradiological analyses of the eftluent stream include analyses for fluoride, ammonia, nitrite, nitrate, 3 copper, nickel, chromium, titanium, silver, and zinc. In addition, daily grab samples are collected for pH, . l oil / grease, and dissolved oxygen analyses. Temperature is also recorded on a daily basis. Monthly grab samples are collected for chloride, sulfate, phosphate, total residue, total suspended solids, dissolved solids, alkalinity,5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD ) and chemical oxygen demand (COD). The actual sampling parameters and frequency may vary with NPDES permit or operational changes. Daily volume readings are used in conjunction with the analytical results to calculate quantities of material released for comparison with the NPDES permit requirements, and to evaluate the treatment systems. The analytical results are also used on an audit basis for otherwise undetected changes in effluent composition. There have been no NPDES permit exeedences for the process waste effluent during the period of 1989 to 1995. 1 4.4
, e. )
l l
- l Table 4.3 Effluent monitoring resuits from the final process basms. i l
Year Average Ave. Gross Alpha ) Gross Beta Total Volume Uranium Concen. Concen. x 10' L Concen. pCl/L pCi/L Ppm 1989 7.14 0.05 164 69 1990 7.52 0.09 323 68 1991 7.59 0.03 80 29 1992 8.79 0.02 51 31 1993 9.34 0.02 36 40 1994 8.32 0.02 69 44
)
0.02 56 33 I 1995 9.12 i
' Sanitary Effluent Waste waters originating in washrooms and sanitary facilities are routed through the sanitary waste system q to an extended aeration plant, which consists of collection drains, a lift station and a treatment facility. l The plant achieves 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD3 ) reductions typical of such systems, which l results in discharge water in the range of 5 to 30 mg/L BOD3 . The treated effluent mixes with storm water j and treated process water before flowing into the Northeast Cape Fear River. I l
Discharge temperature and settled solids are determined daily on grab samples from the sanitary outfall.
- COD is determined on a monthly basis from a 24-hour composite sample, while other parameters of concern such as total suspended solids, total residue, nitrogen combined as ammonia, fecal coliform, dissolved oxygen, and residual chlorine are determined on a quarterly basis. Uranium and pH are determined monthly on a grab sample. Actual sampling parameters and frequency may vary with NPDES permit or operational changes. These analytical data are compared to the NPDES permit requirements, and are used in operation of the sanitary treatment facility.
From 1989 Grorst 1995, measurements of the total uranium concentration in the sanitary effluent were less than the minimum detectable level of 0.02 ppm. In addition, during this period sample data of non-radioactive constituents met NPDES permit criteria with the exception of the levels of total dissolved solids
~
in 1992 and BOD3 in the fourth quarter of 1995. NPDES permit conditions were exceeded in December 1992 due to a temporary upset of the system that resulted in the release of 14.4 pounds per day of i suspended solids (0.9 pounds over the maximum allowable mass). However, this quantity was too small to .I have any impact on the receiving stream. i 4.5 k l l 1 l l
-l
. . _ _ . ~ . _ . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _
i In 1995, two significant changes were made to the sanitary waste treatment facility. These were the addition of sludge drying and chlorination / dechlorination capability. These changes, in combination with other site factors, resulted in a BOD effluent discharge limit exceedence in the fourth quarter of 1995. l Corrective actions were taken, and improvements in process control and augmented sampling measures are i ongoing. Storm Water Runoff The developed areas of the site contain a storm water drainage system to direct storm water runoff to the~ effluent channel. Storm water, treated process waters, and sanitary waste wates;. are combined in this channel and are conducted to the Northeast Cape Fear River. The site dam installed in this channel can be utilized to contain the runoff, if needed, and is the last checkpoint for water released from the site to the river. A daily grab sample is collected from this location and analyzed for uranium content, pH, i i ammonia, fluoride, and nitrate. A weekly composite is analyzed for copper, nickel, and chromium. l From 1989 through 1995, the averags annual total uranium concentration in effluent at the site dam ranged from 0.03 to 0.09 ppm. Values for non-radiological parameters are comparable to those for the process waste water outfall and are summarized in Table 4.4. A small area on the east end of the site drains to Prince George Creek. In January of 1995, the GE l Wilmington site obtained a State of North Carolina Individual Stormwater Discharge Permit (NPDES i Permit No. NCS000022) for this effective discharge point.
- Table 4.4 Average nonradiological monitoring data at the site dam.
l Year pH Ammonia Nitrate Fluoride Chromium Copper Nickel Ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 1989 6.15 5.52 30.44 2.48 0.02 0.02 0.02 l 1990 6.44 ~4.64 26.89 2.59 0.02 0.02 0.02 l 1991 6.30 5.26 22.63 2.20 0.01 0.01 0.02 1992 6.20 5.09 18.58 1.35 0.01 0.02 0.03 1993 6.35 5.72 14.73 1.43 0.02 0.02 0.03 1 1994 6.49 5.05 16.17 2.06 0.02 0.01 0.04 1995 6.51 4.63 11.65 1.37 0.01 0.01 0.02 l i 4.6 l
By-Product Sampling Nitrate _ Wastes Ammonium nitrate solutions, recovered during treatment of the industrial process waste waters as described in Section 2, are transferred by truck to a local paper manufheturer for use in its biological waste treatment process. The ammonia and nitrate content of these solutions is of primary interest to the local
- l. paper manufacture because of their nutrient value for the biological treatment process. Thus, ammonia and nitrate concentrations are obtained daily on the composite of grab samples for each truck.
In addition, a check for trace uranium concentrations is determined for process control purposes on each truckload, and the results are compared against internal procedural requirements before the truck is released. A daily composite of the samples from each truckload shipped is analyzed for uranium content and a weekly composite of samples is analyzed for gross alpha and gross beta concentrations. As discussed in the GE license application, shipments of nitrate-bearing liquids is authorized if the uranium concentration does not exceed a 30-day average of 5 ppm by weight of the liquids and the enrichment is 2 less than or equal to a 6 weight percent "U [8]. 1 The average uranium concentrations in the nitrate shipments for the 1989 to 1995 time period remained consistently low. The alpha activity concentrations are slightly higher than the previous time period reflecting the higher average enrichments processed by the facility. Beta activities due to thorium-234 were elevated during 1992 due to a process change to store and ship nitrate wastes out of a single basin and the concurrent reduction in daughter product decay time. From 1993 to 1995, the beta activities returned to their historically low values as double-basin operations were reestablished. Samples are also taken from selected locations of the paper company's waste treatment system during the 1989-1995 period. Uranium concentrations in sludge from four locations varied from 0.06 to 2.1 ppm. HydmDunric Acid Hydrofluoric acid produced by the dry conversion process will be offered as a commercial product. This material will be analyzed for uranium content prior to shipment. GE will ensure that the uranium concentration does not exceed 3 ppm by weight of the liquids. In addition, the HF must be transferred and i used in such a manner that the uranium does not enter into any food, beverage, cosmetic, drug, or other commodity designed for ingestion or inhalation by, or application to, a human being. i 4.2 Environmental Monitoring Program GE conducts an environmental monitoring program that samples air, soil, vegetation, groundwater and surface water for radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants. These programs are discussed in the following sections. The North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection (NCDRP), a part of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health & Natural Resources, also conducts an area surveillance program. This program is conducted under contract with the NRC and consists of low volume air samplers, and vegetation, 4.7
7 i I sediment, soil, surface water, and groundwater sampling. Sampling locations are shown on Figure 4.1. 4.2.1 Ambient Air Continuous ambient air monitoring for gross alpha activity is conducted at six air sampling stations as shown in Figure 4.2. The stations are located in the predominant wind directions from fuel manufacturing operations, along the nearest site boundary, and in the direction of the nearest offsite residences and are analyzed weekly for gross alpha activity, One of the six air monitoring stations was recently added in 1996 and is located 320 m (1050 ft) north of the fuel manufacturing complex. For the period of 1989 to 1995, average gross alpha measurements from GE ambient air samplers ranged from 2.0 x 10 5 to 5 3.4 x 10r Ci/cm'. There are two NCDRP air samplers located on the GE site. The first is at the fence near the southern boundary of the site and the second is located at the site dock on the Cape Fear River. Both of these air samplers are co-located with GE ambient air samplers. In 1995, GE and the NCDRP on-site sampling results generally share the same trend, although the GE results are slightly higher [9]. NCDRP also has two monitoring stations offsite. A comparison of the GE on-site air sampling results with these samplers indicates that the measured concentrations are at background levels and do not indicate any elevated levels of alpha activity. 1 l 4.8 , l l 1
'[
Air Particulate (3*,11,12,20*)
- Groundwater (1,2,13.24. production
'V
% [// 4
// wells 1-15*, PL1A,PL3A*,PLSA*,PLSA*,PLil A,
//
CAF2 *,F3 *,WT6 *) Shoreline Sediment (2*.3 *,4*) 3 "" CaF Storage Soil (5 *,6 *,23 *) N Surface Water (2*,3*,4*,21) [/
/ ,r / Terrestrial Vegetation (5*,6 *,23 *)
o TLD (5 stations - 1,2,3,4,5)
')
i CAF2
- Split Sampling with GE
.f 3y
( *. , '
, b'
- reorg at f 7 L and
- Os/
Marathon Avenue is. i, ,
',3 rue
' ** i
/ riNat et34 PLHA Wee ,
"0 3 .
j Process
- u5 '-' a' dam -
[ I LAGOONS PLIA 2 drainage ditch I i l
"A. - -.
g , WTG 2
}
waste i 5 TREATM(NT Se e F ACILIT v t I O O ' 0 sea i f; l o ruon u Yinag g~"*D ~$ h '.
\ [
', F3 VO9 - -- -- - -- -- -- - Horticulture. ,
i fF -% Sf 3 tion i
*aceans e a me./
- 4 .,a f CAPE F
\\ ;
s._ -
.r AR s N GE Riverdock ,
Tioga Farm 9f b 3 Co. Health [ e9 escharce point Dept. ..... , ,. . t
\ 10 miles ,c.,, , , , , , , , t l
N t !
-j Figure 4.1 Sampling locations of the North Carolina Division of Radiation Protection surveillance i
program [91 i l i i L
.._ - - _ . _ - - . _ . - - _.:-_=- _ . - - . -. ._- .__- ---_-_-.,____n_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - . _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ - - . _ - _ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ . _ - = _ _ . _ - -
~,\ '
\. g \
\t j ,j$ b' l
N.: -
~'} +s# g/ y y Vo i
~
lI
~~ , o-4
.< h.
/ %' W-_--- ~~~
,l / u ,
a 4 , . 5 P ',- L If // t: , ( y 3l L' s L{f k , ; l kf
,/
/ - y=4 /R sq$N i,
?f({Q[iff'l[ ;
,/
/
%ek] i
- 1. l:' apt ' ElQg p , ,
, ,aea en en ee w an e up-(= ,
./.
q}'i 'e P , i l.i -
/
=
i !E mE s
}
\ d[
x 1 J bkN U
.Ok u !
hy N- \ ['f . , @!
"k l
)] 'N -
%'k.
// N /
/
9 g 1'
,r 's ,
,/
\. - \ \,[4 M
~ L. 'N -
4 \f m \\ \ ./.G'k
\, f .
'Q. ,
\. .< (.- .,/ /
\ l t- h Figure 4.2 Locations of the GE arnbient air monitoring stations [8].
4.10
4.2.2 Surface Water The Northeast Cape Fear River is sampled both upstream and downstream of the eftluent channel discharge point at the GE-Wilmington site. These locations have been reviewed and approved as part of the GE facility NPDES permit. Monthly upstream grab samples and weekly downstream composite samples are analyzed for uranium content, gross alpha activity, and gross beta activity. In addition, non-radiological analyses are performed including analyses for p.'i, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, temperature, zirconium, conductivity, BOD 3and fecal coliform. Sampling trequencies for nonradiological constituents are specified in the NPDES permit and may vary from weekly to quarterly. Surface water sampling data at the site dock (which is slightly downstream from the effluent channel), as well as upstream and downstream of the facility from 1989 through 1995 were below the minimum ! detectable level of 0.02 ppm for uranium. In addition, sampling data on nonradiological parameters varied within typical background values for the river and did not show any trends or data skewing which could be attributed to site activities. Measurements have been taken by NCDRP from 1989 through 1994 at the GE-Wi!mington river dock and at a background location 16 miles (25.8 km) upstream of the facility. The weighted average of quarterly measurements of gross alpha activity at the river dock during this period was 1.8 5.6 pCi/L and the maximum was 19.5 27.0 pCi/L. Quarterly measurements taken at the upstream location ranged from below the detection limit to 3.8 3.6 pCi/L and had an weighted average of 0.9911.4 pCi/L. This indicates a small effect on the river due to facility effluents. 4.2.3 Sediment Sediment samples from the eftluent channel are collected at the final process basin outfall, located above the effluent channel dam, and below the effluent channel dam. These samples are collected semiannually and analyzed for uranium concentration. From 1989 through 1995, average annual sediment concentrations ranged from approximately 2 pCi/g to 38 pCi/g at the final process basin outfall,5 pCi/g to 30 pCi/g above the effluent channel dam, and 5 pCi/g to 26 pCi/g below the eftluent channel dam (based on a 5% U-235 enrichment). Samples are also taken of the sediment in the storm water channel draining the controlled access FMO area. Annual average sediment concentrations from 1989 through 1995 showed a generally decreasing trend and ranged from approximately 170 FCilg in 1990 to 16 pCi/g in 1995. The highest individual measurement was in 1991, at 420 pCi/g. NCDRP sediment samples taken at the final process basin outfall from 1990 through 1994 ranged from 10.2 pCi/g to 2490.0 pCi/g. Sediment samples were also taken in the Northeast Cape Fear River both downstream of the GE-Wilmington outfall and 16 miles (25.8 km) upstream. From 1989 through 1994, upstream sediment concentrations ranged from 0.9 to 11.6 pCi/g compared to downstream sediment concentrations which ranged from below detection to 10 pCi/g. This indicates that although significant concentrations of uranium have accumulated in sediment onsite, offsite uranium concentrations in the Cape l 4 4.11 i i l s
t
- Fear River are within background levels.
4.2.4 Vegetation In 1984, based on previous observations of pine needle yellowing in the woodland around the facility, semi-annual sampling for fluoride content in vegetation was initiated in forage grass (as a representative vegetation receptor). Although the pine damage could not be traced directly to fluoride, sampling of the grass has continued. The two sampling locations are on-site at the southwest and northeast ambient air sampling points, Current sensitivity for fluoride analysis is 0.01 ppm. Three offsite locations are also sampled by NCDRP and GE. From 1989 to 1995 onsite measurements of fluoride in vegetation were typically below 10 ppm, but varied greatly depending on the analysis technique employed. Concentrations as high as 36 to 41.5 ppm F were reported at the northeast sampling station in 1991 and 1992. GE states that the fluoride measurements in vegetation are typical of background levels indicating no fluoride accumulation [2]. 4.2.5 Soil From 1989 through 1995, soil samples from onsite and offsite locations were collected and analyzed for uranium concentration. These sampling locations are shown in Figure 4.3. The offsite locations are l I monitored through a split sampling program between NCDRP and GE. Uranium concentrations from the three onsite locations are somewhat higher than those at the offsite locations. The geometric mean of the annual average onsite concentrations from 1989 through 1995 was 0.56 ppm uranium (about 1.3 pCi/g) compared with 0.29 ppm uranium (about 0.7 pCi/g) at the offsite ! i locations. l The highest uranium levels were found in the waste box storage pad areas of the facility. From 1989 through 1995, the annual average concentrations in the soil ranged from 7 pCi/g to 135 pCi/g. The highest individual measurement was 155 ppm (370 pCi/g) during 1992. Corrective actions implemented in this area have resulted in lower concentrations in 1995. 4.2.6 Groundwater As discussed in Section 3, groundwater at the GE facility is characterized by a shallow (" water table") aquifer separated from a deeper aquifer by a confining layer consisting of 5 to 15 feet (1.5 to 4.6 m) of silty and clayey deposits. The groundwater monitoring program was established with the primary purpose of providing early warning of a containment failure or uncontrolled migration of material. To accomplish these objectives, shallow monitoring wells were installed in the uppermost aquifer in the immediate proximity of potential sources of contamination such as lagoons or selected waste storage areas. In addition, monitoring wells for sampling the deeper aquifer, which is the principal water supply in the area, have been installed to provide information on the quality of this water supply. In each of these 4.12
i
- a _
- I a" !
\ . ! 3 3 7a s:
- J B si
- : ;
'=~" h,.
(( , _ . . - 1 1 i i 1 i a-,' .. ._m. . . . . . . . . . l
/
l l , c ! W e
>=
A_ mi _ i j[ \ i ! .. s '# -- 1 NN , e e 3 ll j g [ 0
- I-?- h f f. ,
{I t - x.t h
+
; /d , P 1( .n
; y L 7i 's ,
7 D s
. s 2 ,.
i -
\.s % =
) ~__
\
', ~. -- . - /l p_ /N. h ( i !
Y A }l Figure 4.3 De GE soil sampling locations [8]. 4.13
O monitoring systems, particular attention is given to the presence of nitrates. Nitrates are common to the bulk o' the treated effluent streams and are not as subject to attenuation in the subsurface as are some of the other potential contaminants. Water Table Aquifer _ Monitoring Shallow groundwater monitoring wells have been installed in the water table aquifer in immediate proximity to potential sources of contamination to provide early warning of containment failure. The well locations surround each of the areas of interest, and thus also provide both upgradient and downgradient information. As justified by the relative risk presented by the contained material, these wells are sampled either monthly or quarterly. Wells around the calcium fluoride burial area and the final process basins are sampled on a quarterly basis due to the relatively low toxicity and/or concentration of the contaminants present. In a contrast, wells in other areas, such as those near the waste treatment facility and the former zirconium sludge storage area, are sampled monthly. All of the samples are analyzed for uranium, gross alpha, and gross beta concentrations. Nonradiological analyses are dependent on the particular constituents of interest, but typically include nitrate, fluoride, and ammonia. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and pH are ., usually determined also. The PL Series of wells were installed near the final process basins, as shown in Figure 4.4. These wells are sempled quarterly for uranium. From 1989 through 1995, uranium measurements in these wells were generally below the minimum detection level of 0.02 ppm ( 48 pCi/L) except in well PL-11 A. In 1995, well PL-11 A showed a maximum measurement of 10.8 ppm (~ 26 x 10' pCi/L)and an annual average of , 4.70 ppm (~ l1 x 10' pCi/L). Gross alpha activity measurements in four other PL wells also sporadically exceeded GE's action limit of 15 pCi/L between 1989 and 1995 [1]. The highest average gross alpha activity,6,433 pCi/L, was measured in PL-11 A in 1995. Measurements of nitrate, ammonia, and fluoride in the PL series were at background levels. GE is currently assessing these results. 1 The WT Series of wells, shown in Figure 4.5, are sampled monthly to provide an indication of contamination from the waste treatment facility. Measurements of uranium from these wells were below the 0.02 ppm limit of detection during the period of 1989 through 1995. However, one of the wells, WT-1, shows annual average uranium concentrations of 0.02 ppm (~ 48 pCi/L) to 0.2 ppm ( 480 pCi/L). In addition, annual average gross alpha measurements for WT-1 ranged from 29 to 522 pCi/L, and gross beta measurements ranged from 18 to 137 pCi/L. During this time period, the average gross alpha activity for all of the other WT wells was 4.8 i 2.1 pCi/L, and the average gross beta activity was 15 i 2.5 pCi/L. WT-1 also showed elevated levels of nitrate, ammonia, and fluoride from 1986 to 1995. It is believed that this well was contaminated in 1986 from ammonium fluoride waste water entering the well as a result of a leak in an overhead pipe. Nitrate levels in WT-1 increased from an annual average of 27.34 ppm in 1985 to 294.55 ppm in 1986, ammonia levels increased from 1.11 ppm to 163.83 ppm, and fluoride levels increased from 0.75 ppm to 30.43 ppm. The EPA maximum contaminant level for drinking water (MCL) 4.14
c ,..
\
\.4 -
s e G-
%. /*'f .s"p
'#[ ,}
/
,- ;, g
- t
' ' W,75 ah! ;: a c g-t
/ 2p~ l t
- / ,.
r - f I
,,l s I5 Ig.E! ;- h
- g
[i_.) {> ll
' I g-
! ^( f 8 "R :
.) ER
/ fl_ MI E gen [j:
j Q", j - y ' o f(
't 5 9 l$ ll -
N'N i, 1 @%' 0 l
't l ji .
'( -
jf k \. ! l '
\.\ -
( i jif 'N ~ K, '
/ NA '
,t.f S s .i
/\ j Y b .? -
"%. ,// ,
( -
.f'/
\f ~-
\'N.
\.
\ /,
[jg .
/- N.
vj. ,' / i
- *~'
\ >l / l l
Figure 4.4 Locations of the PL Series of wells around the Final Process Waste Water Treatment j l Facility [8]. l l l 4.15 I
I
\. \. .
\.\ .
%. :. - +-.A
$kJ,? t,
- c. ,
s', s Mf
.- t i g
? , Lt @['
3 ,, - [ ,f
' %[D? " , ' f , !E
/ - ,y s k lm[ '
( ,, is.E! ,!! i l.a @J; )
/t * . n ; te; -
. !bY "GD N I
/,/.....h C
- d> #*'ad {rg -{a p - '
/
"l \" il \ f fghY)i 9
~, 041tIr
,/ jj \ O'
/ N hl
\ // /
N \ g E elga j R
./ hl a *N N
%, \', -
li! j N.
- l
!l4 s '
'N
.\ .%
i.j s N' , ll ,, i
\l,' /l
%/ ~ ' N . ,// [
r Mf!
~ q ,
\f ~ \ \. ./ ',L '
% .l-j \ \
- ,' - 'Y( !
} '\. >
l '
\ . f-Figure 4.5 Locations of the WT Series of wells around the Waste Treatment Facility [8).
4.16 i
is 10 ppm for nitrate and 4 ppm for fluoride. Corrective actions were taken and the fluoride and ammonia levels have generally decreased in WT-1 since 1987. Average nitrate levels decreased to a 1991 average of 52.15 ppm. However, since 1991, average nitrate values have increased to the 1995 level of 272.84 ppm. GE staff representatives indicate that assessment of this data continues [10]. The 1986 contamination of well WT-1 has affected downgradient wells WT-9 and WT-2. In 1988, nitrate : levels in well WT-9 increased to an average value of 312.47 ppm, ammonia levels increased to 23.66 ppm in 1987, and fluoride levels increased to 13.82 ppm in 1988. By 1995, levels had decreased to more typical values of 6.94 ppm,0.68 ppm, and less than 1.00 ppm, for nitrate, ammonia, and fluoride, respectively. Nitrate levels in WT-2 increased to 61.64 ppm in 1988, and had decreased to 21.04 ppm by 1995. From 1989 to 1995, uranium was not detected in monthly sampling of six (Z Series) wells, which provide an indication of contamination from the former zirconium sludge storage area. The location of these wells are shown on Figure 4.6. In addition, uranium was not detected in quarterly sampling of four (CaF2 series) wells, which provide an indication of contamination from the calcium fluoride storage area. In the Z Series wells, fluoride and nitrate levels remained at relatively low levels, pH values were within the expected range, and no adverse trends in any contaminant levels were noted. Concentration levels in these wells are not expected to increase since the source of the potential contamination, the zirconium sludge, was removed in 1982. In the wells surrounding CaF 2area, fluoride concentrations remained at background levels. Therefore, groundwater monitoring of the challow water table aquifer has confirmed that the GE facility has caused groundwater contaminatiot.. The extent of the contamination is limited to the near vicinity of the contaminant source and does not extend offsite. GE continues to evaluate this contamination to assess significance and rate of migration. Erincipal Armifer Monitnring The process and potable water for the site is supplied by separate well systems which draw from the principal aquifer. The location of these wells is shown in Figure 4.7. A grab sample is collected monthly from the process well system and analyzed for chloride, phosphate, ammonia, nitrate, total suspended solids, alkalinity, BOD3 , COD, total solids, and total dissolved solids. These results are used to evaluate the quality of the incoming process supply water. Uranium was not detected above background levels in the principal aquifer wells for the period 1989 through 1995. Non-radiological composition of the water in the deep aquifer is obtained by analyzing samples of the combined incoming flow from the supply wells. For the period of 1989 to 1995, the concentrations of non-radiological impurities varied within expected ranges. Three individual potable water supply wells (9A,11, and 14), completed in the principal aquifer, were selected for sampling because of their downgradient location from potential contamination sources, such as 4.17
\\
1
\ .
g{g%fmI
' ~ .s - . . - -
j ; 1 _ . - - , . ._ I
-- 1
; fr!~,
[ /e- ? ; gj
,/ Q ~~ ~ [
- l
, 's;)r!
".' i[lc ]j; 4 /
u.- - rc . J' 1 j y yh - ca, N 1
~ '" q-J G . :
)[..._____
,m
._ , r
*L . = g.f ~~ f_ _!
;. -7 e.,
' ,;N
'*" U " ka* ,
I s , l' r
'{i g; t
1 a s g!lli
x i ys
((-
, e flij .
j- 'N \TO ,i! 55! O k y \ '\,s!( 2
- Y
('( [ N, '
/ '
x
/.! x's N, i
//
S 1 (\'N '
.&l vy \ , 6\, ,{lY
[
- f. &
\.
\,
i I m
/ .
\
% \.4 ' 'g / j
\'
N M/] i j' 'r j t j l \. j
/
N' w(r/J
,. a t
I
\ i l
Figure 4.6 htions of the Z Series of monitoring wells near the former zirconium sludge storage area (21 J l 4.18 1
jg L.. i\h al # %-
; n g' pl .7 [
m j< I! , ,. Yo s j . If ! I ,' av en [-ll1 I 3h
/' -/
r [ Nl ]I I I
!g g>', 3. 5 'l~
9 1hl[$,l
-/ ,.
"{ k)) j I
/j^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'. ._e.ffqlgCl - 1p j
/k , l[fh k,_ l UnO
,L\ w f( _) l o
o u! - gE l@c d$/
/
' l; 9 3
s\ N- 1 $1 :
.[1 j C D lg -lt/
[ " y~ K
'N f /
'%N / ' s,
/
/ / /N ? T X ,
N / x' Y.k j/ '
\ ,
l / Sa N N l
'\ f ~
/ \
\*
/ /s$
\ N . ,/ y ','
~
\ N ( f$, 7 i l \ l }
Figure 4.7 Locations of the GE plant water supply wells [8]. 4.19
process basins and effluent channel. A grab sample is collected monthly from each of these wells and analyzed for uranium, gross alpha, gross beta, nitrates, pH, and total dissolved solids. In addition, well 9A is analyzed for fluoride because it is downgradient from a calcium fluoride sludge storage area. Supply well # 14 showed nitrate levels elevating through the year 1991 to an average value of 18.48 ppm. This increase was attributed to the periodic seepage of nitrates from the treated process wastewater in the effluent channel downward to the principal aquifer. In 1991, a pipe was installed and is used as the transfer system. He concentrations have since decreased to an average value of 0.27 ppm in 1995. Other_ Monitoring Wells The routine monitoring program identified traces of organics, including 1,1,1-trichloroethylene (TCE), in the principal aquifer in 1991 [2,11]. TCE was used by GE in the past to clean metal parts, but the practice was discontinued in the mid 1970's [12]. When the contaminants were discovered, GE installed additional monitoring wells, both at the site boundaries and the site interior, for the water table aquifer and for the principal aquifer [2]. In addition, pump and treat methods were instigated to contain the spread of contamination [l1]. The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality regulates these monitoring and corrective action programs and maintains all documents concerning this issue [12]. In addition to the existing monitoring well networks described, a series of monitoring wells (FX Series) , was installed in an area just outside the northwest part of the FMO/FMOX building complex to monitor i both the shallow and the principal aquifer [13]. The location of these wells is shown in Figure 4.8. These I wells were installed after discovery of shallow groundwater contamination (uranium, nitrates, and ) fluorides) beneath a portion of the building in 1991. The source of the contamination was leaking slab l tanks containing uranyl nitrate solutions in the FMOX building [ 14,15]. ' Leaks may have begun in the late 1970's [15]. Contaminated soil from beneath the building was excavated and a horizontal groundwater collection system was installed to collect and contain the contaminated groundwater. This contaminated groundwater is routed to the Uranium Recovery Unit for processing. Samples from the FX Series wells are analyzed for uranium, nitrate, fluoride, and pH. The contaminants were found to have migrated little horizontally or vertically from the source of the contamination due to the clayey nature of the soils. The contaminants were only present in the upper portion of the water table aquifer. From 1992 through 1995, average uranium concentrations ranged from less than 0.02 ppm to 0.72 ppm. The maximum average nitrate (as N) concentration in these wells was 127 ppm, and the maximum average fluoride concentration was 4.86 ppm. The FX wells in the lower porion of the water table aquifer, as well as the principal aquifer, continue to show background levels of uranium, nitrates and fluoride. A number of other wells exist on site that are not necessarily used in the routine environmental monitoring program, but are available for special studies, as needed, such as determination of hydraulic gradient or special chemical species testing. Some of these wells (F Series, in Figure 4.9 and CW Series Wells in Figure 4.10) are sampled semi-annually for fluoride, nitrate, pH, and total dissolved solids. . 4.20
.o
'\,1 \-
ic'" . s *,3 ef ' r ly
. ;-4 E
- r2m' Il g f _'g'
, s@ "
II c j '
' %y}.L-n a cu l Et if- -4 l P
/'<',',5,y2lj/ 8:a l
1, g! . I
/ h p ug[
- "*f lI
,/. . . . . . . .
jj ._I
/
%jf i
D " li t
/ ,
o
'N j i B M ,St Jli lie
'xi ~
J l t fs s [d I! 's. * /
/
'N afld '
N, y
~Y.-
f\ '
' k, .l
~ I -
\
'4' ,//
j\r m \ j l '1 m.
; \ l \. /,' ,'
</
- ' \ ' % m, .
i,
-\ ,.--
Figure 4.8 Imtions of the FX Series of w!!s aloM h um #mm ggy buildings [8J. 4.21
s , .
\ '\
\N se
)}\
4
--{vl N.se L s 'c,
., m k.
't 9
~"'""
I n > g
~
il y g g' I
,r' Q- -
"- cL.J u g
gd j,' __; l
- l
' ! L l/j'e,e "ifg
'&hj-f
/. . . - -- . . .. ~-- e .
a b ',; 1 i b!
- IT sl ~&\
' I
\
_ o,) J
/ ji ,
/ o s
l g
=
\ 'f a l/ ,
S N M[ $l!!
! ll \.\ /
/,/- + x \\
N
/
l/ N
'%%/ A Ilf /
\
\
\ '* *%.
ll
,/ if
,jj'if/
\
\r ~
M y
~.
\ \. ;V 77 '[
j
, n.
/ .i Figure 4.9 1mations of the F Series of wells around the FMO/FMOX and Fuel Components Operation (FMO) buildings [8).
4.22 i
-. . . . - -- . . . . _. _= ..
\q\.
l 5wp %,pn l s,7 s: . n'A ll. i n a f $ l :$] 1 ; . l ' ll h l j I
) cr I EE l ,/ ,
-I ;
h f!sh ,. Ei *
/ 4 3%, 6 "
- F! I
( k/....... f Eb_ /w~3. ;= @fs !
/ i ll:l:j / 1 3
/ ,w_u/ j v/
g
] D*l
! } '
/ y I 'i 1 I
k :
\x\ //
%,8 j
);s.
/,jI %x\ N
/f
/
y
\
i [
/
N(\ ;
} l I // Q Y
I f
\,.
(
,s s '] ./ // [
M
\r ~
m
\s.
\, / ',i
\ y ,
N, y v / ," f g m f/I
\ /
Mb of the CW Series of wells around the Wasee Treatment Facility (51 4.23
l Conclusion GE has an extensive groundwater monitoring program for both the shallow and the water table aquifer. l The program has identified impacts to the shallow aquifer and to the principal aquifer from site activities. Impacts to the shallow aquifer include uranium contamination near the final process basins, the waste treatment facility, and the FMO/FMOX complex. Concentrations of nitrates, fiuoride and ammonia above background levels have been identified in shallow groundwater near the waste treatment facility and near the FMOX/FMO buildings, and above normal nitrate levels were measured in supply well 14 of the principal aquifer for a short time. In addition, organic contaminants have been identified in both the shallow and principal aquifer in several areas of the site. However, GE continues to assess monitoring data, and has instigated corrective actions as necessary to mitigate the impacts on groundwater and to contain the spread of contaminants. 4.3 References for Section 4
- 1. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C., EnvironmentaLReport, GE NEDO-31664, Class 1, (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1989.
l 2. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C.,1996. Supplement in FnvironmentaLReport, (NRC l Docket 70-1113), May 1996.
- 3. NRC Inspection Report No. 70-1113/95-11, December 27,1995.
- 4. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with T. A. Ikenberry and J. C. Abbot, 1 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, October 31,1996. {
l
- 5. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Letter to M. Lamastra, U.S. NRC, April 30,1997 (NRC Docket 70-1113),
1
- 6. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with S. D. Chotoo, U.S. NRC, April 30,1997.
- 7. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, "GE-Wilmington Supplemental Information to the Application for Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-1097,"(NRC Docket 70-1113), May 14, 1996.
- 8. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " License Renewal Application, USNRC Materials License SNM-1097,"(NRC Docket No. 70-1113), April 5,1996. j
- 9. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resource, Division of Radiation Protection, " Report on Environmental Radiation Surveillance around Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, McGuire Nuclear Station, General Electric Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant in North Carolina," January 1995 - December 1995.
4.24 l
- 10. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with S. D. Chotoo, U.S. NRC, April .. i 17, 1997.
'11. Stehlman, C., N.C. Department of Health and Natural Resources, Telephone Communication with ;
M. T. Adams, U.S. NRC, February 18, 1997. 12. I
- 12. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with S. D. Chotoo, U.S. NRC, April ,
16, 1997. I
- 13. NRC Inspection Report No. 70-1113/944M, June 24,1994.
14.' Flack, E.D., U.S. NRC Uranium Fuel Section, Memorandum to G. H. Bidinger U.S. NRC Uranium Fuel Section, (Docket 70-1113), December 23,1991. l l
- 15. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with S. D. Chotoo, U.S. NRC, J April 30,1997.
1 4.25
- _ _ - - --_. ___ -~_m_ ~_ ., --m. m.
EOh A- 44 -- ~ . _ _.__ __ _ 9 l l i ,
5.0 Environmental Consequences of the Proposed Action and Alternative Renewal of GE's special nuclear material license would have both positive and negative impacts. Beneficial impacts include socioeconomic benefits to the local economy as well as a decreased dependency on fossil fuels, through the continued provision of nuclear fuel to nuclear power plants. However, continued operation may have negative impacts to the environment such as airborne release of uranium or shallow groundwater contamination. This section describes the environmental consequences, in terms of human health and ecological effects, that could occur from both normal operation and from accidents at the facility. 5.1 Impacts from Normal Operations Normal operations at the GE facility will involve discharges to the air and surface water, and production of various solid and liquid waste streams. The impacts of normal operations can be divided into radiological and nonradiological impacts. These are discussed in the following subsections. The main source of the data presented in the following discussion is drawn from GE's 1989 Environmental Renori and 1996 Supplemental Fnvironmental Renort, submitted to the NRC in support of license renewal [1,21 5.1.1 Nonradiological Impacts Air Quality Airborne effluents include planned discharges from stacks as well as fugitive emissions, such as from storage tank filling. At the GE-Wilmington facility, these effluents may contain nitrogen oxides, ammonia, carbon monoxide, organics, metals, as well as other contaminants. GE must comply with air permits issued by the State of North Carolina Division of Environmental Management. Permits are renewed on a periodic basis after review of planned effluent composition and previous discharge levels. NCDEM has confirmed that GE is currently in compliance with all North Carolina regulations and that there are no outstanding issues concerning air quality [3). Hydrogen fluoride is the most significant nonradiological component of airborne discharges from the fuel manufacturing operation which is expected to increase when the DCP becomes operational. Neither the federal government nor the State of North Carolina has established an ambient air standard for fluoride concentrations. However, for reference, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits for fluorides are 2500 micrograms per cubic meter (pg/m') for fluoride dust and 2000 pg/m' for hydrogen fluoride (HF) for occupational exposure of workers [4). For the period of 1989 through 1995, fluoride concentrations in exhaust from the fuel manufacturing operation averaged approximately 2 pg/m' or 0.01 pound per day (Ib/ day), which is a small fraction of the OSH A limits. When the DCP becomes operational, HF emissions are expected to increase. Although the State of North Carolina Air Permit No.1548R1i established a hydrogen fluoride emission limit of 0.63 lbs/ day for the 5.1
j i
)
- 1 DCP, GE representatives expect that HF emissions will increase to only 0.12 lbs/ day [51. Hydrogen j fluoride emissions are therefore expected to remain well below release rates which could produce ;
measurable offsite impacts. Surface Water 1 : Liquid effluents from waste treatment operations, sanitary waste treatment, and storm run-off contain non-radiological contaminants including fluoride, nitrates, and ammonia. Eftluent stream characteristics are i controlled to comply with NPDES permit limits before discharge into the Northeast Cape Fear River, via an onsite effluent channel. GE has an excellent NPDES canpliance record, as shown in Table 5.1 [6]. Table 5.1. Comparison of average monthly sampling results for the treated process waste discharges to the Northeast Cape Fear River with NPDES permit conditions. , < 1 '* Chemical 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 NPDES Parameters Permit
- Condition i
Fluoride 16 15 14 9 9 12 10 37 , lbs/ day Nitrogen as 79 64 66 61 59 43 54 164 NH,. NO , NO i lbs/ day Chromium 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 4.1 lbs/ day Copper 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 < 0.1 5.0 lbs/ day . Nickel 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 6.2 lbs/ day Volume x 10' 516 543 534 653 675 601 659 1800 gal / day pH 8.4 _ 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.3 6-9 No adverse effects on the Northeast Cape Fear River water quality have been observed due to nonradiological liquid effluents from the facility. This is a consequence of the relatively low concentrations of chemicals in the eftluent stream and the high tiow rate of the river. He effluent
- discharge rate is approximately 26 Us compared to the average river discharge rate of approximately 28,000 Us. Comparisons of nonradiological constituent concentrations at upstream and downstream locations demonstrate that characteristics of the river remain unchanged downstream of the discharge point. The data does not show any trends or data skewing for any parameter that could be attributed to 5.2 t
i site activities [2]. In addition, GE expects that process waste streams will be reduced by 85% when the DCP becomes operational, thereby further reducing the impact of facility operations on the Northeast Cape Fear River. The river is not used as a potable water source downstream from the plmt. One of the city of Wilmington's sanitary waste treatment facilities discharges approximttely 5.0 x 10' gallons per day of treated sanitary effluent into the river six miles downstream from the plant sie Groundwater The groundwater at the GE-Wilmington facility is characterized by a shallow water table aquifer and a deeper principal aquifer which supplies drinking and process water for the site. The effects of facility , operations on groundwater are discussed below. j Water Tahle Aquifer During the period of 1989 to 1995, elevated contaminant levels were found in the WT and FX series of wells completed in the shallow aquifer. WT-1, near the waste treatment facility, showed elevated levels of nitrate, ammonia, and fluoride. The increase in concentrations of these parameters has been attributed to I ammonium fluoride waste water entering the well in 1986 as a result of a leak in an overhead pipe. Nitrate levels in WT-1 increased from an annual average of 27.34 ppm in 1985 to 294.55 ppm in 1986, ammonia levels increased from 1.11 ppm to 163.83 ppm, and fluoride levels increased from 0.75 ppm to 30.43 ppm. Corrective actions were taken and the fluoride and ammonia levels have generally decreased in WT-1 since 1987. Average nitrate levels decreased to a 1991 average of 52.15 ppm. However, since 1991, average nitrate values have increased to the 1995 level of 272.84 ppm. GE staff representatives indicate that assessment of these data continues [7]. The 1986 contamination of well WT-1 has affected downgradient wells WT-9 and WT-2. In 1988, nitrate levels in well WT-9 increased to an average value of 312.47 ppm, ammonia levels increased to 23.66 ppm in 1987, and fluoride levels increased to 13.82 ppm in 1988. By 1995, levels had decreased to more typical values of 6.94 ppm,0.68 ppm, and less than 1.00 ppm, for nitrate, ammonia, and fluoride, respectively. Nitrate levels in WT-2 increased to 61.64 ppm in 1988, and had decreased to 21.04 ppm by 1995. The EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water is 10 ppm for nitrates and 4 ppm for fluorides. The groundwater flow pattern of the water-table aquifer in the vicinity of the Waste Treatment Facility is away from the potable water supply wells associated with the principal aquife r. Cross contamination is possible, but the current contamination moves hydraulically away from the wells in the location of the potable water supply of the principle aquifer and intercepts the drainage ditch. Following the discovery of elevated nitrates, fluorides and uranium beneath a portion of the FMO/FMOX building complex in 1991, the FX series of monitoring wells was installed northwest of the complex. Liquids had seeped through a seam in the concrete floor from slab tanks containing uranyl nitrate solutions 5.3
in the 1970's and 1980's. When the contamination was discovered, the floor seams were repaired and the contaminated soil was removed. In addition, a shallow horizontal groundwater collection system was installed to contain and collect localized contaminated groundwater and route it to the Uranium Recovery Unit for processing. l Only the upper part of the shallow water table aquifer appears to have been contaminated [8]. From 1992 through 1995, the maximum average nitrate (as N) concentration in these wells was 127 ppm, and the j maximum average fluoride concentration was 4.86 ppm. Due to removal of the source of contamination i and the effects of the groundwater collection system, these concentrations are expected to continue to i decline. 1 Although there has been an impact to the shallow aquifer, GE has taken steps to mitigate that impact and assure that further degradation of shallow groundwater quality does not occur. Remediation and restoration of the shallow groundwater may be necessary when the facility is decomanissioned in accordance with NRC requirernents. l l PlincipaLAquifer Process and potable water supply wells are sampled for radiological and nonradiological contaminants. Supply well 14 showed nitrate levels elevating through the year 1991 to an average value of 18.48 ppm. This increase was attributed to the periodic seepage of nitrates from the treated process wastewater in the effluent channel downward to the principal aquifer. In 1991, a pipe was installed and is now used as the transfer system. The concentrations have since decreased back to an average value of 0.27 ppm in 1995. Contaminants were not observed in the other wells. The routine monitoring program identified traces of organics in the principal aquifer in 1991. Additional monitoring wells were added to both the site boundaries and the site interior for both the water table j aquifer and the principal aquifer. In addition, pump and treat methods were instigated to contain the spread of contamination. The contamination is due to past practices at the site, which have been discontinued. Therefore, continued operation of the facility will not result in further degradation of the groundwater due to these organic compounds and GE will continue efforts to address and mitigate, as necessary, the organic contamination. Blotic Resources Terrestrial The anticipated pathway for a nonradiological impact to terrestrial resources would be deposition from airborne discharges of fluoride compounds to the surrounding soil and vegetation. Measurements of fluoride concentrations in vegetation from 1989 to 1995 were typically below 10 ppm. However, concentrations of 36 to 41.5 ppm F were reported at the northeast sampling station in 1991 and 1992. These samples are close to the toxic threshold values for fluorine in forage of 30 to 40 ppm, but are below those for animals which average 185 ppm [9,10]. These concentrations were taken close to the emission 5.4
* 's source and would be subject to significant dilution and concomitant reduction in toxicity when the plume reaches the facility boundaries.
Aquatm As discussed above, there is no measurable impact from the site effluents on natural chemical concentrations in the Northeast Cape Fear River because of the relatively high flow of the river and the relatively small quantities of chemicals discharged from the site. Therefore, there has been no significant impact on aquatic organisms due to chemical releases from the GE facility. Cultural Resources Operation of the GE-Wilmington facility has not affected regional historic and cultural resources. Continued normal operation of the facility is also not expected to have any 'n; pact on these resources. GE will continue to manage access to the Rose Hill plantation grave site to potect this sensitive area. Socioeconomics The manufacturing sector is an important source of employmer.t in the ar.:a and in the regional economy. The GE-Wilmington plant is among the largest manufacturing establishraents in the county. While the area's job base is relatively well-diversified, GE accounts for 13.5% of all manufacturing jobs in New Hanover County. Any major decrease in the scope / scale of plant activities would have negative impacts on employment and wage earnings in the area's labor market and regional economy. 5.1.2 Radiological Impncts The release of radioactive material to air and water from the GE facility represents a potential negative impact on the health and safety of the surrounding population. The primary component of this impact is an incremental increase in the risk of cancer due to low levels of radiation exposure. This subsection describes and analyzes the impacts due to long-term releases from normal operations. ! The impact is calculated and presented in terms of the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) resulting from a single year of operations. For doses resulting from the inhalation or ingestion of uranium, this l quantity is the committed effective dose equivalent (or organ dose) that will accrue to an individual over a l j 50-year period beginning with the year the intake occurs. Doses to a hypothetical maximally exposed individual (MEI) and the collective dose to the population living within a 50 mile radius of the GE facility are summarized in this subsection. A detailed description of the calculational methods used in the dose assessment is provided in the Attachment. Applicable Regulatory Criteria 10 CFR Part 20: NRC Standardsfor Radiation Protection. Subpart C, Section 20.1201 of this regulation contains the requiremem that the occupational dose limit not 5.5 l
exceed a total effective dose equivalent of 0.05 Sieverts (Sv)(5 rem) per year. In addition this regulation states that the soluble uranium intake by an individual should not exceed 10 milligrams in a week in consideration of chemical toxicity. Subpart D, Section 20.1301 of this regulation contains the requirement that the sum of external and internal doses to any member of the public from the licensed operation not exceed 1 Sv per year (100 mrem /y), exclusive of the dose contribution from the licensee's disposal of radioactive material to l sanitary sewage systems in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2003. ' 40 CFR Part 190: EPA EnvironmentalStandardsfor Uranium Fuel Cycle Operation. These standards were promulgated to control the environmental impacts of the commercial nuclear fuel cycle. Under 40 CFR Part 190, the dose equivalent to any member of the public resulting from exposures from planned discharges of radionuclides (excluding radon and its progeny) to the environment from l uranium fuel cycle operations and to direct radiation from these operations shall not exceed 25 millirem 1 per year to the whole body,75 millirem per year to the thyroid, or 25 millirem per year to any other organ.
)
Occupational Exposure During 1994 and 1995, approximately 1000 radiation workers at the GE-Wilmington plant were potentially exposed to radioactive materials. The TEDE to the average worker during this time was 0.39 rem [11]. The maximum TEDE that any worker received during these years was 2.1 rem during 1994 and 2.4 rem during 1995 [12]. These doses are well below the NRC limit of 5 rem per year in 10 CFR 20.1201 and the GE-Wilmington administrative limit of 4 rem per year. Most of this exposure came from inhalation of uranium dust and direct contact with uranium. I After the ADU to DCP transition period is over, it is anticipated that occupational exposures would i decrease because of a less complex process, new equipment, and a better separation between the worker ) and the nuclear material. i Gaseous Effluents Recent operation (1989 through 1995) of the ADU and URU processes at the facility have resulted in an average annual airborne release of 104 pCi per year gross alpha activity; the largest amount released annually during that period was 125 pCi in 1994. In order to calculate doses, the releases from continued ADU/URU operations were conservatively assumed to be 200 pCi per year. However, GE-Wilmington staff estimate that replacing the ADU process with DCP will result in a 50% reduction in the quantity of uranium released in air emissions. For dose assessment purposes, the .ADU to - DCP transition period was assumed to last for a full calendar year. Therefore, to provide a reasonable upper limit on potential impacts from airborne emissions of uranium, it was assumed that 300 pCi would be released during the initial transition year when the ADU, URU, and DCP would be operated concurrently. It was then assumed that 100 pCi would be released during subsequent years of DCP and 5.6
URU operation. A summary of the estimated radiation doses from routine releases of uranium to the atmosphere is presented in Table 5.2. The maximally exposed individual (MEI) from airborne releases was assumed to reside continually throughout the year at a site boundary location,200 m (656 ft) south of the FMO-FMOX fuel fabrication buildings. He prevailing wind directions are into the northeast and the southwest sectors. The southern boundary location would have the lowest average annual atmospherie dispersion, and therefore, the highest potential radiation dose. The TEDE to the MEI at the site boundary was estimated to be about 0.001 mSv (0.1 mrem) during the transition year and about 0.0005 mSv (0.05 mrem) each year thereafter. His dose is a tiny fraction of the NRC public dose limit of I mSv (100 mrem) per year. The dose was also calculated for the nearest resident, located about 760 m (2493 ft) south of the facility. The dose was estimated to be 0.0004 mSv (0.04 mrem) during the transition year and about 0.0001 mSv (0.01 mrem) each year thereafter. No organ dose would exceed 0.012 mSv (1.2 mrem) during the transition year or exceed 0.004 mSv (0.4 mrem) during any year thereafter (the limiting organ is the lung). Inhalation would be the major exposure pathway at both the site boundary and the nearest residence, contributing about 99.9% of the total dose. The TEDE to the population within an 80 km (50 mi) radius of the GE-Wilmington facility would be about 91 person-mrem during the transition year and about 30 person-mrem each year thereafter. The population within 80 km (50 mi) was estimated to be 376,000 (based on the 1990 census) and was assumed to remain stable during future years for the purpose of this analysis. The average annual dose per person 4 for this population would be about 1 x 10 Sv (1 x 10-' mrem). Table 5.2 Annual radiation doses from routine airborne releases at GE-Wilmington. MEI Site MEl, Nearest Total U Operations Boundary Residence Plant Operation Released Description (200 m) (760 m) Population TEDE TEDE TEDE (pCi/y) (mrem /y) (mrem /y) (person-rem /y) ADU/URU 200 current 0.1 0.02 0.06 DCP/URU 100 planned 0.05 0.01 0.03 ADU/DCP/ 300 1-year 0.1 0.04 0.09 URU transition Liquid Effluents Treated liquid effluent from the GE-Wilmington site is released to the Northeast Cape Fear River. State of North Carolina river samples taken at the river dock, near the liquid effluent outfall, indicate a quarterly 5.7
l i I 4 average uranium concentration of 2.8 x 10 pCi/cm' from 1989 through 1994. GE-Wilmington estimates l that replacing the ADU process with DCP would result in an 85% reduction in the quantity and concentration of uranium released in liquid effluents. The ADU to DCP transition period was again assumed to last for one year. To estimate a reasonable l upper limit on potential impacts from releases of uranium in liquid effluent, the average uranium 4 concentration was assumed to be 3.2 x 10 pCi/cm'. nis quantity would be 115% of the measured ) ! quarterly average uranium concentration, during the initial transition year when the ADL', URU, and DCP processes are running concurrently. During subsequent years when only the DCP and URU are operating, ; the average concentration was assumed to be 4 x 16" pCi/cm', which is 15% of the measured average uranium concentration. ne MEI was conservatively assumed to consume fish, mollusks, crustaceans, and aquatic plants from the river, and to drink the river water. The results are presented in Table 5.3. During the transition year, the estimated dose to the MEl from the river pathway was estimated to be 0.008 mSv (0.8 mrem). The . TEDE drops to 0.001 mSv (0.1 mrem) during subsequent years. No organ dose would exceed 0.06 mSv (6 mrem). Ingestion is the only contributing exposure pathway, with ingestion of aquatic plants 3 contributing approximately 60% of the dose and ingestion of fish contribu.in.g about 20%. No population
~
dose estimates from the river pathway were made, because uranium in the river would be diluted to background levels not far from the river dock. Consequently, the collee'.we dose impact is negligible. Table 5.3 Annual radiation doses from routine surface water releases at GE-Wilmington. Ave. Uranium Description of MEI at l Plant Operation Concentration Operations River Dock (pCi/L) TEDE(mrem /y)- ADU/URU 2.8 current 0.7 DCP/URU 0.4 planned 0.1 ADU/DCP/URU 3.2 1-year transition 0.8 j i Groundwater c Uranium contamination was not detected in the deeper aquifer which supplies drinking and process water for the GE-facility. However, elevated levels of uranium were found in the PL series, WT series and FX j series of wells in the shallow aquifer. In well PL-ll A, near the final process basins, the 1995 average uranium concentration was 4.7 ppm (about 11,000 pCi/L), with a maximum measurement of 10.8 ppm (about 26,000 pCi/L). He average gross alpha activity measured in PL-il A was 6,433 pCi/L in 1995. In addition, gross alpha activity measurements in four other wells sporadically exceeded GE's action limit of 15 pCi/L between 1989 and 1995 [1]. However, uranium measurements were generally below the limit of detection of 0.02 ppm (about 48 pCi/L). No trends in the data were identified, and GE is currently 5.8
assessing this information. From 1989 to 1995, uranium concentrations above background were also found in well WT-1 near the waste treatment facility, which showed annual average uranium concentrations of 0.02 ppm (about 48 pCi/L) to 0.2 ppm (about 480 pCi/L). In addition, annual average gross alpha measurements for WT-1 ranged from 29 to 522 pCi/L, and gross beta measurements ranged from 18 to 137 pCi/L. During this time period, the average gross alpha activity for all of the other WT wells was 4.8 i 2.1 pCi/L, and the average gross beta activity was 15 i 2.5 pCi/L. Elevated concentrations were attributed to a pipe leak in 1986, which contaminated groundwater adjacent to WT-1 with ammonium fluoride waste. In addition to the PL and WT series of wells, the FX series of wells near the FMO/FMOX complex also showed uranium contamination in the upper portion of the water table aquifer. The highest average i concentration was in well FX-2A(U) was 0.72 ppm (about 1,700 pCi/L). However, removal of the source l along with installation of a groundwater collection and treatment system is expected to contain the plume. ! l Although there has been an impact to the shallow aquifer due to radiological contaminants, GE has ! instigated measures to assess and mitigate these impacts. There is no indication that radiological contamination has migrated offsite, and therefore, impacts to the offsite population are not expected.
]
Remediation of the site groundwater may be necessary prior to release of the GE facility at the time of decommissioning. 1 Biological Resources l l l Terrestrial Pathway The anticipated pathway for a radiological impact to terrestrial resources would be from airborne discharges of uranium compounds to the surrounding soil and vegetation. For the period of 1989 through , 1995, uranium concentrations measured in onsite soil averaged 0.56 ppm, while concentrations in offsite l soil averaged 0.29 ppm. The highest average uranium concentrations were measured at the waste box l storage pad and ranged from 3.21 to 56.62 ppm, with a maximum individual measurement of 155 ppm. Toxicity values for plants are generally reported at concentrations greater than 1000 ppm, while those for animals are reported at 200 ppm or greater [12,13]. Therefore, the uranium concentrations in soil would not be expected to significantly affect terrestrial species. Armtic Pathway Aqueous wastes are subjected to several treatment steps prior to being discharged to the Northeast Cape Fear River. Samples taken at the final process basin outfalls have shown an annual average uranium content of 0.41 ppm. For a specific aquatic food chain described by Mahon, accumulation of uranium in plankton was 459 times that of the water concentration, 306 times the water concetration for mollusca (Pisidium), and 14.7 times the water concentration for fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss and Catastomus catastomus) [12). Assuming these bioconcentrations occurr in the Northern Cape Fear River, uranium accumulations would be significantly below the toxicity threshold to algae of 2000 ppm, of crustacea of 500 ppm, or of the most sensitive fish species of 600 ppm [12]. Accordingly, continued operation of the facility, especially given the reduction of process effluents that will result from the shift to the DCP 5.9
l l 1 1 operation, is expected to result in negligible impact to aquatic resources. i l l 5.2 Iluman IIealth Impacts from Facility Accidents Release of radioactive or hazardous materials under accident conditions may result in impacts to members j of the public and the surrounding population. Potential impacts include acute health effects or increased ; risk. oflatent cancer fatalities. l l Table 5.4 presents the accidents evaluated for ADU and DCP operations. These accidents were chosen based on the accident analysis presented in GE's 1989 Environmental Report (1]. Based on operating experience, GE postulated a range of potential facility accidents for Severity Categories I and 11. Severity Category I represents accidents that could be anticipated to occur during the lifetime of the facility. Severity Category 11 represents accidents that would not be expected to occur during the lifetime of the facility and are thus considered unusual incidents. No catastrophic accidents, Severity Category 111, were identified or evaluated. Additional information on accident analysis methods is presented in the Attachment. Impacts to workers at GE-Wilmington from facility accidents would be greater in all cases than those presented for members of the public. Potential impacts to workers are not quantitied because of the great uncertainty in occurrence and effect. Workers may be in the vicinity of accidents when they occur and may be directly exposed to radiation, radioactive material, and hazardous material. Some accidents, such as explosions and tires, may present physical hazards that can fatally injure workers. Others, such as criticalities and large releases of 1,azardous materials, have the potential to expose workers to lethal amounts of radiation or hazardous chemicals. GE-Wilmington has engineered controls in place and administers radiation and industrial safety programs to prevent or minimize potential impacts to workers from accidents. 5.2.1 Severity Category 1 Accidents Severity Category I accidents are those that could be anticipated during the lifetime of the GE-Wilmington fuel fabrication facility. Accidents in this category may include dropping of a UF. cylinder and a spill of UO powder. UF. eylinders arrive at the facility by truck in their protective shipping containers. The shipping container is opened and the cylinder is transferred by a stationary crane to a weighing and staging area, and then moved into the fuel manufacturing building or to a secured outdoor storage area. At no time is a cylinder elevated more than 10 feet above grade. The cylinders are designed to withstand a drop from this height without loss of containment. Therefore, no damage is expected if a drop did occur [1]. If a hairline crack did occur during such an accident, it would not cause major leakage of UF.. The UF. is a solid at ambient temperature and, therefore, would escape only very slowly. Also, UF. reacts with atmospheric moisture to form uranyl tiuoride, a nonvolatile solid. Thus, a slow leak through a narrow crack would be self-sealing as the uranyl fluoride accumulates in the crack. The amount of UF which l i 5.10
t
- enter the offsite environtnent from such an accident is insignificant [1]. ,
i l The second accident considered was the spill of UO2 Powder. In this scenario, I kg of UO2 was assumed I
- to be spilled. Based on experimental data, it was further assumed that this would result in about I g (2.4 Ci) of uranium becoming airborne inside the facility [15]. This quantity of uranium was assumed to enier the facility ventilation system and HEPA filters, which have a filtration efficiency of 99.9%. Uranium 1
passing through the HEPA filters was assumed to be released from an elevated stack with an effective release height of 98 ft (30 m). The TEDE to the MEI, located 2 km (6562 ft) south of the GE-Wilmington facility, , would be negligible, about 3 x 10 " rem. Dose to the population in the maximally exposed sector (south-4
- southeast) within 80 km (50 mi) of the facility was estimated to be 3 x 10 person-rem. Inhalation was the
; principal exposure pathway, contributing nearly 100% of the total dose.
Evaluation of the UO2 Power spill indicates that relatively large quantities of uranium could be spilled or otherwise released within the facility under normal operating conditions (that is, operating ventilation and
- HEPA filtration systems) with negligible impacts to members of the public.
l l - l Table 5.4 Summary of accidents evaluated. ] Accident Applicable Operation Severity Category I
- 1. UF. Cylinder Drop ADU & DCP
- 2. UO2 Powder Spill (small) ADU & DCP J Severity Category II
- 3. UO 2Powder Spill (large) DCP
- 4. UF. Cylinder Fire (outside) ADU and DCP
- 5. Defluorinator/Calciner Explosion ADU
- 6. Criticality ADU
- 7. Major Facility Fire ADU and DCP Severity Category III No accidents evaluated.
5.11
1 J 1 5.2.2 Category II Accidents Large UO, Powder Spill I 1 i In the DCP, large quantities of UO2 Powder may be held in critically safe containers and moved to different locations within the facility. During movement, it was assumed that a large quantity of UO 2 ! powder,100 kg, was spilled from one of these containers. A fraction,0.0012, of the powder was assumed , to become airborne, enter the ventilation and filter system, and be released to the atmosphere from. building stack [15]. Impacts of this accident were evaluated in a manner similar to the smaller UO2 SPillin the previous section. The TEDE to the MEI, located 2,000 m (6562 ft) south of the GE-Wilmington facility, would be negligible at approximately 3 x 10r" Sv (3 x 10r" rem). The dose to the maximally exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 mi) of the facility would also be very small at 3 x 104 person-rem. Again, inhalation is the principal exposure pathway, contributing nearly 100% of the total dose. UF, Cylinder Fire The second accident scenario considers a release from a full cylinder of UF. (enriched to 4%2 "U) located outside on a storage pad. The cylinder is engulfed in a fire big enough to cause rupturing and vaporization of all of the UF 6within a 1-hour period. ' An accident of this magnitude may be highly unlikely, however,. It does provide an indication of the likely upper limits of potential impacts of a fire and UF. release. The cylinder was assumed to contain 2277 kg of UF.. Upon entering the atmosphere, the UF. reacts with water vapor to form HF and UO2F2. It is assumed the UF, would completely react over the period of release. Due to the buoyancy effects of the fire, an effective height of 30 m (98 ft ) was assumed. The TEDE to the MEI, who was determined to be located 2 km (6562 ft) south of the GE-Wilmington facility, was estimated to be 5 rem. In addition, the dose to the exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 miles) was estimated to be 29,000 person-rem compared to a background dose of 60,000 person-rem per year. Inhalation is the principal exposure pathway, contributing nearly 100% of the total dose. Denuorinator/Calciner Explosion l A second Severity Category II accident scenario examined was an explosion in the defluorinator/calciner l where ADU is converted to UO2 . A total of 120 kg of UO was 2 assumed to be in the calciner, and 10% ) was assumed to be released and become airborne. If exterior walls or walls separating the controlled area from uncontrolled areas are not breached, the airborne material would be taken into the ventilation system and pass through HEPA filters before being released to the atmosphere through the building stacks. An effective release height of 30 m (% ft) was assumed. The TEDE to the MEI located 2 km (6562 ft) south of the GE-Wilmington facility, was estimated to be 0.0003 mSv (0.03 mrem). The dose to the exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 mi) would be about 0.1 person-rem. In the event of a building breach, nuch higher impacts would result to the MEI and the population because 5.12 _- ._ . . _ . - _ ~._ -. . , _ _ _ _ _
l of the unfiltered, ground level release. For this scenario, the TEDE to the MEl, located 200 m (656 ft) south at the boundary of the GE-Wilmington facility, would be about 16 rem. The dose to the exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 nu) would be about 700 person-rem. No credit l was taken for any deposition of the airborne fraction in the building. Inhalation is the principal exposure pathway for both accident scenarios, contributing nearly 100% of the total dose. The estimated uranium intake by the MEl would be 0.1 mg, if the building were to remain intact; no adverse health impacts would be anticipated from chemical effects. If the building were to be breached, the estimated MEI intake would be 50 mg uranium. Because it is possible for a mixture of soluble and insoluble forms of uranium to be present in the calciner, some adverse health impacts, such as kidney damage, could occur to the MEl. Criticality Event Accidental criticality was another Severity Class Il scenario examined. No accident of this type has occurred in a low-enrichment fuel fabrication facility, although a near criticality occurred at the GE facility in 1991 when uranium waste solutions were inadvertently transferred to a non-favorable geometry tank. The following analysis used accident assumptions presented in the NRC guidance and is applicable to situations where liquids and enriched uranium may be present together [16]. A solution of 400 g/L of uranium enriched in2"U and in unfavorable geometry is assumed. Rese conditions are highly unlikely in the ADU operation and are probably incredible under DCP operations. A single criticality event of 10" fissions was assumed to occur, and doses were calculated from the volatile radioiodines and noble gases released to the atmosphere via the ventilation system. The releases were assumed to be unfiltered. An effective release height of % ft (30 m) was assumed. The radiciodine and noble gas source term is presented in the Attachment. The TEDE to the MEl, located 2 km (6562 ft) south of the GE-Wilmington facility, was estimated to be 0.001 Sv (0.1 rem). Dose to the exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 mi) was estimated to be 60 person-rem. External exposure is the principal exposure pathway, contributing nearly 100% of the dose to the MEI and about 90% of the population dose. Inhalation accounted for the remaining 10% of the population dose. Major Facility Fire A major facility fire was evaluated and was assumed to be a Severity Category 11 event. It was assumed the fire involved 500 kg (1102 lb) of UO 2powder. Half of the powder was assumed to become airborne as U30, in sufficient quantities to plug the building HEPA filters, but not cause them to fail. The lack of ventilation causes the building pressure to rise, forcing 1% (5.5 lb or 2.5 kg) of the U3 0, out of the building in a ground level release, ne TEDE to the MEI located 200 m (656 ft) south at the GE-Wilmington site boundary, was estimated to be 3 rem. Dose to the exposed population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 mi) was 5.13 1 i
l
.- .. 1 estimated to be 140 person-rem. Inhalation is the principal exposure pathway, contributing nearly 100% of the total dose.
Table 5.5 presents a summary of the radiological impacts estimated from the eight facility accidents considered in the accident analysis. Because the MEI location varies, depending upon whether the release is elevated or ground-level, the type of release is also presented. Table 5.5. Summary of radiological impacts from facility accidents. l MEI Dose Population Dose Accident Release Type (rem) (Person-rem) Severity Category I l
- 1. UF. Cylinder Drop no release - -
l
- 2. UO 2Powder Spill (small) elevated 3 x 10 " 3 x 10 I I
Severity Category 11 i
- 3. UO 2Powder Spill (large) elevated 3 x 10~" 3 x 10~' l
- 4. UF. Cylinder Fire (outside) elevated 5 29,000
- 5. Defluorinator/Calciner Explosion Building intact elevated 3 x 10-5 0.1 Building breached ground-level 16 700
- 6. Criticality elevated 0.1 60
- 7. Maior Facility Fire ground-level 3 140 5.2.3 Nonradiological Accidents I
The 1989 Environmental Report discussed potential impacts from other non-radiological accidents including spills and releases of anhydrous ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, hydrofluoric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, propane, sodium hydroxide, and sulfuric acid from onsite storage tanks [1]. I No adverse health impacts would be anticipated to the MEI, located at the fence line 200 meters from the facility, or other members of the public from these releases, although a release could cause significant toxic and other effects, including death, to workers. These types of chemicals are commonly used in industrial applications throughout the United States and are not unique to the uranium fuel fabrication industry. The GE-Wilmington site has in place accepted types of containme'nt systems, and exercises normal industry practices in use and storage of chemicals. GE-Wilmington has evaluated the impacts of two catastrophic accidents including the release of 5000 5.14
l I i l l gallons (18.9 kL) of hydrofluoric acid (HF) cnd the release of 20,000 gallons (75.7 kL) of hydrogen from l storage tanks. Using conservative assumptions, it was estimated that the ERPG-2 level would be reached for the catastrophic release of HF near the site boundary 0.2 mi (300 m) away. The ERPG-2 level is the maximum airborne concentration below which nearly all individuals could be exposed for up to one hour l without experiencing or developing irreversible or other serious health effects or symptoms which could impair an individuals's ability to take protective action. l l For the hydrogen explosion, a detonation of the flammable hydrogen was assumed. The impacts of the j shock wave were evaluated. An overpressure of 1 psi, which can cause damage to residential dwellings, was estimated to occur at a distance of of 0.3 mi(480 m). Although, the site boundary is only 0.09 mi (150 m) from the hydrogen storage tanks there are no residences within 0.3 miles of this area. However, l impacts could affect individuals who happened to be in the area at the time of the explosion. l 1 5.3 Summary of EnvironmentalImpacts 1 5.3.1 License Renewal i l Renewal of the license would result in beneficial as well as adverse impacts. Beneficial impacts largely ' accrue from the facility's provision of economic stability to New Hanover County through direct l employment and secondary employment, as well as tax revenues. Adverse impacts from currently licensed operations are small. The hypothetical maximally exposed individual (MEI), located at the fence-line 200 meters south of the facility, receives an estimated total i effective dose equivalent (TEDE) from all pathways of 0.17 millirem per year (mremly). This estimated dose is significantly less than the limits established by the EPA in 40 CFR Part 190 (25 mrem /y) and by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 20 (100 mrem /y) including the new constraint (10 mrem /yr) on airborne ) emissions in Part 20 (20.1301). The collective dose to the population from routine atmospheric releases is l estimated at 0.061 person-rem per year, about one millionth of the 60,000 person-rem per year that the l same population is exposed to from natural background sources [2]. As discussed in section 3.3.2, two areas to the south of the GE facility have relatively high minority l populations. Because adverse impacts to the MEl, located at the fence-line 200 meters south of the l facility, are expected to be insignificant, no adverse impacts to human health are expected to these minority populations. No impacts to the surrounding population or to the environment from facility operations have been shown. However, the groundwater monitoring program has identified impacts to the shallow aquifer and to the principal aquifer from site activities. Impacts to the shallow aquifer include uranium contaraination near the final process basins, the waste treatment facility, and the FMO/FMOX complex. Concentrations of nitrates, fluoride and ammonia above background levels have been identified in shallow groundwater near the waste treatment facility and near the FMOX/FMO buildings, and above normal nitrate levels were measured in supply well 14 of the principal aquifer for a short time. In addition, organic contaminants have been identified in both the shallow and principal aquifer in several areas of the site. However, GE 5.15
continues to assess monitoring data and has instigated corrective actions, as necessary, to mitigate the ; impacts on groundwater and to contain the spread of contaminates. At this time, no offsite impacts to l groundwater have been identified, i Radiological impacts are expected to decrease when the DCP replaces the ADU process. The TEDE to the MEI from all pathways is expected to decrease to 0.06 mrem /y and the population dose due to atmospheric releases is expected to decrease to 0.03 person-rem per year. In addition, releases of non-radiological contaminants, such as HF, is not expected to result in offsite impacts. 1 Several accident scenarios were analyzed in Section 5.2. No offsite impacts are expected from the ; Severity Category I accidents evaluated. Offsite impacts, which would exceed public dose limits, are I possible from the Severity Category 11 scenerios examined. However, the occurance of a Category 11 accident is highly unlikely and is not expected to occur during the lifetime of the facility. In addition, the l licensee has developed operational and emergency procedures to mitigate the effects of an accident. Therefore, due to insignificant offsite chemical and radiological impacts from normal operations, as well as the small probability of offsite impacts due to facility accidents, it is concluded that the proposed license renewal will not have a significant impact on human health or the environment. 5.3.2 License Terminntion An alternative to the proposed action is non-renewal of the license. In this case, GE would shut down the uranium fuel manufacturing activities and begin decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) of the Wilmington facility. With this action, release of radiological and nonradiological effluents from licensed operations would cease in the near-term. Once D&D operations at the facility began, radiological effluents, largely atmospheric, would be expected. However, the magnitude of those effluents cannot be determined at this time. Operations such as zirconium metal processing, production of fuel bundle and mechanical reactor components, and manufacture of aircraft engine parts do not require NRC licensing and could continue. These operations could result in nonradiological eftluent releases. D&D operations would be conducted in accordance with an approved decommissioning plan prepared by GE after a thorough site survey. 'Ite NRC would assess the environmental impacts of decommissioning activities during review of this D&D plan. GE intends to remediate the facility for unrestricted release [17]. Non-renewal of the license would also result in adverse socioeconomic impacts in New Hanover County and beyond. These would include loss of direct and indirect employment as well as reductions in tax revenues to the surrounding jurisdiction. Since the GE facility is one of four producers of low-enriched uranium fuel for light water reactors and the demand for such fuel would remain unchanged, selection of this alternative may result in the transfer of fuel production activities to another site. 5.16
i 5.3.3 Conclusion . Renewal of the GE materials license SNM-1097 will result in continued release of radioactive and nonradioactive effluents. However, the impact to human health and the environment from these releases ; has been determined to be insignificant and GE has committed to effluent monitoring, environmental l monitoring, and ALARA programs to ensure continued minimal impact. The small adverse impacts are outweighed by the positive impacts from continued operation of the facility, mainly from economic benefits to the surrounding community. 5.4 References for Section 5 l
- 1. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C., Envirnnment21 Renort, GE NEDO-31664, Class 1, (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1989.
- 2. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, N.C.,1996 hpnfament in Fnvirnnmentnf Rennrt, (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 1996. )
- 3. McCall, T., N.C. Department of Health and Natural Resources, Division of Air Quality, Telephone l Communication with M. T. Adams, USNRC, February 18, 1997. )
- 4. U.S. Code of Ferderal Regulations, " Occupational Health and Safety Administration, Department of !
Labor," Part 1910, Title 29. -l J
- 5. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC,"GE-Wilmington SupplementalInformation to the Application for Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-1097," (NRC Docket 70-1113), May 14, q 1996.
- 6. West, S., N. C. Department of Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Telephone Communication with M.T. Adams, USNRC, February 18, 1997.
- 7. Vaughn, C., GE Nuclear Energy, Telephone Communication with S. D. Chotoo, U.S. NRC, April 17, 1997.
- 8. NRC Inspection Report No. 70-1113/94-06, June 24,1994.
- 9. Aller, A.J., J.L. Bernal, M.J. Del Nozal, and L. Deban, " Effects of Selected Trace Elements on Plant growth," J. Sci. Food Agric., 51:447-479, 1990.
- 10. U.S. EPA, " Oil and Hazardous Materials / Technical Assistance Data System (OHM / TADS),"
Microdex, Inc., Vol 31,1996.
- 11. Reda, R.J., GE Nuclear Energy, Letter to E.D. Flack, U.S. NRC, (Docket 70-113), May t,,
1996. 5.17
i i i
- 12. Reda, R.J., GE Nuclear Energy, Letter to E.D. Flack, U.S. NRC, (Docket 70-113), September 26, 1996, i
~
- 13. Sheppard, S.C., W.G. Evenden, and A.J. Anderson, " Multiple Assays of Uranium Toxicity in Soil,"
. Envir. Toxicol. Water Qual,7:275-294,1992. 1 I 14. Mahon, D.C., " Uptake and Translocation of Naturally-Ocurring Radionuclides of the Uranium Series," Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,29:697-703,1982. { j 15. Sutter, S.L., J.W. Johnston, an J. Mishima,1981, " Aerosols Generated by Free Fall Spills of ; 1 Powders and Solutions in Static Air" NUREG/CR-2139, U.S. NRC, Washing:on, D.C. l 16. USNRC, Washington, DC, " Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological ; j Consequences of Accidental Nuclear Criticality in a Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant." Regulatory Guide 3.34,1979. , l
- 17. GE Nuclear Energy, Wilmington, NC, " Decommissioning Plan and Closure Plan,"(NRC Docket 70- 1113), December 18, 1996. 1 1
l a
\
1 4 I a ) 4 4 1 t 5.18 J
1 l l l 6.0 Regulatory Consultation i l During the preparation of this EA, the NRC staff consulted with various regulatory agencies to discuss the proposed license renewal of the GE-Wilmington facility and to gather information. The nature of these contacts are summarized below in Table 6.1. Table 6.1 Summary of regulatory consultations. Agency Point of Date of Discussion Contact Consultation N.C. Department of Tom Henson December 2,1996 Consulted to discuss presence of Environment, IIcalth, and endangered or threatened species in Natural Resources, Widdlife the Wilmington area. Resources Commisssion, Nongame and Endangered Species Section N.C. Department of Dale Dusenbury January 29,1997 Consulted to discuss the NCDRP Environment, Health, and Sampling Program conducted under Natural Resources, NRC contract. Division of Radiation NCDRP would like the NRC to give Protection (NCDRP) them a grant to install and sample new wells off-site near the CaF area. N.C. Department of Charles Steht:w.n January 29,1997 Stehlam stated that there are Environment, llcalth, and chlorinated solvents (mostly 1,1,1-Natural Resources, Division TCE) from two sources present in of Water Quality groundwater in deeper zones. GE is pumping and treating. GE is addressing all groundwater issues. N.C. Department of Steve West January 29,1997 West stated that there are no Environment, Ilealth, and outstanding issues on water quality. Natural Resources, Division GE has an excellent compliance of Water Quality record. USEPA, Region IV, Giselle Bennet January 29,1997 There are no national priority list Superfund Remedial Branch (NPL) sites at GE-Wilmington. USEPA, Toxics Management Greg Worley January 29,1997 There are no issues associated with Division, Air and Radiation GE-Wilmington. Technical Branch 1 1 N.C. Department of Terry McCall January 29,1997 There are no air quality issues Environment, llealth, and asociated with GE-Wilmin~gton. GE is l Natural Resources, Division in compliance with their license and of Air Quality with NC rules. l 6.1
a _ a - h 1 1 Attachment DOSE ASSESSMENT METIIODOLOGY l
)
1 A.0 DOSE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The methods used to calculate the human health impacts of routine radiological releases from the GE-Wilmington facility are presented in Section A.I. The methods used to calculate the human health impacts l from radioactive materials and hazardous chemicals released during non-routine events are presented in Section A.2. A.1 Impacts from Routine Releases The computer code GENII, version 1.486, was used to model the environmental transport of radionuclides and the resulting human health effects ciue to routine releases from the GE-Wilmington facility [1]. It is composed of seven linked computer codes and their associated libraries. The GENII package has been extensively tested and verified by han3 calculations and benchmarked against similar environmental dosimetry programs. Also, the models implemented by the code have undergone technical review by external experts. The code was originally developed for dose assessment at the arid U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, but has been successfully applied to a multitude of environmental settings. The GENII code generates unit dose factors which can u used with inventory release information to estimate the total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) to hur lans. Unit dose factors (in units of rem per uCi released) provide a dose estimate that would result from *he release of a unit of activity (I uCi/y) into the environment. Internal doses were calculated as 50-yen committed effective dose equivalents (CEDE) 1 using ICRP 26 and ICRP 30 methodology. The TEDE is the sum of the CEDE and the external dose. The average specifk activity of the uranium at the GE-Wilmington plant is 2.3 uCilg [2]. Uranium-234 is l l 83 percent of total uranium activity, uranium-235 is 3 percent, and uranium-238 is 14 percent. The dose 1 l assessment considered uranium-234, uranium-235 plus progeny (thorium-231, protactinium-231, actinium-227, thorium-227, francium-223, and radium-223), uranium-236, and uranium-238 plus progeny (thorium-234 and protactinium-234). The progeny were assumed to be in equilibrium with the parent at the time of release. In addition, in estimating the dose from routine releases, all uranium isotopes were conservatively assumed to be inhalation class Y. This class assumes a slow clearance rate from the lungs and tends to maximize the radiological impacts. A. I.1 Atmospheric Releases The GENI! code uses a Gaussian plume model te calculate radionuclide atmospheric transport. Site specific meteorology data, presented in joint frequency format in Table A.1, and site specific release information, were used as input to the code. For example, an effective stack height of 10 meters was used for routine releases. The calculation of unit dose factors also requires assumptions to be made about exposure times and intake rates of the exposed individua!s. Table A.2 summarizes significant parameter values used for this assessment. Assumptions of parameter values are conservative so that potential impacts to exposed individuals will not be underestimated. The model was then used to determine the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) at the fence i line, located 200 m south of the manufacturing buildings, and to the nearest resident, located 760 meters south of the manufacturing buildings. The collective dose to the population within 80 km (50 mi) of the
=ite was also estimated using the population distribution data in Table A.3.
4 A.2 i l
Unit dose factors calculated using the GENII code are summarized in Tables A.4 and A.5 for the fence-line MEI and for the surrounding population. Table A 4 shows that inhalation is by far the most important expvire pathway, contributing greater than 99% of the dose. Uranium-234 has the highest unit dose i fntor. Because of the high unit dose factor and because more than 80 percent of the activity released is l due to U-234, it is the main uranium isotope contributing to the TEDE. A.3 1
O Table A.1 Table A.1 Meteorologicaljoint frequency data for Wilmington, NC hom 1991 to 1995, Ave. Wind Atm. Direction (Wind Blowing Toward) Speed Stability mia 'h M MMW SW_ WSW_W_WNW _NW_NNW_ N__NNF NE_ENR R PSP MF MS E._ l.54 A 0.014 0.007 0.009 0.011 0.008 0.013 0.014 0.015 0.022 0.016 0.027 0.026 0.013 0.017 0.007 0.010 B 0.139 0.060 0.082 0 079 0.082 0.045 0.048 0.056 0.070 0.050 0.124 0.114 0.131 0.081 0.084 0.074 C 0.092 0.045 0.056 0.059 0.047 0.032 0.063 0.039 0.050 0.031 0.039 0.053 0.060 0.039 0.052 0.041 D 0.191 0.120 0.134 0.110 0.132 0.050 0.044 0.074 0.102 0.063 0.059 0.082 0.119 0.083 0.099 0.108 E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F 0.578 0.287 0.358 0.312 0.280 0.191 0.235 0.257 0.466 0.302 0.372 0.308 0.351 0.143 0.201 0.279 G 1.046 0.378 0.496 0.488 0.802 0.378 0.511 0.338 0.771 0.511 0.716 0.425 0.653 0.267 0.315 0.669 2.62 A 0.040 0.019 0.017 0.026 0.024 0.033 0.014 0.019 0.038 0.035 0.064 0.054 0.050 0.040 0.035 0.019 B 0.227 0.144 0.109 0.104 0.106 0.109 0.116 0.137 0.156 0.087 0.161 0.220 0.250 0.196 0.161 0.170 C 0.321 0.194 0.213 0.196 0.184 0.099 0.146 0.109 0.168 0.128 0.146 0.286 0.241 0.149 0.161 0.203 D 1.027 0.605 0.662 0.555 0.449 0.305 0.330 0.307 0.458 0.311 0.411 0.402 0.494 0.300 0.364 0.451 E 0.635 0.529 0.591 0 454 0 451 0.274 0 300 0.437 0.902 0.711 0.829 0.593 0.470 0.196 0.191 0.198 F 1.I83 0.716 0.706 0.418 0.321 E146 0.234 0.347 0.815 0.583 0.876 0.753 0.824 0.314 0.3610.501 G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 4.27 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 B 0.154 0.097 0.120 0 090 0.180 0.182 0.184 0.156 0.168 0.142 0.224 0.210 0.208 0.094 0.130 0.087 C 0.697 0.404 0.402 0.383 0.479 0.548 0.718 0.614 0.607 0.444 0.657 0.720 0.569 0.262 0.305 0.366 D 2.230 1.795 1.393 0.860 0.933 0.588 0.595 0.697 1.318 1.526 1.637 1.025 0.781 0.484 0.707 0.777 E 0.779 0.586 0.482 0.146 0.165 0.052 0.085 0.094 0.402 0.730 0.907 0.529 0.366 0.321 0.449 0.335 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 , G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ) 6.5 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 C 0.123 0.085 0.026 0.057 0.191 0.102 0.135 0.113 0.139 0.196 0.201 0.139 0.097 0.033 0.040 0.045 D 1.681 1.328 0.699 0.560 0.843 0.347 0.361 0.669 1.241 1.996 1.687 0.669 0.751 0.503 0.706 0.798 E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 9.42 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 l B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 C 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.009 0.012 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 D 0.078 0.106 0.040 0.014 0.019 0.005 0.007 0.033 0.089 0.222 0.184 0.059 0.099 0.023 0.023 0.066 E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 000 12.7 A 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 C 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 D 0.002 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.018 0.035 0.031 0.016 0.009 0.000 0.002 0.007 E 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 000 0.000 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 G 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 A.4
e ., , l Table A.2 Atmospheric pathway exposure parameters. Parameter Vahre l Inhalation Exposure time 8,766 h/y Mass loading 0.0001 g/m' External Exposure Plume exposure time 8,766 h/y Contanunated soil exposure time 4,383 h/y Soil Ingestion 100 mg/d Incider)tal intake Food Ingestion Fraction of diet from local area 1.0 Growing time Leafy vegetables 90 d Other vegetables 90 d Fniit 90 d Grain 90 d Consumption rate Leafy vegetables 15 kg/y Other vegetables 140 kg/y Fruit 64 kg/y Grain 72 kg/y Beef / pork 70 kgly-Milk 230 Uy Poultry 8.5 kg/y Eggs 20 kgly A.5
o ;9e l Table A.3 Population distribution within 50 miles (80 km) of the GE-Wilmington Facility. Distance (mi) l l O1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 Total S 33 264 330 660 1320 3300 22940 0 0 0 28847 l SSW 7 56 70 140 280 700 5390 0 0 0 6643 l SW 7 56 70 140 280 700 5390 0 0 0 6643 ! WSW 7 56 70 140 280 700 5390 0 0 0 6643 W 6 43 53 1% 212 530 4081 6837 9646 6042 27556 9646 27556 I WNW 6 43 53 106 212 530 4081 6837 6042 NW 33 264 330 660 1320 3300 11748 4257 6006 3762 31680 NNW 33 264 330 660 1320 3300 11748 4257 6006 3762 31680 N 4 30 38 76 152 380 2926 4902 6916 4332 19756 NNE 4 30 38 76 152 380 2926 4902 6916 4332 19756 NE 4 30 38 76 152 380 2926 4902 34944 21888 65340 ENE 4 30 38 76 152 380 2926 4902 6916 4332 19756 E 18 147 184 368 736 1840 5704 0 0 0 8997 ESE 18 147 184 368 736 1840 14168 0 0 0 17461 SE 33 264 330 660 1320 3300 22940 0 0 0 28847 SSE 33 264 330 660 1320 3300 22940 0 0 0 28847 Total 250 1988 2486 4972 9944 24860 148224 41796 86996 54492 376008 distance midpoint 0.75 1.55 2.65 3.7 5.25 7.75 15.55 26.45 37.3 46.6 (miles) distance midpoint 1.2 2.5 4.2 5.9 8.4 12.4 24.9 42.3 59.7 74.6 (km) Table A.4 Unit dose factors for an MEl located 200 meters south of the fuel manufacturing buildings fram routine atmospheric releases. Unit Dose Factors (rem /uCi released) for the MEI located at the southern fence line Nuclide Inhalation External Exposure Food Ingestion Soil Ingestion l U-234 4.9 x la' l.0 x 1026 6.1 x 10 5.7 x 10' U-235 + progeny 4.6 x 104 1.3 x 10" 6.5 x 10~'* 6.1 x la U-236 4.7 x 10 4 5.4 x 10'" 5.7 x 10* 5.3 x 104'
# 7.9 x 10
U-238 + progeny 4.4 x 10 3.4 x 10 7.6 x 10* A.6
* ? o l
Table A.5 Unit dose factors for the population in the south-southeast sector within 80 km (50 mi) of the facility due to routine atmospheric releases. Unite s Factors (person-rem /uCi released) for the aulation in the south-southeast sector Nuclide Inhalation Exter.v Exposure Food Ingestion Soil Ingestion 4 U-234 3.1 x 10" 6.3 x 10~" 1.9 x 10 3.6 x 10-" U-235 + progeny 2.8 x 10" 8.2 x 16 " 2.1 x 10' 3.9 x 10'" U-235 2.9 x 10H 3.4x1&" 1.8 x 10' 3.4 x 10-" U-238 + progeny 2.7 x 10" 2.2 x 10'" 2.6 x 10' 5.1 x 10 " A.I.2 Surface Water Releases Radiation doses via the surface water pathway were calculated as a near-field scenario using measured water concentrations in the Northeast Cape Fear River. All of the activity was assumed to be attributable to U-234. The MEI was assumed to use river water and river food products near the liquid effluent outfall on the GE-Wilmington Dock on the Northeast Cape Fear River. Water was assumed to be consumed at a rate of ; 730 L/y. . Aquatic food intakes included the ingestion of fish (40 kgly), mollusks (6.9 kg/y), crustaceans (6.9 kgly), and aquatic plants (6.9 kgly). No population calculations were made because uranium concentrations in river water fall very shortly to background levels and there is no indication that a large fraction of the population would use the river water or river food products. The unit dose factor to the MEI from water pathways was calculated to be 0.26 mrem per unit activity I concentration in the river at the GE dock. Aquatic plant ingestion accounts for approximately 60% of the dose and fish ingestion accounts for approximately 20% of the dose. l l A.2 RadiologicalImpacts from Facility Accidents l l The impacts of facility accidents that result in the release of radioactive and hazardous materials were ! presented in Section 5. These releases occur over a short time period and, depending on the accident scenario, at one of two release heights. Relatively conservative parameters were chosen to estimate the potential impacts to human health. I The GENil code was also used to estimate the impacts to members of the public from acute releases o r radionuclides under accident conditions. The location of the MEl and population that would tw the most greatly impacted was determined using atmospheric dispersion data. The MEI for a ground-level releast would be at the site boundary,200 meters south of the release. The MEI for a 30-meter release height was located farther away at 2000 m south of the release. In addition, the mavimally exposed population was determined to reside in the south-southeast sector. A7
e t *, ? e t The exposure pathways of critical importance for an acute release are inhalation and external radiation exposure and were the only pathways evaluated for accidental releases. Isotope-specific unit dose factors were calculated for these pathways for ground-level and 30-meter release heights as shown in Tables A.6 and A.7. It is evident from the tabulated unit dose factors that the inhalation dose dominates for uranium releases. For releases of other radionuclides following a criticality, the source term of radioiodines and noble gases were determined from NRC Regulatory Guide 3.34 are presented in Table A.8 [3]. The criticality accident scenario assumed as single burst of I x 10" fissions. A liquid system was assumed that reduced the release of radioiodines by a factor of 4 due to retention in solution. External exposure contributed approximately 90% of the dose for this scent.rio. 'Ihose exposed were assumed to remain outdoors during the entire time of plume passage. Table A.6 Unit dose factors for the MEl due to acute atmospheric releases of uranium. Unit Dose Factor (rem /uCi released) Ground-level Release 30-meter Release Height Nuclide External Inhalation Exposure Inhalation Externa'. Exposure U-234 6.4 x 104 1.1 x 16" 1.3 x 104 2.2 x 10" __ 4 4 U-235 + progeny 5.9 x 104 1.4 x 10 1.2 x 10 2.9 x 10'"
- 4 U-236 6.1 x 10 5.7 x 1042 1.3 x 104 1.2 x 10'"
4 4 U-238 + progeny 5.7 x 10" 3.6 x 10 1.2 x 10 7.7 x 10a2 Table A.7 Unit dose factors for the surrounding population due to acute atmospheric releases of uranium. Unit Dose Factor (person-rem /uCi released) ' l Ground-level Release 30-meter Release Height Nuclide External l Inhalation Exposure Inhalation External Exposure U-234 2.9 x 10-2 3.3 x 10
- 8.2 x 10-' 9.4 x 10'"
U-235 + progeny 2.7 x 10~2 4.2 x 10 4 7.7 x 16' l.2 x 104 U-236 2.8 x 102 1.8 x 10'" 7.8 x 10 5.1 x 10'" 4 4 U-238 + progeny 2.6 x 102 1.1 x 10 7.3 x 10-' 3.1 x 10 A.8
> , 1.' t
- l 9' l
- Table A.8 Source term for the postulated criticality accident scenario [3].
Radionuclide Half-life (h) Source term (Curies) Krypton-83m 1.8 22 Krypton-85m 4.5 21 Krypton-87 1.27 140 Krypton-88 2.8 91 Krypton-89 -0.05 5900 i Xenon 133 125 3.8 i Xenon-135m 0.26 310 -*., l Xenon-135 9.1 50 : Xenon-137 0.06 6900 ! Xenon-138 0.24 1800 lodine-131 192 0.3 I lodine-132 2.3 38 l lodine-133 ' 21 5.5 . Iodine-134 0.88 '160 i lodine-135 6.6 17 ; 1 I l A.3 References l
- 1. Napier, B. A. et al., GENIl The Hanford Envirnamental Radiation rhimetry snftware System, Version 1.486, Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington,' 1988. !
- 2. Robinson, B., GE Nuclear Fuels, Telephone Communication with T. A. Ikenberry, Pacific Northwest )
National Laboratory, December 5,1996. -
- 3. USNRC," Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential for Radiological Consequences of Accidental Nuclear Criticality in a Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant," neguintary_ Guide 114, Rev.1, <
l Washington, D.C,1979. l l-
.d I- A.9
- _. _ . , , , . , , -, .. ._. _}}