ML20212C435
| ML20212C435 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000824 |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1986 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1227, NUDOCS 8612310003 | |
| Download: ML20212C435 (88) | |
Text
ye; NUREG-1227 Environmental Assessment for renewal of Materials License No. SNM-778 Docket No.70-824 Babcock and Wilcox
! Lynchburg Research Center i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards December 1986 ,
s
,s " ' % ,,
r ,:
5 :
/
g23ggggj 8%$ 24 i
s NOTICE Availability'of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W. -
- Washington, DC 20655
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082 3 3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 i
Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC pub!ications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.
! Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.
The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and i NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of l Federal Regalations, and Nuclear Regulatory Comminion issuances.
4 Documents available from the National Technical information Service include NUREG series i
reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Comminion, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and i
state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Technical information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission, Washington, DC 20555.
- Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process 4
are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Mary;and, and are available
] there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the
- American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
l l
i Abstract In response to an application for renewal of Materials License SNM-778 for the Babcock and Wilcox Company, Lynchburg Research Center, the NRC staff prepared this Environmental Assessment.
The Environmental Assessment includes discussions of the need for the proposed renewal action, alternatives to the action, and the environmental impacts of the proposed action.
The staff has determined that the methods of waste confinement and effluent controls meet all applicable state and federal standards. The environmental impact of continued operation is insignificant.
l iii l
l _ - _ .
TABLE OF CONTENTS P,afte ABSTRACT ................................................................. iii LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... viii LIST OF TABLES ........................................................... viii 1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...................................... 1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................... 1-1
( 1.2 S umma ry o f the P reposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.3 Ne e d f o r Ac t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1- 2 1.4 The Scoping P*ocess ............................................ 1-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5 2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .......................... 2-1 2.1 The Alternative of No License Renewal .......................... 2-1 2.2 The Al ternative of Li cense Renewal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 2.2.1 Description of the Current Operation .................... 2-1 2.2.2 Waste Confinement and Effluent Control .................. 2-12 2.3 Decommissioning ................................................ 2-20 2.4 Safeguards ..................................................... 2-21 2.5 Staff Evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ....... 2-21 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 ............................................ 2-22 3 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................ 3-1 3.1 Site Description ............................................... 3-1 3.2 Meteorology and Climatology .................................... 3-1 3.2.1 Climatology ............................................. 3-1 3.2.2 Winds, Tornados, and Storms ............................. 3-1 3.2.3 Meteorology ............................................. 3-4 3.2.4 A i r Q u a l i ty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4 3.3 Demography and Socioeconomic Profile ........................... 3-4 3.4 Land ........................................................... 3-12 3.4.1 S i t e A re a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 12 3.4.2 Adjacent Area ........................................... 3-12 3.4.3 Historic Significance ................................... 3-12 3.4.4 Floodplains and Wetlands ................................ 3-14 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Pajle 3.5 Hydrology ...................................................... 3-14 3.5.1 Surface Water ........................................... 3-14 3.5.2 Groundwater ............................................. 3-15 3.6 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Seismicity ..................... 3-17 3.6.1 Geology and Soils ....................................... 3-17 3.6.2 Mineral Resources ....................................... 3-17 3.6.3 Seismicity .............................................. 3-17 3.7 Biota .......................................................... 3-19 3.7.1 3.7.2 Terrestrial Aquatic ........................................... . 3-19
............................................... .. 3-21 3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................... 3-21 3.8 Radiological Characteristics (Background) ...................... 3-22 3.8.1 Total-Body Dose Rates ................................... 3-22 3.8.2 Soil, Vegetation, Sediment, and Water Background . . . . . . . . 3-22 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 ....................................... 3-24 4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED LICENSE RENEWAL .............. 4-1 4.1 Monitoring Programs and Mitigatory Measures .................... 4-1
- 4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Program ............................. 4-1 4.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Program ........................ 4-2 4.1.3 Mitigating Measures ..................................... 4-2 I
4.2 Direct Effects and Their Significance .......................... 4-8 l
l 4.2.1 Air Quality ............................................. 4-8 4.2.2 Land Use ................................................ 4-8 4.2.3 Water Use ............................................... 4-8 4.2.4 Ecological .............................................. 4-8 4.2.5 Radiological Impacts .................................... 4-9 4.3 Indirect Effects and Their Significance ........................ 4-14 4
4.3.1 Socioeconomic Effects ................................... 4-14 4.3.2 Potential Effects of Accidents .......................... 4-14 4.3.3 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies ............................................ 4-21 vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
P*M 4.3.4 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, and Society ................................ 4-21 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 ............................................ 4-22 APPENDICES ,
. APPENDIX A NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELININATION SYSTEM (NPOES)
PERMIT FOR BABC0CK & WILCOX NAVAL NUCLEAR FUEL DIVISION.... A-1 l
l t
l l
I I
l
! vif t
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Figures Figure M
2-1 Lynchburg Research Center plan of buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4 2-2 Building "A" (First Floor) ......................................... 2-5 2-3 Building "A" (Second Floor) ........................................ 2-6 2-4 Building "B" (First Floor) ......................................... 2-7 2-5 Building "B" (Second Floor) ........................................ 2-8 2-6 Building "C" ....................................................... 2-11 2-7 Facility Ventilation System ........................................ 2-13 2-8 Facility Liquid Waste System ....................................... 2-16 2-9 Liquid Waste Building Piping ....................................... 2-17 3-1 Site location along James River downstream of Lynchburg, Virginia ................................................ 3-2 3-2 Geographical relationship of the B&W LRC to the regional p op ul a t i on c ente rs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 9 3-3 Columnar section of the foundation rocks at the LRC site and in the Lynchburg area ................................................. 3-18 3-4 Vegetation and land use of the B&W vicinity ........................ 3-20 4-1 Environmental sampling locations around the Lynchburg Research Center .......................................... 4-3 List of Tables Table h 1-1 Lynchburg Research Center SNM-778 Possession Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 2-1 AEC and NRC license activities for the Lynchburg Research Center ... 2-3
! 2-2 Gross radioactivity released from 50 meter stack 1982 to 1984 ...... 2-15 l 2-3 Radioactive liquid waste releases to NNFD treatment system, 1982 to 1984 ....................................................... 2-19 I
- 3-1 Climatology summary for Lynchburg, Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
List of Tables Table Page 3-2 Frequencies of wind directions and true-average wind speeds ........ 3-5 3-3 Frequency (,f atmospheric stability classes for each direction ...... 3-6 3-4 x/Q values for particulates at various distances in each compass d i re c t i o n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7 3-5 National ambient air quality standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 3-6 Incremental 1980 population data within 80km (50 miles) of the B&W NNFD at 37024'49" latitude and 79003'46" longitude ................. 3-10 3-7 Cumulative 1980 population data within 80km (50 miles) of the B&W NNFD at 37024'49" latitude and 79 0 03'46" longitude ................. 3-11 3-8 Agricultural activities in Campbell and Amherst Counties, Virginia.. 3-13 3-9 Surface water standards for intakes to public or municipal water supplies in Virginia ............................................... 3-16 3-10 Results of preoperational (1956) sampling surveys of concentrations of radioactivity in soil, sediment, vegetation, and water . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 4-1 Gross radioactivity in James River water samples 1982-1984 ......... 4-4 4-2 Gross alpha radioactivity in James River silt samples 1982-1984 .... 4-5 4-3 Gross beta radioactivity in James River samples 1982-1984 .......... 4-6 4-4 Gross radioactivity in vegetation samples 1982-1984 .........,...... 4-7 4-5 Total annual release rates from the three facilities on the Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg site ................................... 4-10
, 4-6 Annual average radionuclide release rates in NNFD liquid
, effluents and concentrations of radionuclides in the i James River near the NNFD .......................................... 4-12 4-7 Maximum 50 year dose commitment from the use of the James River near the liquid effluent discharge of the NNFD ..................... 4-13 4-8 Cumulative dose to the maximally exposed individuals from all three operating facilities on the site ............................. 4-15 4-9 Cumulative dose to the population from all three operating facilities on the site ............................................. 4-16 4-10 Dose from gaseous fission products ................................. 4-18 ix
1 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W), Lynchburg Research Center (LRC), near Lynchburg, Virginia, performs research and development utilizing source, bypro-duct, and special nuclear materials. Approximately 30 percent of the work is performed under NRC licenses. The remainder is in the areas of process control, nondestructive examination methods and instrument development, and non-nuclear ceramics. #
In response to an application by B&W for renewal of Materials License No. SNM-778, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this environmental assess-ment pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51), which implement require-ments of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L.91-190).
Paragraph 1508.9 of the CEQ regulations (40 CFR) defines " environmental assess-ment" as follows:
- 1. An environmental assessment is a concise public document, for which a federal agency is responsible, that serves to briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact, aid an agency's compliance with the Act when no EIS is necessary, and facilitate preparation of an EIS when one is necessary.
- 2. An environmental assessment shall include brief discussions of the need for the proposal, of alternatives as required by Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, and of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives.
it shall also include a listing of agencies and persons consulted.
The B&W LRC at Lynchburg has been in operation since 1956. An Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) was issued by the NRC in January 1980.1 Since the previous environmental assessment, Buildings A and C are in the process of being decommissioned. This environmental assessment provides a review of the past 5 years of operation and an analysis of future impacts.
Located about 6 km (4 miles) east of Lynchburg, Virginia, the B&W site comprises
~ 213 ha (525 acres). Two other B&W facilities, the Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) and the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (NNFD), operating under sepa-rate SNM licenses, are also located on the site. The LRC facility occupies about 5.5 ha (13.6 acres); the other B&W facilities on the site occupy about 36.2 ha (90.1 acres). The environmental impact of these facilities has been discussed in separate EIAs,2,3 and the cumulative impact of the three facilities will be addressed in this assessment.
1.2 Summary of the Proposed Action The proposed action is the renewal of the license necessary for B&W to continue the existing research and development operations, utilizing source, byproduct 1-1
and special nuclear materials in research experiments, in addition to work in the areas of process control, non-destructive examination methods and instru-ment development, and non nuclear ceramics. (For current LRC possession limits see Table 1.1.) Process area liquid wastes are collected, stored, sampled, and diluted at the Liquid Waste Disposal Facility before being pumped to the waste disposal facility of the NNFD fabrication plant. Sanitary wastewater is discharged to the sanitary treatment facility at the NNFD.
1.3 Need for Action The B&W LRC performs research and development necessary to create new products and processes, along with examining and improving those of the present genera-tion. Denial of license renewal for the research and development activity at the LRC would require that similar activities be undertaken at another site.
Although denial of the SNM license renewal for the B&W LRC is an alternative available to the NRC, it would be considered only if issues of public health eM safety cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities involved.
1.4 The Scoping Process The overall operations and impacts of the LRC were appraised in January 1980.1 In connection with the current application for license renewal, the LRC sub-mitted an Environmental Report.4 The impacts of the other two facilities on the B&W site have also been appraised.2 3 Because of this previous documentation and the very limited impacts associated with the operation of the LRC, the staff determined that a formal scoping process was unnecessary. In conducting this assessment of the proposed action, the staff toured the site and surrounding area (March 12,1986) and met with the applicant to discuss items of information related to facility operations and to seek additional information that is needed for an adequate assessment.5 In addition, the staff used information from other sources provided at the end of each section to assist in the evaluation.
The principal environmental impacts of LRC's current operations result from release of small quantity of radioactive gases and particulates to the atmos-phere and of radioactively contaminated liquids to the adjacent James River.
The actual gaseous and liquid effluents released during normal operation of the plant have been monitored and documented. Because the proposed license renewal for the LRC does not involve a significant change in scope of activity beyond that previously appraised,1 the staff concluded that the principal subjects to be addressed in this environmental assessment should include water use, effluent controls, environmental monitoring, and environmental impact of operation and accidents. Other site factors and plant operations necessary for this assess-ment will be described, and aspects of insignificant impacts will be identified.
1-2
Table 1-1 Lynchburg Research Center SNM-778 Possession Limits Material Form Quantity A. Uranium enriched Encapsulated or 3.5 kg con-
>20% in the U-235 isotope irradiated tained U-235 B. Uranium enriched Unencapsulated 0.27 kg con-
<20% in the U-235 isotope and unitradiated tained U-235 C. Uranium enriched Encapsulated or 1.2 kg con-5% to <20% in the -
irradiated tained U-235 U-235 isotope D. Uranium enriched Unencapsulated 0.5 kg con-5% to <20% in the and unirradiated tained U-235 U-235 isotope E. Uranium enriched Encapsulated or 55 kg con-
.711% to <5% in the irradiated tained U-235 U-235 isotope F. Uranium enriched Unencapsulated 11 kg con-
.711% to <5% in the and unirradiated tained U-235 U-235 isotope G. Plutonium Unencapsulated 0.31 kg and unirradiated H. Source Material Any 6000 kg (U & Th) (U & Th)
- 1. Fission Products Irradiated Fuel Quantity
& Transuranium contained in Elements 4 irradiated fuel assemblies J. Fission products Irradiated fuel 5,000,000 Ci K. Any byproduct Irradiated 50,000 Ci material structural materials &
components L. Byproduct Any . 3,000 Ci each material with . total not to atomic numbers 3 exceed thru 83 1,000,000 C1 1-3
lable 1-1 (Continued)
Material Form Quantity M. Transuranium Any 20 millicuries elements each N. Cf-252 Sealed Sources 4 mg
- 0. Am-241 Sealed Sources 30 Ci P. H-3 Seeled Sources 100 Ci Q. H-3 0xide 3 Ci R. H-3 Ni plated Sc 3 Ci tritide foil 1-4
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1
- 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Company,'Lynchburg Research Center, Related to License Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-778, Docket No.70-824, January 1980.
- 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1168, Docket No. 70-1201, January 1983.
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,- Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-42, Docket No. 70-27, March 1984.
- 4. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg Research Center, June 1986.
- 5. Arne F. Olsen, Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg Research Center letter to Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch, June 23, 1986.
1-5
2 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.1 The Alternative of No License Renewal Not granting a license renewal for the Lynchburg Research Center (LRC) would
, cause B&W to cease research and development at the site. This alternative l would be considered only if issues of public health and safety could not be resolved. The only benefits to be gained by such a course of action would be the cessation of.the environmental impacts (as described in Sect. 4) that have been determined to be acceptably small. Cessation of activities at the LRC would not materially reduce the overall impacts derived from operation of the other facilities on the site.
2.2 The Alternative of License Renewal l This alternative, which is the proposed action, would result in the continued l operation of the B&W facility essentially as it has been operated during the current license period. A description of the current operation, waste confine-ment, and effluent control follows.
2.2.1 Description of the Current Operation The LRC operation involves research and development utilizing scurce, byproduct and special nuclear materials in support of the operating divisions of Babcock &
Wilcox and for other companies and government organizations.1 2.2.1.1 Facility History The LRC was first known as the Critical Experiment Laboratory when it began operation in 1956 as a part of the Atomic Ener0y Division. In 1957, the AEC issued License CX-1 for the operation of the first privately-owned and operated critical experiment facility in the United States, which was located at the Laboratory. This facility was used to design and test the first n'uclear core for the Consolidated Edison Power reactor. This was a thorium core, the first l of its kind built in the U.S.
In 1958, additions to the Critical Experiment Laboratory included facilities for the nuclear merchant ship critical experiment, the Lynchburg Source Reactor (CX-12), and the Lynchburg Pool Reactor (R-47).
I The laboratory expanded again in 1964 with the addition of the Nuclear Fuels Laboratory. This building included the Babcock and Wilcox Test Reactor j (BAWTR), an oxide fuel preparation laboratory, and a hot cell facility. At this time, the laboratory name was changed to the Nuclear Development Center.
In 1966, the Nuclear Development Center became a part of the Research and Development Division and its present name was adopted. In 1968, the Plutonium Development Laboratory was added. This building was constructed for testing 2-1 1
methods of plutonium mixed oxide fuel production. Presently, the laboratory is undergoing decomissioning. (For summary of licensing history, refer to Table 2-1.)
The LRC presently employs 180 scientists, engineers, technicians and support personnel. Approximately 30 percent of the work is performed under NRC licenses.
The remainder is in the areas of process control, non-destructive examination methods and instrument development, and non-nuclear ceramics.
2.2.1.2 Plant Operation Operations at the LRC are widely diversified and change frequently. A brief description of current operations is given in the sections that follow. (A plan of the buildings at the LRC is shown in Figure 2-1.)
2.2.1.2.1 Building A Building A is in the process of being decommissioned. All accountable quanti-ties of licensed material have been removed from the building. The only work in process under the licenses (CX-10 and SNM-778) is decommissioning. This building formerly housed one critical experiment facility, (under the license CX-10) and a one megawatt pool-type research reactor, the Lynchburg Pool Reactor (LPR) (under the license R-47). The CX-10 was a tank-type facility licensed for a maximum of 1 kWt power utilizing low-enriched uranium dioxide fuel. The LPR was used for physics verification experiments, computer code verifications, and benchmark testing. The LPR was licensed for a maximum power of 1 MWt for reactor operator training, neutron radiography, neutron transmission measurements, activation analysis, resonance integral measurements, instrument development, irradiation of experiments in the associated autoclave, reactivity measurements, and source preparation. (A plan for the first and second floors of Building A is shown in Figures 2-2 and 2-3, respectively.)
2.2.1.2.2 Building B This facility is comprised of four hot cells, a hot cell operations area, cask handling area, transfer canal and storage pool, hot machine shop for work on contaminated equipment, experimental pool, radiochemistry laboratory, two metallurgy laboratories, counting laboratory, health physics counting area, ceramics oven room, machine shop, failure analysis laboratory, scanning electron microscopy laboratory, and fatigue and fracture laboratory. (A plan for the first and second floors of Building B is shown in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, respectively.)
The four hot cells are used to perform destructive and nondestructive testing and examination of highly radioactive materials. These include reactor core hardware components and fuel rods removed from irradiated reactor fuel assem-blies. The cells generate solid and gaseous radioactive wastes. The gaseous wastes consist of krypton which originates from fuel rods that are punctured for fission gas analysis. The iodine component has decayed prior to shipment to the LRC. The estimated krypton release over the 5 year period beginning with 1986 is 50 curies.
2-2
Table 2-1 AEC and NRC license activities for the Lynchburg Research Center Date Activity March 1957 CX-1 Issued February 1958 CX-10 Issued S'eptember 1958 CX-12 Issued September 1958 R-47 Issued May 1962 CX-19 Issued February 1964 TR-4 Issued March 1964 SNM-778 Issued September 1966 SNM-778 Reissued (Incorporating Licenses 45-105-3, SMB-714, SNM-32, and SNM-744)
February 1972 CX-12 Terminated March 1973 TR-4 Terminated June 1973 CX-1 Terminated June 1973 CX-19 Terminated March 1974 SNM-778 Renewed July 1980 SNM-778 Renewed July 1982 R-47 Terminated April 1985 CX-10 Authorized Dismantling 2-3
I i
rls.
pg I : ....
-i :
^ -
v1 !!ss 4
' i 3 ~ ! E !i l' Ii l 53 si i,
! ii- i IE 3 -
1 a
== l 7 Ill; _
l 3 ,r
- r s.II:.
m -~ e f U - M,...
I s
m e--
t e
i 5 ii t E I
1 L , ..
b d. !
O n
b r
I it r
-!j, I
I
= '--Q!
l
)
3 L [ ;
__ M t
. r
~ &
%_ r [
.l .-
. 2 D
i E. .
l I
~ i- _
t i @
Y ^
S Mn ta
( .
ki Figure 2-1 Lynchburg Research Center plan of buildings !
2-4
. .. .. .... . e . - - - _i;,
I NEAT EMCMANGEa ROGM !
J SAY NO. i S ASE ME NT SAY N O. t SASEMENT -
- ~ >
E 2
~) ~V 'u '
LAG.
C uNemeAvArco L A 0.
d;
- E.
E!U C;' !
.LJ r
e vil ciN e aAa renar rLoon !
n a vis e o Arnet ises
- f. . . . . . . . . sp' r. T.
Figure 2-2 Building "A" (First Floor) 2-5
g e 3 . . . . . . . . . - -
[ y;,
a ._
y e Av m e.1 eAv me. a m, y
-M W- g A,1@
vu $ha '7if<
." CONTROL
=h,
')
c- _
N JU i!::l) U C & **""""" V c., JT%g- _
i{~ -
3 4 $g evuoin. "A" l stnem noom y ~~_:g=a secomo rooon 1
g3m.m g
(,
. 2 2 ntvisto Arnst Isas o' .... . .
- o ' U.
~ w --,=-
Figure 2-3 Building "A" (Second Floor) 2-6
F-si i
- , 1. , _ .,
I' N3 ,,
=
y i:.. E f'3 .,
o l l' 17 - F ""'
ll).E le .- :. ;
+
- l .w I . b l .
'd l '
7 '
i: i 3 I o g
!i i -
E , . .
i ,. _. .
5 d li . d _. r 1 na .'l i -
s a, , -
3 V ,
, c.
y lafsI -
4 f
a lll<d..
s_p
,m I
, ] II W _
J q, z t% 7 WAl%=
y ,.
. .t I
g'
\ k" u e
- . [, L ll-O '
1: 1 i , /
s t.- :- '
8 b k.
6 7 i g/
il/d'{*[=W" 7 1 '" W
~., i El'ii qq l .
....M 19a v--
g&
I
- MI #
A
.. L i
- i V . .,
,, 8 _.
F i.:
7 ,,
li , E 1 .i ,
!:h
. 2 Il
- l1.3 $ i To
'"l a =
l l ;
N'L}T ,
i 7
,. 8 s L LD - $,
i' L/"~ N """"
I, ( "m i =
j I C f C
, 1 E
[ E 1
/L c'< 9 5 L-
"g y a _
J v-'
. lg # . -
E g
! ( l
- .l .1 _.
.I ,
u L,
C E.7
,y -
l I "
~. y i O' "'~
- ~
_t .i .t t .
(Olgr i .
_ o.<l .
s ,
I. ~
. t. :
,1 ,, ,
i
] .,
lI ,
1 ( -# -
-}
The hot cell operations area contains the manipulator operating stations, the fission gas analyzer, and the electronic equipment associated with the nonde-structive analyzers. No radioactive wastes are generated in this area.
The cask handling area is a high bay room used to receive and ship containers of radioactive material. The largest source of waste is generated in decon-taminating shipping containers. Liquid waste in the form of scrubwater is released to the Liquid Waste Disposal Facility (see Section 2.2.2.2).
The transfer canal and storage pool are used to receive, unload, load, and prepare shielded casks for shipment. It is also used for storage of radioactive material and for transferring radioactive material to and from the hot cells.
The pool water is recirculated through ion exchange columns for cleanup. These resins are replaced when expended and handled as dry waste. Particulates that settle to the pool bottom are removed periodically with an undenvater vacuum cleaner and disposed of as dry waste.
The hot machine shop is used when repair of manipulators is required and for performing work on items that are radioactive but not to the extent that remote hot cell handling is required. Solid radioactive waste is generated in the area.
The 30,000 gallon experimental pool is used to develop underwater examination equipment. Radioactive material is not handled in this pool at the present time.
The radiochemistry laboratory utilizes standard chemical fume hoods, the exhausts of which pass through one prefilter and one HEPA filter. Work of interest being presently performed is analysis of irradiated fuel samples, corrosion products, neutron flux dosimeters, and reactor conlant samples. Low-level radioactive wastes are released through the Liquid Waste Disposal Facility. Other liquid wastes are solidified for offsite burial. Solid waste is also shipped for offsite burial. Airborne and gaseous effluents are filtered and discharged through the 50 meter exhaust stack.
l The metallurgy laboratory has equipment for structural examination on macroscopic and microscopic scales. Facilities are available for all metallography prepara-tions and examinations utilizing light-microscopy. A hot stage metallograph is available for microscopic examination of materials at high temperatures and in controlled atmospheres. An industrial X-ray unit is also available to this
, laboratory. Wastes from the metallurgy laboratory are typically nonradioactive and solid. Water used for cooling is discharged to the storm drains.
The counting laboratory contains several high resolution gamma spectroscopy systems coupled to computers for data processing. A liquid scintillation system is used for spectroscopy of low energy beta emitters. Gross counting and spectroscopy are performed on alpha and beta emitting elements. The laboratory is not equipped with sample preparation facilities. Preparation is performed in other laboratories, transferred to the counting laboratory and returned after counting to the originating laboratory. No releases are made from this laboratory.
The ceramics oven room is used for mixing, forming, and sintering nonradioactive i
ceramic materials. Wastes are primarily solids that are included in the LRC solid waste totals. Cooling water is discharged to the storm sewer.
l, 2-9 ;
4
r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - . - . - - - _ - - - . - -
The failure analysis laboratory is equipped for performing examination and testing of components that have been removed from nuclear power plants. Exami-nation and testing includes visual, photographic, dimensional measurement, metallographic preparation and examination, and corrosion testing. Small amounts of solid and liquid wastes are generated. The solid wastes are packaged in 55 gallon drums and the liquid wastes are solidified first, and then packaged into drums. Both types of waste are stored until a sufficient r..w nt has accu-mulated for shipment to a burial facility. Ventilation is provided by filtered
- fume hood off gas which draws air from the cask handling area.
Radioactive and nonradioactive specimens are prepared and examined in the scanning electron microscopy laboratory. Small amounts of solid wastes are generated and these are included in the LRC totals, i The fatigue and fracture laboratory contains a closed-loop electrohydraulic loadframe, impact tester, and a fatigue precracker. Specimens are brought into this laboratory for testing and returned to the originating laboratory for disposal.
Solid waste in the form of irradiated fuel is placed in double enntainers which I are placed in interim storage in the waste storage tubes that are located in the cask handling area or adjacent to the liquid waste building. These are 6-inch dianeter steel tubes that are immersed in concrete. Leakage from this configuration is not credible aad the tubes are hot tested for leakage. The ultimate disposal of this form of waste will be the responsibility of the Department of Energy, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.2 Solid waste that is generated in hot cells and contains transuranium elements, is deposited in steel drums and placed in interim storage in Building J's annex.
The estimated volume of solid waste for the 5 year period beginning in 1986 is 305 cubic feet. Other solid waste, containing byproduct materials, is stored in appropriate shipping containers in Building J or in the area surrounding it.
This waste is periodically sent to a commercial waste disposal facility.
2.2.1.2.3 Building C Building C is in tte process of decommissioning. All accountable quantities of Ilcensed material have been removed from the building. The only licensed activity in the building is decommissioning. Building C, providing 20,000 l square feet of laboratory, office, and support space, was originally designed for handling plutoniur.. The research and development performed in this building primarily involved the use of unirradiated source and special nuclear materials.
Some work involving the use of by product material was carried out, but was limited. (A floor plan for Building C is shown in Figure 2-6.)
2.2.1.2.4 Radioactive Waste Storage Building ,
The Radioactive Waste Storage Building (also known as Building J), is used to
! house containerized radioactive solid waste prior to shipping for offsite j
disposal. The nearby area, designated as the retention basin, is a below grade concrete basin that is used to store Co-60 contaminated soil.
2-10
h E 9 l
f,.
C
( !!! 3 : 3 h- <1.
- 3-
~
cP l e
=
'W W 7 g ,"
I' T .
u~
[ 3 \ =
-V h
- 7 5-
'n, I-- -
3 c :-
r" tE8 .
7 ..
F WJb >8
~
M i g_
E- 2
- hs k Rl
- = ====='
g .
FE : a 1
- l q '3 C
- h
- J
~
b : b D
q0
+..
o l
=
N '3 ,
='y : --I -
5
! o :-
h;2 7'-
~
3 1
p
((1 r%
A figure 2-6 Building "C" 2-11
2.2.1.2.5 Liquid Waste Building The Liquid Waste Building is a below grade tank farm where process area liquid wastes are collected, stored, sampled, diluted, and pumped to the waste dis-posal facility of the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. The area labeled " Tubes,"
which is adjacent to the Liquid Waste Building, is an array of thirty, 6-inch steel tubes that are emersed in concrete. They are used for storing hot cell waste material.
2.2.1.3 Water Use The LRC, NNFD, and CNFP use ground water and James River water from common systems.a Water supply facilities are operated by NNFD. The plant capacity for withdrawing water from the James River is 19 L/s (300 gal / min).8 This water is stored in a 3.8 x 10sL (1x10egal) service water tank and is used for equipment cooling, sanitary systems, and other functions not requiring a high quality water supply. The combined facilities discharge the used water at about the same rate.
Groundwater is withdrawn from the sites' wells at about 3.8 x 105L/d (1x105 gal /d) for drinking and industrial purposes.4 The water from these wells is stored onsite in three tanks of 5.7 x 105L (150,000 gal) capacity. Most of the groundwater is eventually discharged to the James River. The NNFD is the dominant user of both groundwater and James River water.
Storm water runoff is also collected and used for applications not requiring high quality.5 2.2.2 Waste Confinement and Effluent Control 2.2.2.1 Gaseous Wastes The LRC exhaust air consists of two streams, air exhausted from hoods, glove boxes, hot cells, and potentially contaminated areas, and general building air necessary to maintain comfort.
Exhaust air from hoods, glove boxes, and hot cells is passed through a prefilter and at least one stage of HEPA filtration prior to release via the 50 meter high stack (Figure 2-7). Room offgases from areas where there exists the poten-tial for airborne radioactive contamination, are passed through a prefilter and one stage of HEPA filtration and are released through vents at essentially roof height.
General building air is partially recirculated for energy conservation and released at roof height.
2.2.2.1.1 Controlled Area Air Effluents Exhausts from hot cells, fume hoods, and glove boxes are the main sources of supply to the 50 meter high stack. This stack is continually sampled isokinetically while work in these areas is in progress, and samples are analyzed for gross alpha, gross beta, and Kr-85. A schematic diagram of the 2-12 L
I
I
~>~
ANALYTICAL SOIL PROCESSING LA8 LA8 ASSEM8Ly, HOT AREA' E8EN REPAft PH H H H
-H-HR0
(- --
q PHYSIC A L CELL 190LAT1000 l MET LA8 g ._
hk hh bk h5 H l 8 RA010CHEMitTRY A A A l HOT OPEllATid Wl g L_M L.$ .T A I
'R f. I T. 3 O U"" ^
T s' xn ni si
'a S ir jr sf r 7
T -a ~I L'"
W MANI VENTILATION DUCT
[J
?
n E
i HE TH H M g
w
=
. ]
PHYSICS go C. w t One Woy Deepw j,
si %- Demper T bHMSE ( hp j _,,,,,, g M ACHIN E H H H 11 H c) -nHer = BM -9stence Need FAILUR E A N ALYSl$ PH -Perchieric Heed g r7 LA8 SH -Storege
@ L.- 3 H -Feme Hood U
/ g 'C' P ~ PF'*FII
A - Abeel.te Filter e -P, e ee
~
g -no .r. i .c. r ISOF00T STACIg l- -Cep REVISEO - NOV. I ,198 5 i
system is shown in Figure 2-7. Air passing into the stack has been filtered through at least one stage of HEPA filtration. In the case of the hot cells, glove boxes, and Building C fume hoods, two stages are used. One perchloric acid fume hood presently installed is an exception to the above practice. This hood exhausts directly to the roof of Building B with no filtration. Releases through the 50 meter (165 ft) stack are given in Table 2-2. 2.2.2.1.2 Nonradioactive Effluents The nature of the work performed at the LRC is such that only small amounts of volatile chemicals are used. The single largest contributor is acetone, of which the center consumed 100 gallons in 1983. .On the basis that 100 percent
-of the material evaporated and was released through the ventilation system, 1.82 lb/ day would result. This small quantity of acetone would not have an impact on the environment.
2.2.2.2 Liquid Effluents Liquid effluents leave the LRC by three routes; the storm sewer which not only carries rain water but the major portion of cooling water, the sanitary sewage line which flows to the treatment facility at the NNFD, and the only noteworthy one of the three, the effluent from the liquid waste retention tanks which flows into the treatment facility at NNFD. 2.2.2.2.1 Contaminated Liquid Waste System l Liquid wastes that are potentially contaminated are piped to the Liquid Waste Disposal Facility (LWDF). A diagram of the liquid waste system for Building B is shown in Figure 2.8. Wastes generated in the north-east end of Building B, which includes the hot cell area, radiochemistry laboratory, failure analysis laboratory, the primary equipment cell (PEC), and the containment, collect in a large tank located in the PEC and are pumped to the LWDF. The remainder of the building is drained by gravity to the LWDF.
, The LWDF is a below grade tank farm. A schematic diagram of the tank arrange-
! ments, piping, and pumps comprising the LWDF is shown in Figure 2-9. Potentially l contaminated waste water is piped from material handling areas to specific tanks so that the type of activity in any given tank can be anticipated. Each tank is provided with piping for thorough mixing by air sparge. The drain lines from each tank are located in the bottom of the tank to permit complete emptying. I Exceptions to this are the two 4,000 gallon wastes tanks which have floating drains. The rectangular tanks shown in Figure 2-9 are constructed of concrete tops. The interiors are treated with a water proofing material. Access to these tanks is gained through manholes. The tanks indicated by circles are constructed of steel. The 300 gallon tanks are stainless steel and are not provided with inspection ports. The 2,000 gallon tanks are constructed of l carbon steel, treated with an epoxy lining, and equipped with manholes for inspection. There has been no monitoring in the past for leakage detection, l other than liquid level observation. Therefore, the staff will require the installation of monitoring wells around the tanks to detect potential leakage l from continued operation. (See staff's recommendation in Section 2.5.) t { 2-14 ,
,e-.- .- - - -,,,,n.-- -- -
1 l l Table 2-2 Gross radioactivity released from 50 meter stack, 1982 to 1984 1982 1983 1984 Gross Alpha Particulate 0.2pCi 0.2pCi 0.3pCi Gross Beta Particulate 2.3pci 1.5pCi 2.7pCi Kr-85 0.09Ci 0.09Ci 14.0Ci Tritium 3 0.007Ci 0.0007Ci 1.1C1
^ NOTES: 1. Stack flow is 25,000 cfm
- 2. LLD's for stack monitoring gr stack sampling Kr-85 6 x 10_7 pei/ml Gross Alpha 2 x 10_18pci/ml is Gross Beta 6 x 10 pci/ml
- 3. Tritium release is calculated based on opening tritium containing reactor components in the hoc cell.
4. The stack is sampled continuousig at a nominal sample rate of approximately 2.5 cfm (3.7 x 101 al/yr) with a minimum sample rate of 2.0 cfm. Samples are analyzed weekly for gross beta and alpha. 2-15
2" HS P (1810 .TO LIQUID
' WASTE DISPOS AL
(- g-- - '- - . . --(g p 2" FD (16 ) 2" HSP WASTE TO LIQUID I er-'- . 2"C0 ( '*PO* l (pr-1'
%[8 2" Co(S)\ '
f (5) T - ( 'J g2"CO
/ ?
2Sp---- o :-2" GUTTER DRAIN (f 7) 2" v0 P-t '[ w-v T. / i 2* FD (16) sp 2" SP 2" HSP tio) (S) 2" V I F (S) 4 (3) w/ D 2" HD (7) 2" HSP(7 ) (3
> 2" C0
'[
2" FD gesj ER DRArm 11)# *. N I F2"w-% 2"HO 2"C0 (4 ) ( (S) \ W (2" FD (II) 29eD (s ) (e) , \ .2"FD 2"HSP (IO) (4 ) ET ( 3) cu 2" FD C. < bt"ouTTER (7) j, I3I DRAIN (111 2*NSP _,', (S) ro 2NSpes) 8 xe 3 t 2"HSP Gs) C y \"FD(IS) 2 2"FD CO . Cleon out l 2*HSP(2) 2"HSP(2) 2"C p j '(2) g*H S P(le)
.O g
M(12) HSP FD Hot Stand Pipe Floor Drafn 2" HSP(1) L e e p 3 2" FD 04) HSP(f 2) HD . Not Droin HSP (2) g 2"HSP *-V-***V'"' 2" Co w
- 04) 2"FD (12) No,1 Sump Pump os 1-SP (l) , HSP (l)
- 2'SP - NS 2 Swnp Pump g
O - Steinless Steel Tank t,
. ore- Pimed Room numesR$
@m 2" HSP (13)
--- - Mn Une h h Botement
- 1. NEALTH PHYSeCS 11.STORAet P00L to H - Copped 12.ISOLAT90N AREA y y,g 2. PROCESS RsET. LAS 3 % ,
- 3. Ht0H TEasPERATURE LAS 18. HOT 18eBTRURAENT REPAIR 4 CERAA8pC POR9ttNG 14 EMPEReasEfffAL ASSeasSLY AREA 5.ConsteNEUTIOF TECHesOLOGY 18.CABet HAf00Liffe AREA S. HEALTH PHYSICS 10 PRIBAARYCELLISAS$tsENTI T. HOT CHANOC ROOng 17. EMPERIRIENTAL POOL
- 3. NEALTH P96YSICS 18 SAAFLE PREP. LAS
- 8. LOOP SAAAPLN00 ROORI 18.PAILURE A88ALYSISLAS to- RADe0CHEastSTRY LAS SS.CHERADCAL DEVELopteENT LAS
- I w I o e o I r-- rii <t L.
f ' g i l .
,,4"
~q . . . . ] .
l.l I : .[
~ -
\
- - 1, - a -
0 r .
. 8 I h:- gu,.
.r. r t lj. --
H, UI Hi i _1 y L l'I* y ,
.Sg
. . . . - 3 . i. ._
t i I 3 i:1 3 - ,. 1. i I
*- - I ' lt ~ = I c n -- g ~'cI:s - :t ,'- l I N' x ~
f 8 11 l ll I _.L i
!'= T '--i . ,
In ? , ,j -
.I l
- U e-- 'i
. j- ..
g* , _.l ~1 ._ -
- - -, ,, l t
lll-ll.l .lll
- )* ---.- e It I 8
ij:-
. I , ,y! I lp_
lK 2_ :-+-- I ll l h e Ii " C ,h, . h5
/ sig -
D.)
'Ih ::Afo I:s M i a
gtLL - O m i m,
'g i
si
- siij
- G , le i j' H1 f ** gg::
=
i .,
-- H! . :* 3.. !: *
] .
9
@[ i i !gss!!!
3
--l!! I
, *I,
!i t!
' S I OS hr j[$ !*
%i?v0"d q hd h- j I
1 u s , II ' IUI, ,- . l . .Nll i M .i ..l } lll ! 's i
- M [" -
. ,1 i: .
.,, ~, T: *
.it' g
,$I:ifjgri i- A-1
. ' , .aj;N ,- 3 +e.o
'l
., o ,
i :
!!!!!!...iill! T l
+ i tA IE.l i ]
3;
. ....:..ii -
~ g E i - -* 8: :: 1 - 1; # ;
. .I i!
M Ei-t - 1 1 i ' i , -]!'l' - iH M **__d ;!,__y I; Ta ly !x tc -- L t . - l' 7 .' ! . c.it '; pq . i s, a. r+-c,o--- -.
* = o
.d I u
i ! i I i e f 1 t Figure 2-9 Liquid Waste Building Piping 2-17
All waste tanks are sampled quarterly and prior to emptying. Prior to sampling, a tank is thoroughly mixed. A sample is taken by dipping a clean container into the tank through a manhole at the top. From the sample, 5 al is evaporated to dryness and counted to determine the gross alpha and beta activit.ies. The remaining sample is gamma scanned for isotopic identification. Comparison of the gross beta and gamma scan results may indicate the presence of Sr-90, in which case, a second sample is drawn and sent to a contractor laboratory for Sr-90 analysis. Prior to release to NNFD, the analyses must confirm that the concentration of radioactive material meets the 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, values for release to an unrestricted area. If these limits are exceeded, dilution is used to bring the concentration into compliance. A compilation of releases through this system is presented in Table 2-3. 2.2.2.2.2 Sanitary Waste Effluents Untreated sanitary wastes are combined for treatment with those at the NNFD's sanitary waste treatment facility. The LRC's contribution to this facility is 7.2 x 104L (1.9 x 104 gallons) per day. No radioactive material is discharged through the sanitary sewage system. The NNFD sanitary system consists of the fellowing elements: 8
- 1. Two comminutors in parallel to break solids into fine particles.
- 2. Two 2840-m3 (750,000 gal) aeration basins, operating in parallel, provide a retention time of at least 10 d to reduce the biological oxygen demand by 85 percent.
- 3. Clarifiers remove suspended solids from aeration basin effluents for recycle to aeration basins.
- 4. Clarifier liquid effluent is combined with industrial waste in one of two 7570-m3 (2,000,000 gal) equalizing ponds for an additional 10 d retention period.
- 5. Final treatment is chlorine contact for 1.6 h at 1 mg of chlorine per liter of water at a discharge rate up to 757 m3/d (200,000 gal /d).
- 6. The flow rate and pH of the discharge are continuously recorded, and samples can be taken for analysis as needed.
The NNFD sanitary system is operated under authority of NPDES permit number VA0003697 (Appendix A). 2.2.2.2.3 Storm Drainage Runoff from the parking lot, building roofs, and surrounding land is collected ; by the storm drain system. Water used for cooling furnaces and similar uses y is also collected by this system. The system discharges into a pond that 15 located on the east side of the LRC, to the rear of Building J (Figure 2.1). The overflow from the pond discharges to a dry stream bed and then it flows to - the James River. The pond is sampled monthly. Radioactive material is not discharged to the storm drain system. 2-18
Table 2-3 Radioactive liquid waste releases to hiiFD treatment system 1982 to 1984 Microcuries Nuclide 1982 1983 1984 Mn-54 - -
- 1. 8 Co-58 9.6 -
11.0 Co-60 100.0 30.0 390.0 Sr-90 49.0 4.6 44.0 Y-90 49.0 4.6 44.0 Sb-124 15.0 - - Sb-125 - - 35.0 Cs-134 14.0 37.0 0 Cs-137 140.0 980.0 840.0 Ce-144 - - 41.0 Gross p 170.0 111.0 350.0 Gross a 56.0 42.0 100.0 Pu-241 220.0 - - Plutonium 280.0 - - Totals 1,100 1,200 1,900 (rounded) Total 1,113 681 1,453 Volume M3 (gal) 294,000 180,000 384,000 e i 2-19
2.2.2.3 Solid Wastes All solid wastes generated from LRC operations are monitored and disposed of as described below. 2.2.2.3.1 Contaminated Solid Wastes Contaminated solid wastes are disposed of by a NRC-licensed facility. These wastes consist of filters, packing material, decontamination equipment, contam-inated laboratory equipment, and solidified liquids. These wastes are packaged and stored at the LRC until a sufficient amount has accumulated for shipment to burial. Packaged wastes are stored in a building specified for this purpose. A fenced area adjacent to this building is used for storage of packaged Low Specific Activity (LSA) and fissile exempt material. 2.2.2.3.2 Uncontaminated Solid Wastes ' Approximately 1,700 cubic meters (6 x 104 cubic feet) of uncontaminated solid wastes are generated at the LRC per year. These wastes are routinely monitored to ensure they are not radiologically contaminated and are disposed of by a private contractor at the Lynchburg sanitary landfill. Salvageable materials, such as metals, are sold or recycled. 2.3 Decommissioning At the end of its operating life, the plant must be decontaminated and decom-missioned before the site and plant buildings can be released for unrestricted use. In accordance with NRC requirements, the applicant prepared and submitted a decommissioning plan, cost estimate, and financial surety 7 for inclusion in j the license application. The major guidelines embodied in the plan are as i follows:
- 1. All facilities are to be cleaned to levels established for unrestricted use.
- 2. Current radiological limits and decontamination technology are to be utilized.
- 3. All process and ancillary equipment in controlled areas is to be cleaned to the extent practicable, packaged, and transported to a licensed disposal facility for burial. If the equipment can be decontaminated to levels established for unrestricted use, it can be released.
- 4. Any contaminated underground piping is to be removed, cleaned to the extent practicable, packaged, and transported to a licensed disposal facility for burial. The ground surrounding sewer piping is also to be surveyed and removed for disposal if contaminated beyond established limits.
- 5. Packaging, transportation, and disposal charges are to be calculated using information from existing licensed low-level waste facilities.
l 2-20 l h
Decommissioning, based on the above guidelines and the use of existing prescribed procedures for minimizing radiological and nonradiological contam-ination, should result in an insignificant environmental impact during and after the decommissioning operation. 2.4. Safeguards Current safeguards requirements are set forth in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73. The regulations in Part 70 provide for material accounting and control requirements with respect to facility organization, material control arrangements, account-ability measurements, statistical controls, inventory methods, shipping and receiving procedures, material storage practices, records and reports, and management control. The NRC's current regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 provide requirements for the physical security and protection of fixed sites and for nuclear materials in t transit. Physical security requirements for protecting formula quantities of strategic SNM include (1) establishing and training a security organization (with armed guards), (2) installing physical barriers, and (3) establishing i security response and safeguards contingency plans. The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73, described briefly above, are applied in the reviews of individual license applications. License conditions are imposed to apply specific requirements and limitations tailored to fit the particular type of plant or facility involved. The licensee has an approved material control and accounting plan and an approved physical security plan that meet the current requirements. It is , concluded, therefore, that the safeguards-related environmental impact of the i proposed action is insignificant. 2.5 Staff Evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives , The staff has concluded that the denial of license renewal would provide very 4 little in the way of environmental benefits. The staff believes that the } methods of waste confinement and effluent controls meet all applicable state 1 and federal standards. The environmental impact of continued operation is insignificant, and the staff recommends that License No. SNM-778 be renewed, subject to the following license conditions: j' 1. Within 3 months of the issuance of the license renewal, the licensee shall submit, for the NRC's review and approval, a groundwater monitoring program for the detection of potential leakage of the below grade tanks in the Liquid Waste System. The program shall include the location of the wells, monitoring frequency and analysis action levels, and the reporting requirements (see Section 2.2.2.2.1). 2-21
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2
- 1. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & !!ilcox Lynchburg Research Center, June 1986.
- 2. Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, January 7, 1983.
- 3. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, BAW-1412, December 1974.
- 4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Docket 70-1201, Related to. Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-1168, May 1983.
- 5. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, June 1982.
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Docket No. 70-27, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-42, March 1977.
- 7. L. V. Jordan, Assistant Controller, Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg Research Center, to W. T. Crow, Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch, July 17, 1986.
( 2-22
3 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Site Description The LRC affects about 5.5 ha (13.6 acres) of a 213-ha (525-acre) site in Campbell County (on the border of Amherst County), Virginia, about 6 km (4 miles) east of Lynchburg. The site is bounded on three sides by the James River and on the fourth side by Virginia State Route 726 (Figure 3-1). Two other B&W facilities separately licensed by the NRC, the Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) and the Naval Nuc1 car Fuel Division (NNFD), also occupy the site. The site is serviced by a spur of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, which runs through the B&W property. The site is also conveniently located for truck and automobile a: cess, for about 3.2 km (2 miles) from the plant, State Route 726 connects with U.S. Highway 460, which is a major link between Roanoke and Richmond. The topography of the plant site is generally rolling with gentle slopes (Fi~gure 3-1). The nominal river elevation is 143m (470 ft) above mean sea level (MSL). The dominant topographic feature of the site is a hill located approximately at the center of the property, the crest of which rises to 211m (693 ft) MSL. The site includes a large area of relatively flat floodplain adjacent to the river. The highest point in the vicinity of the site is the top of Mt. Athos, where the elevation is 271m (890 ft) MSL. 3.2 Meteorology and Climatology 3.2.1 Climatology The climate of the Lynchburg area is influenced by cold and dry polar continen-tal air masses in the winter and warm and humid gulf maritime air masses in the summer. Extremes in weather conditions in the area are rare. The mean tempera-ture is about 13.7 C (56.7 F), with normal average temperatures ranging from 24.6*C (76.3 F) in July to 3.6 C (38.5*F) in December.1 Rainfall amounts at Lynchburg can be expected to reach 102.4 cm (40.3 in.) in any given year. The monthly rates are nearly uniform except for a slightly higher rate during the summer months. Snowfall in the Lynchburg area generally occurs between the months of December and March. The mean yearly snowfall total is 49.3 cm (19.4 in.). Winds at Lynchburg are predominately from the southwest with a mean speed of 12.9 km/h (8.0 mph). Mean relative humidity values in Lynchburg at 7:00 am,1:00 pm, and 7:00 pu cre 78, 51, and 62 percent, respectively. Heavy fog (visibility of less than 400 m (1,320 ft)) can be expected to occur dt the site on the average of 40 d/ year.2 The climatology for Lynchburg is summarized in Table 3-1. 3.2.2 Winds, Tornados, and Storms l Severe weather at the LRC is generally limited to thunderstorms, with a low l probability of tornados. Climatoiogical datal show that the mean number of thunderstorms occurring at Lynchborg is 22 per year. According to methods for l 3-1
\
~" '
9
') s BONDARY ,
j; n S v ' I[ f A ..,, (,< .-
} ,
,~ , LRC
,f ao /',7l.' {'
)
Y C" yh \, '5 3 f' j .
- CNFP g% ,
t g g.Q)i g II ff ~%. ' t{ gN;, }./ 97 ..
>( ,
4 ?;; , '$ - f(A
'\
k t f. c . r LYNCH G
^^
k (/$(0;f e-fi I p '
,.\ -
{
- 1 .) : e f.
N.N / '
/
g , 1 N N, .
. [q v* -l%
7 , (lf.cL y g/l 1 - f^
;.Y'? .'
, g' Fig 3-1. Site location along Jr.mes River downstream of Lynchburg, Virginia.
Babcock & Wilcox facilities have been expanded since this edition of the USGS Kelly quadrangle was printed. 3-2
Table 3-1 Climatology summary for Lynchburg, Virginia Mean temperature ( C), Wind 1931-1960 Mean Total Mean total Month precipitation (cm), Prevailing Mean snow (cm). Daily Daily 1931-1960 direction speed (km/h), 1944-1970 maximum minimum 1962-1970 1951-1970 January 7.9 -1.7 8.4 SW 14.2 14.7 February 9.1 -1.4 6.7 SW 14.5 12.2 March 13.2 1.8 9.2 SW 15.1 10.4 April 19.7 7.1 8.0 SW 15.1 0.3 May 24.9 12.1 8.2 SW 12.9 0. 0 June 28.8 16.7 10.3 SW 11.4 0.0 Ju1y 30.3 18.8 10.7 SW 10.9 0.O August 29.3 18.3 11.2 N 10.3 0.0 September 26.2 14.6 8.5 N 11.6 0.0 October 20.6 8.6 6.7 N 12.1 Trace November 13.9 2.7 6.6 SW 13.0 2.3 { December 8.3 -1. 2 8.0 SW 12.9 9.4 Year 19.3 8.0 102.5 SW 12.8 49.3 1 i i I l l l ) i i 9
estimating tornado occurrence presented by Thom,a the probability of a tornado actually striking the site is 3.0 x 10 4 per year, with a recurrence interval of 3,333 years. 1 3.2.3 Meteorology Onsite meteorological data have been collected at the LRC since March 1964. One year of this data, January 1965 to December 1965, has been provided by the applicant for use in determining dispersion and dilution factors. These data, which include the wind direction-speed-stability frequency information, are shown in Tables 3-2 and 3-3. Meteorological dispersion factors, annual X/Q values, are estimated using the Gaussian plume model and diffusion coefficients for Pasquill-type turbulence.*'5 The annual average X/Q. values.in 16 sectors up to a distance of 80 km (50 miles) from the site are given in Table 3-4. The annual morning mixing height of the area is about 450 m (1,485 ft), and the annual afternoon mixing height is about 1,550 m (5,115 ft). An annual mixing height of 1,000 m (3,300 ft) is used in this report. Calculations by Holtzworth6 show that a r:eteorological potential for air pollution would exist at the site on an average of 5d/ year. 3.2.4 Air Quality Virginia has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 7 (Table 3-5). The B&W LRC is located in the Central Virginia Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), where the air is classified by the EPA as "better than national standards" for total suspended particulates (TSP) and 50 .7 The city of Lynchburg also meets the national standards for TSP and SO forCO,N0,2 ozone (0 i bons (HC),theAQCRcannotbeclassifie. dbecausedataarenotIv)a,ilable.and hydrocar-The state does not expect these regulated pollutants to exist in meaningful concentrations (relative to the standards) and therefore does not monitor for them in the Lynchburg area. Currently, the only environmental monitoring by the state in the Lynchburg area or near the B&W facility is for TSP. The data for 1980 at a site about 2.4 km (1.5 miles) south of the LRC show that the annual average environmental TSP concentration is about 76 percent of the national primary standard. Prior measurements indicated that S02 concentrations in the Lynchburg area were substantially lower than the national standards. 3.3 Demography and Socioeconomic Profile The LRC and the nearby city of Lynchburg are centrally located within the area of Amherst, Appomattox, Bedford, and Campbell Counties (Figure 3-2). The com-bined population of these counties and Lynchburg is about 180,000. The 1980 population within 80 km (50 miles) of the LRC is given in Table 3-6 for each of 160 segments defined by 16 radial (compass) directions and 10 radial distances [1.6, 3.2, 4.8, 6.4, 8.0, 16.1, 32.2, 48.3, 64.4, and 80.5 km (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles)]. The 1980 population in each circular zone (annulus) is also shown in Table 3-6. The cumulative 1980 population for each radial zone up to 80 km (50 miles) of the LRC is given in Table 3-7, with a ! population of 520,143 within 80 km (50 miles). 3-4 1
Table 3-2 Frequencies of wind directions and true-average windspeeds Wind Speeds for Each Stability Class Wind Toward Frequency (m/s) A B C 0 -E F G 1 0.009 0.0 1.62 0. 0 - 0.70 1.21 0.70 0.0 2 0.022 0.0 1.30 0.0 1.28 1.11 0.90 0.0 3 0.043 0.0 1.50 0.0 2.00 1.49 1.16 0.0 4 0.063 0.0 1.32 0.0 1.79 1.22 0.84 0.0 5 0.038 0.0 1.63 0.0 2.41 1.01 1.04 0.0 6 0.077 0.0 2.12 0.0 2.23 2.07 0.95 0.0 7 0.072 0.0 2.05 0.0 2.10 2.37 1.20 0.0 8 0.113 0.0 1.98 0.0 2.06 2.69 1.29 0.0 9 0.035 0. 0 - 2.30 0.0 3.39 1.68 1.09 0.0 10 0.100 0.0 2.07 0.0 2.59 1.84 1.00 0. 0 ' 11 0.113 0.0 2.07 0.0 2.71 1.74 0.95 0.0-i> 12 0.165 0.0 2.03 0.0 1.84 1.76 1.01 0.0 on 0.064 0.0 13 1.90 0.0 1.73 1.16 0.91 0.0 14 0.039 0.0 1.50 0.0 1.42 1.10 0.80 0.0 15 0.020 0.0 1.56 0.0 1.33 1.14 1.00 0.0 16 0.027 0.0 0.99 0.0 1.77 0.81 0.70 0.0 Wind directions are numbered counterclockwise starting at 1 for due North.
- i
] Table 3-3 Frequency of atmospheric stability classes for each direction-I ] Sector Fraction of time in each stability class I A B C D E F G 1 0.0 0.3730 0.0 0.0300 0.2090 0.3880 0.0 2 0.0 0.5580 0.0 0.0550 0.2670 0.1210 0. 0 3 0.0 0.4470 0.0 0.1880 0.2460 0.1180 0.0 4 0.0 0.4610 0.0 0.1070 0.2830 0.1500 0.0 5 0.0 0.5430 0.0 0.0760 0.2750 0.1810 0.0 , 6 0.0 0.4730 0.0 0.0880 0.2410 0.1990 0.0 7 0.0 0.4990 0.0 0.0910 0.2900 0.1200 0.0. ! 8 0.0 0.5080 0.0 0.1710 0.2070 0.1140 0.0 9 0.0 0.4810 0.0 0.1090 0.2560 0.1550 0.0 _ 10 0.0 0.4880 0.0 0.1010 0.2680 0.1430 0.0 11 0.0 0.4420 0.0 0.1070 0.3190 0.1320 0.0 12 0.0 0.4280 0.0 0.0950 0.3020 0.1750 0.0 i 32 13 0.0 0.3270 0.0 0.0920 0.3080 0.2740 0.0 as 14 0.0 0.2990 0.0 0.0900 0.2880 0.3230 0.0 i 15 0.0 0.4050 0.0 0.1220 0.2300 0.2430 0. 0 ! 16 0.0 0.5840 0.0 0.0660 0.1880 0.1620 0.0 I ~ I l I
/
t i
Table 3-4 x/Q values for particulates at various distances in each compass direction i Distance X/Q toward indicated direction (m) (s/ma ) N NNW NW WNW W WSW SW SSW 1207 0.130E-06 0.425E-06 0.112E-05 0.142E-05 0.702E-06 0.168E-05 0.180E-05 0.270E-05 2414 0.963E-07 0.295E-06 0.689E-06 0.940E-06 0.553E-06 0.100E-05 0.103E-05 0.150E-05 4023 0.735E-07 0.193E-06 0.429E-06 0.605E-06 0.394E-06 0.682E-06 0.642E-06 0.933E-06 5633 0.599E-07 0.139E-06 0.301E-06 0.436E-06 0.291E-06 0.514E-06 0.453E-06 0. 658E-06 7242 0.503E-07 0.106E-06 0.225E-06 0.334E-06 0.225E-06 0.407E-06 0.342E-06 0.496E-06 12070 0.326E-07 0.610E-07 0.125E-06 0.193E-06 0.130E-06 0.247E-06 0.196E-06 0.279E-06 24140 0.138E-07 0.252E-07 0.510E-07 0.800E-07 0.521E-07 0.110E-06 0.856E-07 0.118E-06 40234 0.575E-08 0.109E-07 0.224E-07 0.347E-07 0.218E-07 0.525E-07 0.411E-07 0.553E-07 56327 0.248E-08 0.493E-08 0.106E-07 0.159E-07 0.964E-08 0.265E-07 0.217E-07 0.288E-07 72420 0.115E-08 0.238E-08 0.545E-08 0.779E-08 0.458E-08 0.143E-07 0.124E-07 0.165E-07 Y w 5 SSE SE ESE E ENE NE NNE 1207 0.807E-06 0.246E-05 0.285E-05 0.414E-05 0.124E-05 0.728E-06 0.399E-06 0.400E-06 2414 0.522E-06 0.146E-05 0.173E-05 0.265E-05 0.100E-05 0.577E-06 0.306E-06 0.256E-06 4023 0.343E-06 0.927E-06 0.109E-05 0.173E-05 0.739E-06 0.427E-06 0.223E-06 0.174E-06 5633 0.248E-06 0.667E-06 0.777E-06 0.126E-05 0.566E-06 0.333E-06 0.169E-06 0.131E-06
; 7242 0.190E-06 0.511E-06 0.593E-06 0.965E-06 0.451E-06 0.269E-06 0.134E-06 0.104E-06 12070 0.108E-06 0.298E-06 0. 344E-06 0.555E-06 0.271E-06 0.164E-06 0.796E-07 0.633E-07 24140 0.444E-07 0.131E-06 0.151E-06 0.233E-06 0.115E-06 0.688E-07 0.335E-07 0.264E-07 40234 0.194E-07 0.616E-07 0.713E-07 0.104E-06 0.509E-07 0.294E-07 0.149E-07 0.111E-07 56327 0.916E-08 0.310E-07 0.361E-07 0.500E-07 0.235E-07 0.130E-07 0.689E-08 0.491E-08 72420 0.472E-08 0.167E-07 0.197E-07 0.261E-07 0.115E-07 0.613E-08 0.337E-08 0.232E-08 i
Table 3-5 National ambient air quality standards Standard (pg/m8 ) Pollutant Average Time Primary Secondary 50 2 3-h maximum 1,300 24-h maximum 365 Annual average 80 TSP 24-h maximum 260 150 Annual average 75 60 N0 x Annual arithmetic mean 100 100 CO 8-h average 10,000 10,000 1-h average 40,000 40,000 Ozone 1-h average 235 Nonmethane 3-h average (6 to 9 a.m.) 160 nydrocarbons ) l . 3-8
l{. i 3 N0* li. i D 2 A j 5* G EL 4 1 6* 7. J 0 t 50 i 10 0 E SCALE IN MILES
- 1. ARLINGTON (174.2N1 A. JAM (5 RIVER
- 2. ALEXANDRI A ll10.9308 B.COWPASTURE RIVER
- 3. FREDERICK 50URGI14.4501 C. JACKSON RIVER
- 4. MWPORT NEWS (141T11 0. AMHERST COUNTY (26.0721
- 5. R0.ah0Kt192.1151 L SEDFORD COUNTY 126.1281 .
L MARTIN 5Vitif(19,653) F. CAMPBELL COUNTY (43.3191
- 7. DANVILLE146.3911 G. APPOMATT0X COUNTY (9. TN)
L LYNCHBURG (54.0831
- 9. STAUNTON (25,5043 la WAYN[540R0 416,70F)
(NUkSERS IN PARENTHE5t$ (l art 1970 Cth5US DATA)
- n. Chant 0tTt5vitts tx asoi
- 12. RICHMONO 1249.6211
- 13. NORFOLX (107.951) l
.I l Fig. 3-2. Geographical relationship of the B&W LRC to the regional population centers, i 3-9 . 1 I f i
Table 3-6 Incremental 1980 population data within 80 km (50 miles) of the B&W NNFD at 37*24'49" latitude and 79 03'46" longitude Direction Population distribution at distances given in miles 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 N 0 641 780 345 411 1,226 3,307 2,114 5,729 29,598 NNE O 120 133 115 0 915 2,342 2,574 3,914 18,307 NE O O 13 10 89 259 1,100 1,913 3,455 14,728 ENE 52 0 11 24 44 494 1,261 1,541 3,555 5,200 E O 54 41 44 59 514 2,219 1,889 6,998 4,391 ESE 0 55 44 51 72 756 2,999 2,330 7,541 4,789 SE O 60 69 70 93 647 2,037 2,190 3,509 3,765 SSE O 0 70 78 104 639 1,514 3,278 3,114 8,430 S 0 0 113 130 189 948 2,539 3,235 4,726 10,879 SSW 69 0 111 140 332 1,654 3,217 8,591 5,907 10,077 SW 0 67 65 379 244 3,687 3,681 5,829 4,419 5,654 , WSW 0 0 585 2,782 2,703 15,749 8,228 8,444 5,482 38,898
- W 0 467 1,900 4,442 9,074 21,927 3,493 6,014 8,266 63,821 o WNW 0 0 1,276 1,652 2,425 9,245 2,687 3,494 3,616 6,099 NW 55 838 0 1,339 1,258 2,803 1,411 8,353 10,735 5,298 NNW 0 0 1,044 457 891 2,410 748 3,833 4,854 3,672 Total 176 2,302 6,155 12,058 17,988 63,883 42,783 65,622 85,820 233,606
Table 3-7 Cumulative 1980 population data within 80 km (50 miles) of the B&W NNFD at 37*24'49" latitude and 79*03'46" longitude Direction Population distribution at distances given in miles 0-1 0-2 0-3 0-4 0-5 0-10 0-20 0-30 0-40 0-50 N 0 641 1,421 1,766 2,177 3,403 6,710 8,824 14,553 44,151 NNE O 120 253 368 368 1,283 3,625 6,199 10,113 28,420 NE O O 13 23 112 371 1,471 3,384 6,839 21,567 ENE 52 52 63 87 131 625 1,886 3,427 6,982 12,182 E O 54 95 139 198 712 2,931 4,820 11,818 16,209 ESE O 55 99 150 222 978 3,977 6,307 13,848 18,637 SE O 60 129 199 292 938 2,976 5,166 8,675 12,440 SSE O 0 70 148 252 891 2,405 5,683 8,797 17,227 5 0 0 113 243 432 1,380 3.919 7,154 11,880 22,759 SSW 69 69 180 320 652 2,306 5,523 14,114 20,021 30,098 SW 0 67 132 511 755 4,452 8,133 13, % 2 18,381 24,035 w WSW 0 0 585 3,367 6,070 21,819 30,047 38,491 43,973 82,871 4 ~ W 0 467 2,267 6,709 15,783 37,710 41,203 47,217 55,483 119,304 WNW 0 0 1,276 2,928 5,353 14,598 17,285 20,779 24,395 30,494 NW 55 893 893 2,232 3,490 6,293 7,704 16,057 26,792 32,090 NNW 0 0 1,044 1,501 2,392 4,802 5,550 9,383 14,237 17,090 Total 176 2,478 8,633 20,691 38,679 102,562 145,345 210, % 7 296,787 530,393
F The Lynchburg area commercial and industrial interests provide a large percentage of the employment in the four-county area. Although farming and forestry activities dominate the land use in the region, they provide <1 percent of the economic activitys and very little permanent employment. Other principal commercial, industrial, and population centers that may influence the four-county area or may be slightly influenced by B&W operations are Roanoke, Charlottesville, Richmond, and Danville (Figure 3-2). The LRC has about 180 employees,' and the other facilities on the B&W site employ about 2,200. lhe total employment on the B&W site is only about 3 percent of the 69,000 employed in the Lynchburg Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. The B&W operation is an important, although not critical, source of employment in the Lynchburg region. 3.4 Land 3.4.1 Site Area Using maps provided by B&W,8 18 the three B&W facilities on the site affect about 40 ha (100 acres). The remainder of the site consists of an intersper-sion of approximately equal areas of second growth forests and grasslands (Sec-tion 3.7.1). A small portion of the forest land consists of pine plantations, but there are no plans for harvesting this resource. 3.4.2 Adjacent Area Land use in Campbell and Amherst Counties is dominated by farming and forestry. Table 3-8 presents a summary of the agricultural activities in these counties. Compared to 1973 statistics,13 all items except the number of hogs were stable or increased in recent years. Although the site lies in an agricultural region, very few of the important agricultural characteristics attributed to the region occur within 8 km (5 miles) of the site because of unfavorable terrain.10 The region is characterized by mixed land use consisting of small acreages of farm land (crop and pasture) interspersed within large tracts of forested area. In summary, land use in the general region of the site has not changed signifi-cantly in recent years, and activities related directly to farming and forestry still provide very little permanent employment and a very small percentage of the economic activity in the Lynchburg area. The Lynchburg Fcundry, which manufactures light machinery components of iron and steel, is located about 0.4 km (0.25 mile) from the southern boundary of the site (Figure 3-1). Other major industrial activities are located 4.8 to 8 km (3 to 5 miles) west and west-southwest of the site and include a shoe manu-facturer, two pharmaceutical facilities, pulp and paper processors, a number of warehouse facilities, and railroad yards. The most significant industries in the general area are located near or in the city of Lynchburg. None of these industrial activities have land use conflicts with the LRC or other B&W site activities. 3.4.3 Historic Significance A review of the Federal Register 14'15 reveals that the only historic site on the National Register of Historic Places within 8 km (5 miles) of the B&W 3-12
Table 3-8 AgriculturalactivitiesinCangbell and Amherst Counties, Virginia County Item D e Campbell Amherst Crop, ha d I Wheat 2,347' 81 Corn 1,740' 1,416 f f Hay 5,6 4 047 Barley 526'g2' 8 f Soybean 931' Flue-cured tobacco 482' I Fire-cured tobacco 219 20 f Apple trees 48p Peach trees 61 Livestock I Hogs 50' 1,090 Sheep 800 Dairy cows 200' 2,600 ', 450 I Other cattle 25,700 18,000 f Timber harvest Softwoods, board feet 109,600,000 9 138,400,000 9 Hardwoods, board feet 427,300 0009 590,300 000 9 Softwood, cords 948,000 0 922,000 0 Hardwood, cords 2,362,000 9 2,881,000 9 Forest area, ha Private 89,963 9 73,655 9 National 177 20,558 9 a Total acreage of these two counties equals 254,087 ha (627,840 acres). b Campbell County data from Virginia Extension Service Office and County Forester, c Amherst County data from Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Services Office and County Forester. d l ha = 2.471 acres. * '1980 data. I 1982 data. 9 1978 data. Source: Babcock & Wilcox Company, Response to NRC questions on Environmental Report, cover letter dated July 30, 1982. 3-13
facilities is the 19th-century Mt. Athos Plantation, which is across the road to the east of the site (Figure 3-1). There are numerous historic places between 8 and 40 km (5 and 25 miles) from the B&W site, particularly in Bedford County and Lynchburg to the west. The best known historic site is the Appomattox Court House National Historic Park, about 24 km (15 miles) to the east. During an earlier environmental review for licensing of the facilities at the B&W site, the State Liaison Officer for Historic Preservation indicated that the plant operation would not adversely affect historic properties in Lynchburg,10 and there is no indication that adverse effects have been observed. Therefore, the staff does not expect that historic places in Lynchburg or further from the plant site would be affected by continued operation. The Mt. Athos Plantation played a significant role in the community during the first half of the 19th century. However, the mansion was destroyed by fire in 1876 and was not rebuilt. The plantation lands that were subsequently sub-divided are privately owned and not open to the public.12 The staff does not expect that this historic site would attract a large concentration of visitors unless it is intensely developed. There is no current active effort for de-velopment. Because the B&W facilities have little impact on residents near the site boundary (Section 4), the staff does not expect that the Mt. Athos historic site or visitors at the site would be adversely affected by B&W operations. 3.4.4 Floodplains and Wetlands A relatively large forested floodplain exists between the normal elevation of the James River and the estimated highest flood stage at the site (see Sec-tion 3.5). Since no LRC structures are located in the floodplain, plant operation will not impact floodplain features. The B&W site contains very few wetlands. An abandoned sewage lagoon and a fire-pond and its associated wetland habitats are described in the NRC Environmental Impact Appraisal for the B&W CFNP.18 These areas are not affected by the LRC operations. 3.5 Hydrology 3.5.1 Surface Water 3.5.1.1 James River Hydrology The James River is formed about 154 km (96 miles) upstream of the site by the 3 confluence of the Jackson and Cowpasture Rivers. The James River flows gener-ally south-southeast from the Valley and Ridge Province to the Atlantic Ocean through the Hampton Roads and Chesapeake Bay. On the basis of records for two U.S. Geological Survey gaging stations, one about 32 km (20 miles) upstream and the other about 34 km (21 miles) downstream of the site, the annual average flow rate of the river at the plant site is estimated to be about 110m3/s (3900 cfs).17 The estimated water surface elevation at the site at the average flow rate is
~
143 m (470 ft) above MSL. Eleven great floods of the James River occurred at the plant site ir 1771, 1795, 1870, 1877, 1889, 1913, 1920, 1936, 1969, 1972,18 and 1985.8 The 1795 3-14
flood had the highest flood stage [163 m (535 ft) MSL] at Lynchburg and 151 m (494 ft) MSL at the site (estimated). The largest recent flood occurred in November 1985 and had a flood stage of 163 m (534 ft) MSL at Lynchburg. The Standard Project Flood determined by the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers for the James River would produce a discharge rate of 10,705 m3/S (378,000 cfs) and a flood stage of 153 m (502 ft) MSL at the site. Because the elevation of the plant floors at the LRC is 180 m (589 ft) MSL, which is 29 m (95 ft) above the maximum historical flood stage or 26 m (87 ft) above the Standard Project Flood elevation, James River floods would not affect the research and development facility at the LRC. 3.5.1.2 James River Water Quality As the State's part of the 1983 national goal of water quality suitable for all types of recreation, the State of Virginia has established water quality standards for the protection of public and municipal water supplies.18 Those constituents for which standards have been set are shown in Table 3-9. In addition, the following water quality standards apply to the James River at the NNFD and CNFP discharges: dissolved oxygen: 4.0 minimum, 5.0 average og/L, pH: 6.0-8.5, and temperature: 32 C maximum The water quality of the James River must, therefore, meet these goals. Although water quality data for the James River in the vicinity of the Babcock & Wilcox facility are unavailable, comparisons of the water quality of the James River at Buchanan, (* 101 km (63 river miles) upstream of the LRC) with that at Cartersville, (approximately 140 km (87 river miles) downstream of the site) show that water quality in the vicinity of the site is generally good.17 The lower values for such parameters as specific conductance, chloride, and solids residue at Cartersville, a national stream quality accounting network station, are believed to reflect the greater stream discharge at the Cartersville site (201 m3/s, 7,035 ft 3/s) than at the Buchanan site (70.4 m3/s, 2,464 ft3 /s). Fecal coliform bacteria counts at Cartersville occasionally exceed the state water quality criterion. 3.5.2 Groundwater Measurements in potable wells located in the river floodplain near the CNFP in the northeast corner of the site indicate that the groundwater elevation ranges between 134 and 140m (440 and 460 ft) MSL, which is 3 m (10 ft) below surface elevation at the annual average flow rate. Because of the relative impermeabil-ity of the silt and clay topsoils, neither the water in surface soils nor river flood water has a major effect on the groundwater supply or quality. B&W obtains about 380 m3/d (100,000 gpd) from the above-mentioned wells for drinking and industrial uses. An average of 73 m3/d (19,300 gal / day) is used 3-15
Table 3-9 Surface water standards for intakes to public or municipal water supplies in Virginia Concentration Concentration Constituent (mg/L) Constituent (ag/L) Arsenic 0.05 Lead 0.05 Barium , 1.0 knganege (soluble) 0.5 Cadmium 0.01 Mercury 0.002 Chloride 250 Nitrate (as N) 10 Chromi p (total) 0.05 Phenols , 0.001 Copper 1.0 Selenip 0.01 Foaming agents Silver 0.05 (measured as methylene Sulfate 250 blue active substances) 0.5 500 Iron (soluble) 0.3 Tota}dissolvedsolids Zinc 5.0 a These standards may not be sufficient for protection of aquatic life. 3-16
i at the LRC. Continuous pumping tests on these wells indicates a plentiful supply of groundwater.10 Therefore, it is not likely that the performance at nearby residential wells would be affected by B&W's operations. 3.6 Geology, Mineral Resources, and Seismicity 1 i 3.6.1 Geology and Soils i The James River Basin of Virginia includes portions of four physiographic provinces characterized by distinct land forms and physical features.
- These provinces, located west to east, are Valley and Ridge, Blue Ridge, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain. Western, or inner Piedmont, where the B&W property
- lies, is an upland characterized by scattered hills, some of mountainous dimen-l sions, lying eastward from the foot of the Blue Ridge.
I Borings and excavations at the site have revealed that the site is blanketed by i a layer of dark brown, sandy-clay topsoil that contains extensive plant roots. The topsoil is
- 0.15 to 0.45 m (6 to 18 in.) thick and is underlain by strata 3 to 12 m (10 to 40 ft) thick of firm, primarily cohesive soils such as clay and silt loam. These cohesive soils lie above a stratum
- 1.5 m (5 ft) thick of j coarse sand, gravel, cobbles, and boulders, which, in turn, is underlain by -
i highly weathered bedrock. The upper surfaces of the bedrock are irregular and may slope downward, generally in a northerly direction. Unweathered bedrock was encountered at an elevation of
- 158 m (520 ft) MSL. Along the meandering bank of the river, much of the bedrock is heavily blanketed by alluvium.
l Figure 3-3 shows a columnar section of rocks in the LRC and Lynchburg areas. As indicated in this figure, the Hypersthene granodiorite, Lovingston quartz monzonite gneiss, and Reusens migmatite are the oldest rocks known in the area. These are overlain by the Lynchburg gneiss, which is exposed along the Martic l line north of the facilities. Above the Lynchburg gneiss is the Catoctin green-i stone which is, in turn, overlain by the rocks of the Evington Group. These i rocks of the Evington Group occupy the center of the James River Synclinorium. l More information on the geology of the area can be found in the environmental l reports for the applicant's facilities and in associated references.8'10 i i 3.6.2 Mineral Resources ! No important mineral resources have been identified at the B&W site, and USGS i topographic maps (1968 and 1978 editions) do not indicate anj significant sur-l face or underground mining activities within 8 km (5 miles) of the site. 3.6.3 Seismicity The B&W site is located in a western part of the central Virginia cluster re whichisclassifiedasZone2ontheSeismicRiskMapoftheUnitedStates.2gion This zone corresponds to an intensity of VII according to the Modified Mercalli
, scale, which implies building damages to the extent of fallen chimneys and
! cracked walls. During the period 1758 through 1968, 121 earthquakes with epi-l centers in Virginia were reported.21 The largest earthquake was in 1897, with l a probable epicenter in Giles County,
- 160 km (100 miles) west of the plant I site.22 A maximum intensity of VIII was estimated in the epicentral region, l but an intensity of only V-VI was estimated for the plant site.
3-17
FOR:all02 C0t "R CHARACTER OF ROCts ggCTI0N M@.hpI DAR(GREEN TO GRAT. SCNIST0$E o TO Ghtl5505E LAVA FLOWS (SACIT[- kl y* - 3000 ANot5 lit?). AMTGOALORDAL IN SLIPPLRT 3000 PART. TUFFACEOUS (?) SCHIST l AT SA$t. Cettg GR[tNSTON[
] , ,
il l,II l QUARTZITE. COMMONLY CONCLOMERATits
- llll 1 1 MICA SCMI5f; AND WHITE. SRAT. AND IE i IIHI INF O PINE MARSLE. MAR 8LE IN 015CONTINU0US ul LEN$ts; LOCALLY GRADATIONAL INTO
\ U.dllll m - illl Hg}[ g__ 100- oTHER FACIES.
MOUNI ATHOS w__ _ 800 [ ..Y / TAN SERICITt-0UARTZ SCMIST. CONTAINS o "s PILitt _yd 400 THIN GUARTZlTES. 810 TITE PORPMTR0 E
- SCHl5T g3 SLASTS CHARACittl5 TIC. CMLORITOID
~ g _ u kW FACit$ COMMON.
" .,. FINE GRAINED Slut-GRAT. MICACCOUS ARCH f.
400* 2 3 .pagggg 7 ,_T-+ +e MARett. LOCALLY AttNAtt005.
+. .+- + +
0- SLUT GRAT FMTLLITE AND Flut GRAINED JO5HUA _.-- - - - - SCHISTS. 810 Tift PORPMTR08tATT5 1500 5CMI51 ,,_ y_ __ COMMON. CALCARE0US IN PART. k~M LUSTROUS. GRAT GRtth PMTLLlit AND Fint. TO C0AR$t CRAINED SCMISTS. SOME CUARTilT[5 AND GREENSTONE CANDLER :,_,,,,. -- gm 1500 TOLCANICS (?). CARNET . STAUB 0 LITE-TORMAfl0h
~
7 ~_ 3 4000 1 AND CMLORIT0lO-SEARING FACl[5 WI0t%PREA0 IN EAST [RN AREA $.
~
h :--v . v _~. [
-*rl l 0 OAft GEttN. FINE GRAINto BIOTITE.
EPl00it MORNSLENDE SCMIST. CAf0Cith ? f r # 4. 1000 ALSO METAGA88R0 (MG). 50AP5T0NE. GRttN510NE ,,. %, , , METAPTROIENITE. AND M[ TAPER 100 TITE INTRU51Vt5 RELATED (?) TO CAT 0CTIN. Qs i s !~'
~M _
10*000 DARK GRAT 810 TITE 0UARTZ GNtl55 AND
, MICA SCMl5T. SOME GRAPHITIC SCHl5T5.
LVNCM8URG fg g GNt155 M e% #
$. w-t ,,e ' ' %f,l
/'f GRAN0010 RITE (MG0): DARK CettNISM g HYPER 5fM(NE 1 GRAN0010Rlit 79, 1 GRAT. C0AR5[ GRAlmt0. Stut QUART!
'k h A TYPICAL CONSTITU[NT; MTPERSTMENE L f _
COMMON. b fg gs/ LOVING 510N LDylNGSTON QUARil MON 20 NITE Chil55 00ARTl (LCM): MEDIUM- TO CARK GRAT. COAR$t. MON 10Nitt GNtl5s \ GR AINto 810 TITE 0UARif MON 20 NITE
\ '
chtl55. (oN5'ICUOUS Frt05 PAR MICA 7v/ 7- AUGtN. stuitN5 MIGMATITE yb ALU5EN5 MIGMAflTE (RM): MICMATlft h9d b/s p CF LOTINGSTCN GNtl55 IN CARE GREth-4D Y d hg f i CRAT (P100TI 810 TITE-MORN 8ttuot GNEI55.
)A d v > ^( / sk
'TO CHANGE FEET TO METERS. MULTIPLY SY 0.3048
(~ l Fig. 3-3. Columnar section of the foundation rocks at the LRC site i and in the Lynchburg area. l l' 3-18
r I-The second largest earthquake was in 1875, with a maximum epicentral intensity of VII more than 80 km (50 miles) east or northeast of-the site.22 The esti-mated intensity at the site was V. No other quakes are recorded with intensi-ties at the site greater than the 1875 or 1897 occurrences. Earthquakes with intensities of VI are not expected to cause serious damage to the LRC facilities nor result in release of hazardous materials. - 3.7 Biota 3.7.1 Terrestrial Natural-climax vegetation in the region-is classified as oak-hickory pine (Quercus-Carya-pinus) forest.28 Dominants include white oak (Q. alba), post oak (Q. stellata), hickory (Carya spp.), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), and lob-lolly pine (P. toeda). Other common species include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), dogwood (Cornus florida), and several other species of oak, hickory, and pine. Vegetative surveys of the Blackwater Creek Basin, about 12 km (7.5 miles) west of the site, were conducted in the early 1970s by personnel of Lynchburg College and Randolph-Macon Woman's College.24,2s This area, representative of the B&W site, has a diverse plant community with more than 400 plant species being identified. The undeveloped part of the site consists of approximately equal areas of second growth forests and grasslands (Figure 3-4). The' grasslands are main-tained by mowing. A substantial portion of the forest-land occurs in the flood plain adjacent to the James River. Wetland habitats associated with the surface drainage of the LRC facility include various' grasses, sedges,. cattails (Typha latifolia), and willcws (Salix spp.). No surveys of wildlife have been conducted on the site. However, the occurrence of various wildlife' species that potentially occupy the site can be determined from the literature 2s 28 and the surveys of the Blackwater Creek Basin discussed earlier.2s,24 Lists of such wildlife and their preferred habitats are in the Environmental Report for the B&W CNFP.10 , The great diversity of plants and vegetative communities in the site vicinity provide a wide variety of habitats for wildlife. There are approximately 24 species of mammals, 160 species of birds, 19 species of reptiles, and 17 species of amphibians expected to occur in the Lynchburg area. Species in the vicinity of the site that are economically important include big game mammals [e.g., white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and black bear (Ursus americanus)], small game mammals [e.g. , raccoon (Procyon lotor), mink (Mustela vison), river otter (Lutra canadensis), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), and beaver (Castor canadensis)], upland game birds [e.g., turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), quail (Colinus virginianus), and mournin0 dove (Zenaida macroura)], and'several species of water fowl. Information on threatened and endangered species is given in Section 3.7.3.
~
3-19
p - f. 3 ,, ,' ,.
.-- - - =
g gg , [ t 'f'- , m UQa S A~ 4 gSp;y2 _g e w a o e -3: a w
!!l.
A 4 -. m o 4 s oa hhSU$0 s E-o 8i:!:E.f.5 ,.
@E12 E$%2 y
' ~ ~
? ,,; } ..
L /; ! h l ? _e--:-:-- +:e:- w ll .M ' O--0
.. !! i --=:r ' ' , /
f h 5'[ )-y .:5 i ~ ,. ? l l' $
/s-
'. ' ?
/ 3
.l l
h;P -g :
~ 7
?
,/ : f,.g.. 3,_
XY
/, 4 -
4 , (, ' J s' -
'q'
,\' '
~ 14 ' ~......
- t. . Ns '
,,,,,,/
,?
,yg . . ,' .
3., l D. - l i 'J
~ - 'f. Ah h3, an, '. i$4 h, Fig. 3-4 Vegetation and land use of the B&W vicinity.
3-20 1
l l 3.7.2 Aquatic The aquatic biota of the James River in the vicinity of the LRC is generally characteristic of that of a moderately polluted river. Examination of phyto-plankton communities downstream of the site at Cartersville shows reasonably diverse communities consisting of green, yellow green (diatoms) and blue green algae during the late summer. Phytoplankton communities during the fall, winter, and early summer. consisted almost entirely of a few species of yellow-green algae.2s The benthic community in the middle reaches of the James River near the LRC is characteristic of areas with both flowing and backwater areas.80'81 Many of the
- dipteran (true fly) species are indicative of moderately polluted waters with occasional periods of low dissolved oxygen. The species of mayflies, stoneflies, and caddisflies that are present in the vicinity are found in areas of flowing water which supply a constant source of available oxygen.
i Most of the fish in the James River in the vicinity of the LRC are primarily members of the minnow, sucker, sunfish, perch, and catfish families. Species in these families range from common to uncommon.s2 There is no commercial fishery in the vicinity of the LRC site. 3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Federally- and state-listed threatened and endangered animal species whose pre-sent or former geographic ranges include central Virginia and the B&W site are the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucoce)halus leucocephalus), American peregrine fal-con (Falco peregrinus), gray bat (iyotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), Virginia big-eared bat (_Plecotus townsendii virginianus), and eastern cougar I (Felis concolor couguar) (Ref. 33 and 50 CFR Parts 17.11 and 17.12). The staff ! knows of no reports of these species being observed on the site or its vicinity. ! The bald eagle and peregrine falcon would occur in the vicinity of the site only as very rare migrant or vagrant individuals. The cougar has been scarce in Virginia since the end of the 19th century, possibly because of over-hunting and destruction of the dense habitat essential to its survival.88 The latest evidence of the cougar's existence in the state consists of a track identified l in western Virginia in 1978.ss Virginia's Commission of Game and Inland ! Fisheries contracted V. M. Tipton of Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) to i survey all caves in Virginia where bats could possibly be found.88 Indiana bats were found in only one cave in the southwestern part of the state in Wise County, and there is evidence that the gray bat may also occur in Wise County. The big-eared bat has been located in Burkes Garden, Tazewell County, also in the southwestern part of the state. The Virginia round-leaf birch (Betula uber) is classified by both the state and federal governments as endangered (50 CFR Parts 17.11 and 17.12 and M. Trammell, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Commerce, Richmond, Virginia). The species was originally discovered in 1914, but attempts to locate the birch during the 1950s and 1960s were unsuccessful. Discovery of an undated herbarium specimen in 1974 prompted a new search for the birch. In 1975, the species was rediscovered along the banks of Cressy Creek in Smyth County, southwestern Virginia. 3-21
l Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) is classified by the state as a threatened species. Its preferred habitat of rich and cool woods, however, makes it unlikely for this species to occur on the site. There are no species of rare or endangered fish or molluscs known to occur in the James River in the vicinity of the site. The orangefin madtom, (Noturus gilberti), which has been proposed for the state list of threatened species, occurs in the upper reaches of the James River but not in the LRC vicinity. 3.8 Radiological Characteristics (Background) The radiological background characteristics presented in this section were developedafrom-selected data and published reports. 3.8.1 Total-Body Dose Rates The total-body dose rate for the vicinity of Lynchburg is $107 millirem / year.84 This dose rate includes 43 millirem / year from cosmic rays, 45.6 millirem / year from terrestrial sources, and 18 millirem / year from internal emitters. 3.8.2 Soil, Vegetation, Sediment, and Water Background Background characteristics for soil, vegetation, sediment, and water were estab-lished during preoperational surveys made in 1956 and are shown in Table 3-10. 3-22
l l l Tab'le 3-10 Results of preoperational (1956) sampling surveys of concentrations of radioactivity in soil, sediment, vegetation, and water Uranium (pg) per gram of sample Uranium (pg) Sample per mililiter Vegetation Soil Sediment of water 1 0.85 3 1.1 1.1 4 0.35 5 1.1 7 0.76 1.3 , 15 1. 2 0.6 0.001 Average 1. 0 0.85 1.1 0.001 Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Docket No. 70-27, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-42, NR-FM-009, March 1977. 1 3-23 1
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3
- 1. " Local Climatological Data, Lynchburg, Virginia; Annual Summary with Com-parative Data," NOAA Environmental Data Service, Asheville, NC, 1971.
- 2. R. L. Peace, " Heavy-Fog Regions in the Conterminous United States," Mon.
Weather Rev. 97(2) (February 1969).
- 3. H. C. S. Thom, " Tornado Probabilities," Mon. Weather Rev. 91:10 (October-December 1963). -
- 4. D. H. Slade, ed., " Meteorology and Atomic Energy," U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Technical Information, ~ July 1968.
- 5. J. F. Sagendorf, "A Program Evaluating Atmospheric Dispersion from a Nuclear Power Station," NOAA Technical Memo ERI-ARL-42,1974.
- 6. G. C. Holtzworth, Mixing Heights, Wind Speeds, and Potential for Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States, AP-101, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, January 1972.
- 7. Environmental Protection Agency, " National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Attainment Status," Fed. Regist. 43(177) (September 12, 1978).
- 8. U.S. Water Resources Council 1972 Obers Projections, Economic Activity in the U.S., Vol. 5, " Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas," April 1974.
- 9. Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg Research Center, Environmental Report, June 1986.
- 10. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, BAW-1412, December 1974.
- 11. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg Research Center, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-778, Docket No. 70-824, January 1980.
- 12. Babcock & Wilcox, Supplemental Environmental Information Related to Installation of Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Capability, Babcock &
Wilcox, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, BAW-1412, Annex 1, June 1976.
- 13. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal, Babcock & Wilcox, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Related to Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-42, Docket No. 70-27, March 1977.
- 14. Department of the Interior, " National Register of Historic Places; Annual Listing of Historic Places." Fed. Regist. 44(26) (Feb. 6, 1979), Part II; 45(54) (Mar. 18, 1980), Part II; 46(22) (Feb. 3, 1981); and 47(22) (Feb. 2, 1982).
3-24
-- .a-..- .-..-,.n..-..r-l
- 15. Department of the Interior, " National Register of Natural Landmarks; Annual Listing," Fed. Regist. 45 (Dec. 1, 1980).
- 16. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License SNM-1168, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-1201, May 1983.
- 17. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Data for Virginia, Water Year 1979, VA-79-1, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979.
- 18. Virginia State Water Resources Division, James River Basin, Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Vol. IV, " Water Resources Requirements and Problems,"
Virginia Department of Comprehensive and Economic Development, Planning Bulletin 216, February 1971.
- 19. D. C. Drager, Virginia State Water Control Board, to N. E. Hinkle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 18, 1982.
- 20. S. T. Algermission, " Seismic Risk Studies in the United States," Fourth World Conference Earthquake Engineering Proceedings: Asociacion Chilena de Sismologia e Ingeneria Antisismica, Santiago, Chile, 1:14-27 (1969).
- 21. G. A. Bollinger, " Seismicity of the Central Appalachian States of Virginia, West Virginia, and Maryland - 1758 through 1968," Bull. Seismological Soc.
Am. 59(5):2103-11 (1969).
- 22. G. A. Bollinger and M. G. Hopper, " Virginia's Two Largest Earthquakes -
December 22, 1875 and May 31, 1897," Bull. Seismological Soc. Am. 61(4):1039 (1971).
- 23. A. W. Kuchler, " Potential Natural Vegetation of the Conterminous United States, "Special Publication 36, American Geographical Society, New York, 1964.
- 24. "An Outdoor Instruction Laboratory - Lynchburg College Lake," W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1973.
l
- 25. " Ecological and Sociological Aspects of the Proposed Blackwater Creek Park in Lynchburg, Virginia," Randolph-Macon Woman's College and National Science Foundation, 1971.
- 26. "A Checklist of Virginia's Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, and Amphibians,"
Virginia Wildlife, 1959.
- 27. W. H. Burt and R. P. Grossenheider, A Field Guide to the Mammals, 2nd
- ed., Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1964.
- 28. A. C. Martin, H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson, American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1951.
l l 3-25
i
- 29. M. Becker, "A Preliminary Study of Possible Effects of Thermal and pH Addition on the Net Phytoplankton Content of the James River," Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Lynchburg, VA,1970.
- 30. J. LaBuy, " Biological Surveys of the Upper James Basin - Covington, Clifton Forge, Big Island, Lynchburg, and Pincy River Areas," Water Pollution Con-trol Administration, Middle Atlantic Region, CB-SRBP Working Document No. 21, January 1968.
- 31. J. H. Tackett, " Biological Assessment of Water Quality - Upper James River Basin - Jackson and James Rivers from Clearwater Park (above Covington) to Bent Creek, Virginia," Memo, Virginia State Water Control Board, Richmond, Feb. 9, 1967.
- 32. Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development, James River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plant, Vol. 1, " Introduction," Virginia State Water Resources Div., Planning Bulletin 213, Richmond, March 1969.
- 33. " Virginia's Endangered Species," Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond (no date).
- 34. D. T. Oakley, Natural Radiation Exposure in the United States, ORP/SID 72-1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1972.
l 3-26
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED LICENSE RENEWAL 4.1 Monitoring Programs and Mitigatory Measures 4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Program 4.1.1.1 Radiological Gaseous Gaseous effluents that are potentially contaminated are exhausted through the 50-meter stack. This stack is sampled continuously. Sample air is drawn
+hrough a fixed filter which is routinely changed and counted on a low back-ground gas flow proportional counter to determine gross alpha and beta activity.
Airborne effluents that cannot practicably exhaust through the 50-meter stack are individually sampled if there is the potential for these streams to contain 10 percent or greater of the applicable 10 CFR 20 limits. These samples are counted as described above. The data for 1982 to 1984 are provided in Table 2-2. Liquid Liquid sampling is performed on each of the waste water tanks prior to discharg-ing to the liquid waste treatinent system at the Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. Tanks are stirred and a one quart sample withdrawn. A measured amount of this sample water is evaporated to dryness on a planchet and counted in a low back-ground, gas flow proportional counter for gross alpha and gross beta. Gamma spectroscopy is used for isotope identification if the gross technique results in unusually high activities. The data for 1982 to 1984 are provided in Table 2-3. l t 4.1.1.2 Nonradiological . Gaseous The nature of the work performed at the LRC is such that only small amounts of volatile chemicalc are used. The single largest contributor is acetone, of which the LRC consumed 100 gallons in 1983. The State of Virginia does not require the monitoring of this chemical. Liquid The liquid effluents from the LRC that potentially contain harmful chemicals are released to the liquid waste treatment system of the NNFD. The NNFO analyzes effluents to chemical constituents and, therefore, this is not performed at the LRC. 4-1
4.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Program The James River is sampled monthly both upstream and downstream of the NNFD : discharge point (see Figure 4-1). The samples are evaporated to dryness on a : planchet and counted on a low background, gas flow proportional counter. Samples are counted to determine gross alpha and gross beta (see Table 4-1). Samples of James River silt and plant life in the vicinity of the LRC are taken. annually (see Figure 4-1). These samples are normally analyzed by an offsite commercial firm (see Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4). The staff has evaluated the water, silt, and plant data and has concluded that the concentrations of gross alpha and gross beta in the samples do not differ significantly from background levels. Rain water is continuously sampled onsite. Measured amounts are evaporated to dryness and counted on a low background, gas flow proportional cuunter for gross alpha and gross beta. Up until now, there has been no groundwater monitoring around the Liquid Waste Disposal Facility Tanks. Therefore, the staff will require the installation of monitoring wells around the tanks to detect potential leakage from continued operation (see staff's recommendation in Section 2.5). Wind speed and direction monitors are mounted at the top of the 50 meter and at a point about midway up the stack. The information transmitted from these monitors is recorded on a continuous basis. Outside air temperature is measured and recorded continuously at locations on and near the stack at elevations of 50 meters and 3 meters. Surveys of the ecological communities onsite have not been conducted. Because no significant impacts are expected from continued operation of the facility (Section 4.2.4.1), no future monitoring of vegetation and wildlife is necessary in connection with the proposed action. No other routine nonradiological monitoring procedures on or near the site have been required to detect aquatic, terrestrial, or atmospheric effects of LRC operation. 4.1.3 Mitigating Measures Although the dose estimates for man resulting from the routine airborne and liquid releases of radionuclides to the environment are quite low and well below existing standards for safe operation (Section 4.2), it is important that an adequate program of environmental monitoring be maintair d to provide an early alert for potential problems and to aid in keeping onsite and offsite exposures as low as reasonably achievable. Because no significant nonradiological impact on aquatic or terrestrial species will occur (Section 4.2.4), no mitigation associated with the proposed action is necessary. 4-2
I _eggg l w e,,g ap<g u gg g pses '/g
)
g#yWe %;If lf T y .[mU M [ g$
.: 8 m y $ y% M
%a 4 lt i
$$?whkb, b; ij $ ? k b$ bk h?m h. J(s'5 f
- i
; _g? ? k t j i g .i'gjw m" o j 3%_f ;g g sq
;j'Qy'i~{tA T %c. fj/e f wu i1 i.i' W x, %%am!4 - .
4 4 , ,s y3 1 ~ f& yL
; p. % /.
.--, % . -a - e 1
g zg d ersyyp'@'" c ' ai %.4 p ', *Q."'sMs' i ey':; du
.@ :9
.A g ( + 4w pe(4li lh n 3.Dy:A v$w$pU :.an j%lIf%ak d3? g. w
;g vegetauon J < n /j f sampie y S .
$a
.<)A>ac wn m Q7 p gN
;f y
4 w samo, ; . L NY $ .$ lh;.,&$ , f $'/;
Table 4-1 Gross radioactivity in James River water samples, 1982-1984 a pCi/ liter p pCi/ liter Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Upstream Downstream 1982 1 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 2 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 3 <3.0 <3.0 9.3 5.3 4 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 1983 1 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 2 3.3 3.3 5.0 <5.0 3 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 4 <3.0 <3.0 5.0 <5.0 1984 1 <3.0 <3.0 5. 0 <5.0 2 3.7 3.7 8.0 11.0 3 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 4 <3.0 <3.0 <5.0 <5.0 NOTE: LLD's are: Gross Alpha: 3 pCi/1 Gross Beta: 5 pCi/1 LLD's are for a single sample count. The above quarterly values are the average of 3 monthly samples. 4-4
Table 4-2 Gross alpha radioactivity in James River silt samples 1982-1984 a pCi/ gram (dry) 1/2 Mile 1/2 Mile 2 Miles 5 Miles Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Downstream Downstream 1982 1 1 10 3 <10 2 2 <10 2 6 3 4 5 4 8 4 6 8 4 8 1983 1 4 6 2 2 2 7 5 8 6 3 3 5 4 4 4 5 10 8 8 1984 1 3 1 4 2 2 10 2 8 9 3 3 5 2 4 4 8 9 10 9 NOTE: LLD a = 1 pCi/g (dry) t l , 4-5 l
Table 4-3 Gross beta radioactivity in James River silt samples 1982-1984 p pCi/ gram (dry) 1/2 Mile 1/2 Mile 2 Miles 5 Miles Year Quarter Upstream Downstream Downstream Downstream 1982 1 12 37 17 10 2 7 5 8 9 3 3 3 <0.5 3 4 1 1 <0.5 1 1983 1 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 16 4 3 4 4 <0.5 3 6 <0.5 1984 1 5 7 7 6 2 10 11 7 6 3 3 1 <0.5 <0.5 4 8 1 5 <0.5 NOTE: LLD p = 0.5 pCi/g (dry) 3 4-6 i
.v , , - . - - - . - _ . , , _ , , _
, , ~ , - - - _ . . - - . ~ . . _ . . - -
- , , , , . , . . - . . - - - . . _ . - , . - ~
i Table 4-4 Gross radioactivity in vegetative samples, 1982-1984 a pCi/ gram (dry)(1) p pCi/ gram (dry)(2,3) Year Quarter East of B&W West of B&W East of B&W West of B&W 1982 1 1.4 <1 2.4 6 2 1 <1 <0.5 0.8 3 <1 2 2 2 4 1 2 4 8 1983 1 1 1 1 14 2 2 <1 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 4 <1 1. 5 <0.5 <0.5 1984 1 2 1 < 0. 5 <0.5 2 <1 1. 2 4 4 3 <1 <1 1. 2 <0.5 4 2 5 1.1 3.3 (1)LLD a = 1 pCi/g (dry) (2) Gross p minus K-40 (3)LLD p = 0.5 pCi/g (dry) i 4-7
4.2 Direct Effects And Their Significance 4.2.1 Air Quality The nonradioactive gaseous emissions from the LRC (Section 2.2.2.1.2) are not expected to result in measurable changes in air quality beyond the plant site boundary. Radiological impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.5. 4.2.2 Land Use There are no plans for additions to the LRC. Therefore, no additional impacts on land use, on historical or archaeological sites, or on floodplains or wet-lands will result.from license. renewal. 4.2.3 Water Use The withdrawal of groundwater for site use during the past 10 years has caused no apparent adverse effect on the groundwater resource. Therefore, continued use of the resource should not adversely affect the environment. Water withdrawn from and discharged to the James River for the combined site facilities [10 L/s (0.35 cfs)] is <0.1 percent of the 10 year, 7-d low-flow rate of the river [12,650 L/s (447 cfs)].2 The design capacity for withdrawal by the NNFD facility (which supplies water to both LRC and CNFP) is 19 L/s (0.67 cfs). This small diversion of river water should have no adverse effect on other water uses. Liquid discharges from the LRC are a small percentage of the combined discharges, which are monitored and controlled to satisfy conditions of NNFD's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (Appendix A). Thus, operation of the LRC is not expected to have any adverse effects on the James River. 4.2.4 Ecological 4.2.4.1 Terrestrial Before construction of the B&W facilities, the site was used primarily for farming. To date, land not maintained as pine plantations or grassy meadows has reverted to hardwood trees and shrubs (Figure 3-4). Since the site is in a rural area with a large amount of unoccupied land, the use of 5.5 ha (13.6 acres) for the LRC is considered to have a minor effect on the ecosystem. Conversion of portions of the site from farmland to an interspersion of trees, shrubs, and grasslands has probably increased its value as wildlife habitat by providing additional food and cover for a variety of species. Continued operation of the LRC will have no significant impacts on vegetation or wildlife other than the continued occupation of potential habitat by indus-trial facilities. Because no new construction is planned, there will be no additional loss of habitat. No erosion, dust, or excessive noise caused by traffic or plant operation was noted during the staff's visit to the site. No threatened or endangered species are known to frequent the area (Section 3.7.3), and none should be affected by continued plant operation. 4-8
4.2.4.2 Aquatic Because the process effluents generated by the LRC and discharged to the NNFD are small in quantity and conform to the limitations of the NPDES permit issued to the NNFD by the state of Virginia (Appendix A), there should be no measur-able impacts to the aquatic biota of the James P,1ver in the vicinity of the plant. In addition, no adverse effects on aquatic life should result from the relatively small rate of water withdrawal and discharge to the river (Section 4.2.3). 4.2.5 Radiological Impacts The radiological impacts of the B&W LRC were assessed-by calculating the maximum dose to the individual living at the nearest residence and to the local popula-tion living within an 80-km (50 mile) radius of the plant site. Except where specified, the term " dose" as referred to in this report is actually a 50 year dose commitment for all internal exposures, that is, the total dose to the reference organ that will accrue from 1 year of intake of radionuclides during the remaining lifetime (50 years) of the individual. A conservative assumption is that the individual spends all his time at the reference location and that all the food consumed is produced at the site. The dose reflects the annual release of radionuclides from the combined effluents. Where possible, site specific data are used for estimating doses. 4.2.5.1 Doses From Airborne Releases Emissions from building exhaust stacks are monitored continuously, and the average annual release rates over the period 1982 through 1984 are shown in Table 2-2. The nearest resident is about 1000 m (0.62 mile) west of the release stacks. . The actual emissions and their radiological impact as a result of LRC activities l are insignificant when compared to the two other facilities on the Lynchburg site (Table 4-5). Therefore, the doses to the nearest resident and to the local population as a result of LRC airborne releases will be those calculated in Section 4.2.5.3, describing the cumulative maximum doses due to airborne releases from all three facilities. 4.2.5.2 Doses From Aqueous Releases Potentially contaminated and contaminated liquid wastes from tne LRC laboratories are directed to the liquid waste disposal system, where the tanks are sampled and counted to ensure compliance with 10 CFR 20 conditions for release to an unrestricted environment before release to NNFD. If these limits are exceeded, dilution is used to bring the concentration into compliance. The amount of liquid waste that the LRC sends to the NNFD radioactive liquid waste treatment system is about 4 3m /d (1,000 gal /d).2 This is a small percent-age of the total liquid waste that the NNFD treats and releases to the James River. 4-9 l _.
Table 4-5 Total annual release rates from three facilities on the Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg site Release rate Facility Radionuclides (Ci/ year) 8 NNF0 sa*U 8.24 x 10 4 assU 2.32 x 10 5 23s0 1.5 x 10 s Sasu 4.0 x 10.s b CNFP 234U 7.1 x 10.s assu 3.1 x 10 7 assu 3.0 x 10 s 23 0 1.6 x 10.s c LRC Gross Alpha Particulates 3.0 x 10 7 Gross Beta Particulates 2.7 x 10 s Kr-85 14.0 Tritium 1.1
- Based on annual releases from 1977 through 1981. Source: Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, June 1982.
b Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1168, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-1201, May 1983. C 8ased on annual releases from 1982 through 1984. Source: Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox, Lynchburg Research Center, June 1986. For environmental assessment purposes, gross alpha is conservatively assumed to be from Pu-239 and gross beta is conservatively assumed to be from Sr-90.
Since the liquid wastes from the LRC are mixed with those from the NNFD, the doses from the aqueous releases, as a result of the LRC activities, will be considered as a part of the doses calculated due t; the total aqueous releases from the NNFD.3 The methodology used for calculating the 50 year dose commitments to man from the release of radionuclides to the aquatic environment is described in detail in Ref. 4. Three exposure pathways are considered in dose determination: water ingestion, fish ingestion, and submersion in water (swimming). Internal and external dose conversion factors are discussed in Ref. 3. The dietary intake rates are found in Regulatory Guide 1.109. The release rate and concentrations of radionuclides after mixing with the James River below the plant discharge are shown in Table 4-6. Dow to the Maximally Exposed Individual The 50 year dose commitments for individuals exposed to various aquatic pathways associated with the James River are shown in Table 4.7. Of the total-body dose of 0.016 millirem, 77 percent is due to the ingestion of water and about 23 percent to the ingestion of fish. Most of the doses were due to 8840 (98 percent) and 238U (2 percent). The highest organ dose, 0.038 millirem, is to the bone. All of the doses to the maximally exposed individual are well below the limits established by the NRC of 500 millirem / year to the total body, gonads, and bone marrow and 1500 millirem / year to the other organs (designated in or derived from 10 CFR Part 20). Similarly, the doses are only a small fraction of the EPA standard of 25 millirem / year to the total body, 75 millires/ year to the thyroid, and 25 millirem / year to the other organs (40 CFR Part 190). Addition-ally, the total-body dose of 0.016 millirem is only about 0.015 percent of the natural background dose to the individual (107 millires/ year) in the Lynchburg area. Population Dose Commitments from Liquid Effluents The nearest large population that draws on the James River for domestic use is Richmond, Virginia, ~209 km (130 miles) downstream from the plant site. Using the concentration of radionuclides in the river shown in Table 4-6 (thus, ignoring any further downstream dilution), the total-body dose commitment to the population at Richmond (1980 population of ~220,000 persons) is 3.5 man-rem. Therefore, under conservative assumptions, the population dose estimate from drinking water from the river is about 0.015 percent of the background radiation dose. The discharge of liquid effluents into the James River has no significant impact on the population at Richmond. 4.2.5.3 Cumulative maximum doses to the individual from airborne releases from onsite operating facilities The Babcock & Wilcox Company also operates two additional facilities at the ~213-ha (525-acre) site. The Naval Nuclear Fuel Division (NNFD) primarily involves the fabrication of enriched uranium into fuel assemblies for use in 4-11
< - - -n, e , ,,, ,. - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - - -
Table 4-6 Annual average radionuclide release rates" in NNFD liquid effluents and concentrations of radionuclides in the b James River near the NNFD Release rates Concentrations in the James River Radionuclide (pCi/ Year) (pCi/cas ) 23*U 32,576 9.61 x 10 12 23s0 748 2.21 x 10 18 236U 63.4 ~1.87 x 10 14 2ssU 10.7 3.16 x 10 15 a Based on annual release rates from 1977 through 1981 in Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, June 1982. b Annual average flow at the Babcock & Wilcox plant is 3.39 X 101s em 3/ year (3800 cfs). a ( e 4-12
r Table 4-7 Maximum 50 year dose commitment from the use of the James River near the liquid effluent discharge of the NNFD" Dose (millires) Pathway Total body Rone Kidney Lungs b Submersion in water 3.6 x 10.s 4.7 x 10.s 3.1 x 10.s 3.3 x 10.s Consumption of fish"d 3.5 x 10 3 8.9 x 10.s 1.7 x 10.s 1.8 x 10 8 Consumption of water 1.2 x 10 2 2.9 x 10 2 5.9 x 10 8 1.7 x 10.s Total 1.6 x 10 8 3.8 x 10 2 7.6 x 10.s 1.8 x 10 8
- Assumes full mixing of the effluent discharge with the river, b
Assumes swimming in water 1% of year. c Assumes intake of 21 kg/ year of fish, d Assumes intake of 730 L/ year of water. 4-13
naval reactors.5 The Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant (CNFP) fabricates and assembles U0 2 fuel pellets with a maximum enrichment of 4.05 percent 2asU for use in commercial power reactors.s Only the CNFP facility is used for the commercial production of electricity and is included among the nuclear facilities required to meet EPA offsite population dose limits (40 CFR Part 190). The total radioactivity release rates of these facilities are shown in Table 4-5 to allow an assessment of the cumulative environmental impact of the overall activities of the site. The maximum individual doses at the nearest residence due to the cumulative impact of the 8 & W facilities are summarized in Table 4-8. These doses are only a small fraction of the limits set by the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 20) of 500 millirem to the total body, gonads, and bone marrow and 1500 millirem to the other organs. Although the EPA standards (40 CFR Part 190) for the commercial fuel cycle of 25 millirem to the total body, 75 millirem to the thyroid, and 25 millirem to the other organs are applicable only to the CNFP, the cumulative doses from all facilities are well below the EPA limits. Similarly, the cumulative total-body dose of 0.054 millirem is only 0.05 percent of the normal background radiation of 107 millires/ year for the area. The total population doses for persons living within 80 km (50 miles) of the plant sites due to the cumulative effect of the three operating facilities are shown in Table 4-9. The total population dose of 0.91 man-rem is only about 0.002 percent of the similar dose of 5.67 x 104 man-rem from normal background for the area. It may be noted, of the cumulative dose from all three facilities almost all of it, is due to the NNFD facility. The LRC and CfNP facilities did not con-tribute significantly to the total dose impacts. 4.3 Indirect Effects And Their Significance 4.3.1 Socioeconomic Effects Employment at the LRC is not a major factor in the economy of the Lynchburg region. Neither continued operation nor discontinuance would have a significant impact on socioeconomic conditions. 4.3.2 Potential Effects of Accidents Several accidents have been postulated and analyzed for the LRC and are presented below. Some of these are unique to the LRC's type of operation and do not fall into the categories normally considered for a fuel fabrication facility. 4.3.2.1 Hot Cell Power Failure A potential hazard would be total utility power failure to the LRC site, along with failure of the standby engine to start. It is standard practice to secure all hot cell operations in a safe manner whenever an LRC power failure occurs. 4-14
)
Table 4-8 Cumulative dose to the maximally exposed individuals from all three operating facilities on the site Dose (Millirem) Facility Total Body Bone Lungs Thyroid NNFD* b 5.1 x 10 2 1.6 x 10 1 2.8 x 10 4 1.7 x 10 2 CNFg 3.2 x 10 4 8.5 x 10 5 7.9 x 10 8 2.9 x 10 5 LRC 1.9 x 10 4 5.3 x 10 4 1.5 x 10 4 1.5 x 10 4 TOTAL 5.1 x 10 2 1.6 x 10 1 1.0 x 10 8 2.0 x 10 2
' Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-42, Babcock &
Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Lynchburg, Virginia Docket No. 70-27, March 1984. b Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1168, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-1201, May 1983. C Source: Calculated from airborne release rate data for years 1982 to 1984 and projected release of Kr-85 for the next 5 years provided in the Lynchburg Research Center Environmental Report, June 1986. l I I 4-15
Table 4-9 Cumulative dose to the population
- from all three operating facilities on the site Dose (man-res)
Facility Total Body Bone Lungs Thyroid b NNFD 9.0 x 10 1 3.7 9.4 x 10 8 3.0 x 10 1 3 CNFge 2.0 x 10 2 6.2 x 10 4 4.7 x 10 8 2.2 x 10 4 LRC 1.0 x 10- 2.0 x 10 2 1.0 x 10 8 1.0 x 10 2 Total 9.1 x 10 1 3.7 6.6 x 10 8 3.1 x 10 1 a 00se to population within 80 km (50 miles) of the facility. b Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-42, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-27, March 1984. C Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1168, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-1201, May 1983. d Source: Calculated from airborne release rate data for years 1982 to 1984 and the projected release of Kr-85 for the next 5 years provided in the Lynchburg Research Center Environmental Report, June 1986. l 4-16
In this assumed situation, the hot cell ventilation is maintained by one fan connected to the emergency backup system. One fan is adequate to maintain a delta P of 6 mm (0.25 inch) of water over the cell face. However, the emergency power source is checked once a week to ensure startup. This motor generator is equipped with an automatic starting mechanism and a backup manual starter if the automatic starter should fail. Hot cell emergency lighting is sufficient to permit limited operations to safely secure the cell. , Ventilation is maintained through the normal duct work, which contains a pre-filter and absolute filters that remove particulate materials. The hot cell operations that produce radioactive gases are handled in such a way that these gases are contained. Fission gases can only be released to the cell atmosphere by manual operation of a valve. The gas is released only after an estimate of gross activity is complete. Gas release of this type is allowed only during normal ventilation conditions and is stopped immediately in the event of an emergency. Thus, it is apparent that, even with a complete loss of power to the facility, the surrounding area is adequately protected. The hot cell ventilation air joins that from the clean areas in the manhole behind the main building. Failure of any number of fans in other parts of the system would not cause a backup into that portion of the system, since the suc-tion from the stack fan would provide an air velocity greater than 30 mps (100 fpm) from the manhole. Backdraft dampers are provided at the manhole and in the blower discharges to reduce leakage. The following conditions must exist to permit the leakage of contaminated air from the hot cells:
- 1. Failure of utility power.
- 2. Failure of emergency backup system power.
- 3. Failure of standby engine to start.
It is concluded that three such events limit the credibility of such an accident. 4.3.2.2 Ruptured Fuel Element There is the possibility that a shielded cask falling into the hot cell pool might cause a research reactor fuel element to rupture. The worst possible condition would be the sudden and gross release of all fission gsses in the transfer canal. Except for iodine, these gaseous fission products would esespe to the cask handling room; however, the cask handling room is maintained at a negative pressure with respect to the outside environment. Exhausted air and any gaseous fission products would pass into the hot cell, through the absolute filters, and up the 50-meter (165 ft) stack. The point of maximum concentration of a release from a 50-meter stack during 1 moderately stable conditions is 3,300 meters (10,890 ft) downwind.7 An indivi-dual at this point would receive a maximum dose of 0.0545 rems as shown in Table 4-10. This is well below the limits set by the NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 20) of 500 ml111 rem to the total body, gonads, and bone marrow and 1,500 millirem to the other organs. l l 4-17 1
Table 4-10 Dose from gaseous fission products Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Isotope Total C1 (E) MeV mci /CC Max Ground Dose, rems in Fuel Equiv to Conc. sci /cc Element 10 8 res/h , Kr-85 180 0.24 4.3 0.5 x 10.s 0.0001 Xe-133m 1500 0.84 1.24 0.42 x 10 5 0.0034 Xe-133 55000 0.19 5.48 1.52 x 10 4 0.0280 Xe-135 14000 0.62 1.67 0.39 x 10 4 0.0230 Total Dose 0.0545 The data in Table 4-5 were taken from the following reference publications: Column 2 - Table 7.1, Reference 7 Column 3 - Tables 5 & 6 Reference 8 i Column 4 - Table 7.1, Reference 7 Column 5 - Figure A.4, Reference 7 t 4 4-18
?
I 4.3.2.3 84W Mark 8 Fuel Assembly Rupture ! Assumptions '
- 1. One Mark 8 fuel assembly is dropped or crushed causing the rupture of all 208 fuel pins.
- 2. Fuel assembly burnup, 40,000 MWD /T.
- 3. Fuel assembly cooling time, 150 days. '
- 4. 30 percent of all noble gas escapes. .
- 5. 10 percent of total iodine is released to the pool water.
- 6. The pool decontamination factor for iodine is 100, p
-7. All krypton gas released in the pool escapes into the Cask Handling Area. > It then is pulled through the hot cells, absolute filters, and is exhausted. up the 150-foot stack.
- 8. Release occurs over a 2-hour period.
t Section 4.3.2.2 describes a fuel element rupture in the Cask Handling Area. In the referenced analysis, the krypton inventory considered was 180 C1. Using i similar assumpt.fons for the method and distribution of release but an inventory for PWR fuel of 6.51 x 103 C1, the calculated krypton exposure at 3,300 meters ! (10,890 ft), which is the point of highest ground level concentration down wind s (nearest actual residence to the LRC is 1000 meters (3,300 ft)), is 1.1 x 10-3 rem, i This is a fraction of the Ifmits set by NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 20). : 4.3.2.4 Sodium-Potassium Fire in Hot cell An accident in the hot cell could be a fire caused by the ignition of the : sodium potassium alloy used in irradiation capsules. Since the use of combus-tible or flammable materials is severely restricted, the area of conflagration l would be limited to the capsule itself. Fire extinguishers are available for - immediate use through control mechanisms mounted in the cell face and plumbing to the actual in-cell work area. Fire is not expected to enter the ventilation system under these conditions. The occurrence of explosions is quite unlikely, since explosive materials or j gases are not routinely handled. Where solvents are used for decontamination. - adequate ventilation is provided, and volatile material is limited to quantities l that, when vaporized and mixed throuflhout the volume of the hot cell, would not result in the accumulation of an exp osive mixture. t 4.3.2.5 Zircaloy Fire in Hot Cell l As a part of post-irradiation examination of PWR spent fuel, the fuel rods are cut into sections with a wetted abrasive cutting blade. The grindings are ; collected in a water-filled, shallow metal pan. The grindings are mixed with l
" Metal X" fire extinguishing medium and transferred to a 10 cm (4-inch) diameter j I
4-19 ! i l
z
, o,-
a by 30 cm (12-inch) long sealed radioactive waste container after no more than tan cuts have been made. An accident is postulated wherein the zircaloy grind-
'Ings burn in the collection pan in the hot cell.
. TIL is assumed that multiple operator and supervisor errors occur which allow
- i grindings from 100 rod cutting operations to accumulate in the collection pan. Material from 100 cuts would include about 16 grams (0.56 oz) of zircaloy
, and 1.5 x 102 grams (5.6 oz) of spent fuel which contains about 2 curies of 1 plutonium. It is also assumed that the water evaporates from the collection pan so that the grindings become dry. Auto-oxidation of the exposed zircaloy grindings is postulated to ignite all zircaloy grindings, thereby releasing
~ 4 x 104 calories of heat in a very short period of time as would be expected
'for zircaloy grindings burning in air.8
. It'is assumed that the intensity and turbulence of the fire would cause some of the plutonium-bearing spent fuel to become airborne in the hot cell and that 1 percent of the plutonium, which was in the collection pan, is carried in the off gas to the HEPA filter. The heat of combustion is dissipated in the hot cell to the extent that the heat in the off gas does not damage the filter.
The HEPA filter is required to be 99.95 percent effective.10 The off gas from the HEPA filter is released into the stack plume. A total of 10 pCi Pu is released to the environment. The maximum possible amount of Pu in a breathing zone is calculated to be 5 x 10 5 nci The maximum allowsole lung burden for plutonium is 16 nCf. No estimates have been made of tte actual amount of plutonium which would be retained in the lungs. Such a consideration would reduce the actual burden roughly an order-of magnitude. The pcstulated accident would result in a maximum possible exposure to the public of less than one millionth of a maximum allowable lung burden for plutonium. 4.3.2.6 Absolute Filter Failure in Hot Cell A mechanism for the failure of the absolute filters cannot be postulated, but for the sake of analysis, the following assumptions are made:
- 1. The filters fail.
- 2. The radioactive material is released over a 600-second period and is dispersed up the stack.
- 3. The filters are contaminated with a maximum of I curie of Ru-106 (this assumption is consistent with the fact that the filters are unshielded, and I curie of activity is about the maximum that could be allowed without too high a gamma background in the working area).
The height of the stack is 50-meters (165 ft), and the accident is assumed to occur durin0 moderately stable conditions; therefore, the maximum concentration 15 3,300 meters (10,890 ft) downwind.11 This is off the site, however, it is the point of maximum ground concentration, and the exposure would be less at other places. The concentration at 3,300 meters downwind is 1.67 x 10 8 Ci/cc. 4-20
- s. ,
The MPC for the general population (taken,from 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1) is 2 x 10 20 pCi/cc for a 168 hours exposure. Since the postulated accident is a 10-minute exposure, an individual ~would receive 0.083sMPC at the point of maximum concentration. 4.3.2.7 Natural Phenomena Tornado , , .
, y The probability of tornddo occurrence has been estimated as one in 3333 years.
If the LRC facility were to be~ struck by a tornado of sufficient force to damage a building containing uranium, radioactive material might be released to the , atmosphere. _ However, most of the- uranium in-the facility is packaged -in rugged shipping containers or is intimately bound within fuel element structures, with only a small amount available at any moment that could be subject to dispersion. Earthquakes The chance of a major earthquake occurring near the site is improbable. The B&W plant site is located in an area of Zone 2 earthquake intensity, correspond-ing to Intensity VII on the Modified Mercalli scale of 1931. The LRC plant was not designed for a specific earthquake level, but it is unlikely that the metal-framed, metal-covered buildings would lose their integrity with an Intensity VII earthquake.
~
Flooding The elevation of the facility floor is 180 m (589 ft)(MSL). The highest recorded flood in the area, which occurred in 1795, was 163 m (535 ft) (MSL) at Lynchburg. The estimated flood stage at the site was 151 m (494 ft) (MSL). Therefore, the likelihood of any damage associated with floods cr floodwater of tributaries is highly improbable. ' 4.3.3 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies At this time, the staff is not aware of any conflict between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state (Virginia),' or local plans, policies, or controls for the action proposed as long as proper agencies are contacted, proper applications are submitted, and prope.r monitoring and mitigs-tory measures are taken to protect the environment and public health and safety. 4.3.4 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, and Society l l The environmental effects of the proposed license renewal action as discussed above are considered to be insignificant. The facility has not affected his-torical or cultural resources The short-term societal effects during operation are and will be minimal, and there will be minimal effects after decommissioning and reclamation because the site then will.be required to meet federal standards for unrestricted use. 4-21 l
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4
- 1. D. C Prager, Virginia State Water Control Board to N. E Hinkle, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 8,1982.
- 2. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Lynchburg Research Center, June 1986.
- 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-42, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-27, March 1984 (Appendix A).
- 4. G. G. Killough and L. R. McKay, eds., A Methodology for Calculating Radiation Doses from Radioactivity Released to the Environment, ORNL-4992, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, March 1976.
- 5. Babcock & Wilcox, Environmental Report, Babcock & Wilcox Naval Nuclear Fuel Division, June 1982.
- 6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Environmental Impact Appraisal for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1168, Babcock & Wilcox Company, Commercial Nuclear Fuel Plant, Lynchburg, Virginia, Docket No. 70-1201, May 1983.
- 7. Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USGP0, TID-24170, Figure A.4 (1968).
- 8. " Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation,"
Health Physics, Vol. 3, June 1960.
- 9. Fire Protection Handbook, 13 Ed., National Fire Protection Association, 1969, pp. 5-79.
- 10. USAEC License SNM-778, Docket 70-824, February 15, 1974, Condition 21.
- 11. Slade, D.11. , Meteorology and Atomic Energy 1968, USAEC, July 1968, pg. 410.
4-22
e 8 4 4 4 APPENDIX A-NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT FOR BABC0CK & WILC0X NAVAL NUCLEAR FUEL DIVISION 5
i COMMONWEALTH of VIRGIN 1A ST:S TI: it':ITf:lt C0% Tit 01. I:0118lo
- n. v o- s 21II llemilleen Stre re
- a. s.-.w, .
, on<,s..iiin
. v m mso Permit No. VA0003697 noo2a m Effective Date August 30, 1974 Reissuance Date , August 30. 1979 Expiration Date August 30, 1984 AUTHORIZATION TO 015 CHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM AND TIIE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL LMI
- 1. In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. (33 U.S.C.1251 et _seg.. the *Act"), and pursuant to Section 62.1-44.2 et seg. of the CodTof Virginia, of 1950, as amended, and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Babcock & Wilcox Company (J. Ray McDermott Corporation) Naval Nuclear Fuel Division is authorized to discharge from a facility . located at Lynchburg, Virginia to receiving waters named Janes River, James River Casin (Upper). Sectinn lid, Class III A in accordance with the effluent limitations monitoring requirements. and other conditions set forth in Parts I and II of this permit.
- 2. Manufacturing operations and treatment and disposal of aril. industrial wastes shall be in accordance with the application dated February 26, 1973, filed with the State Water Control Board and in conformity with the plans, specifications and other supporting data submitted to the Board.
Tne facilittes shall be operated in accordance with the approval of the State Water Contrul Board by memcrandum number 6099-5.
- 3. The approval of plans and specifications does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility of operating the facility in a reliable and consistent manner to meet the facility performance requirements in the permit. If facility deficiencies, design and/or operational, are identified in the future which coald affect the facility performance or reliability, it shall be the responsibility of the permittee to correct such deficiencies forthwith as may be directed by the State Water Control Board.
AML et c' Executive Secretary, State Water Control Board OCT 1013M Date A-1
P AM ! Permit No. VA0003697 Page 1 of 4 A. EFF!rLNT LIMITATlotiS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS - BABCOCK 6 VILCOX (NAVA1 VUCLEAK Pl. ANT). LYNCIIBURG, VA
- 1. During the period beginning with the permit's ef fective date the permittee is authorized te discharge from out f all(s) serial number (s) 001 Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the per Ittee as specified bel.w:
EFMXC47 CHARAC' ERISTIC DISCH ARCE LIMITATIONS MONITORING RIQUIRImiTS kg/ day (Ibs/ day) Other Units (Specify) Hensurement Sample Daily Ava. Daily Max. Dai lv Avn . Dai ly Max. Freq ue ncy Type Flow-M / Day (HGD) N/A N/A N/L N/A Continuous Recorded Total Suspended Solids 18.2(40) 36.4(80) N/A N/A 1/ Week 24 HC BOD 3 18.2(40) 36.4(80) N/A N/A 1/ Week 24 HC P Chromiura (Total) 0.1(0.2) 0.2(0.4) N/A N/A 1/ Week 24 HC N Copper (Total) 1.0(2.2) 1.5(3.3) N/A N/A 1/ Week 24 HC
.'luoride 15.0(33) 30.0(66) N/A N/A 1/ Weak 24 HC oil & Crearce 9.1(20) 14(30) N/A N/A 1/ Week Grab Cadmiu:n (Total) N/A N/A N/A 0.04 mg/l 1/Honth 24 HC Chlorino Residual N/A N/A 1.0 mg/1* 1.5 mg/l 1/ Week Crab Fecal Colifore N/A N/A 200 counts 400 counts 1/ Week Crab per 100 ml per 100 ml *:llnimum Concentration N/L - N I.178tation - Monitoring Requirement only
- 2. The discharge shall have a pH value between 6.0 and 8.5 at all times and shall be monitored continuously at the discharge from the final treatment basin. Honitoring shall also be continuous at th,e pickling treatment plants although the above pH limits apply only to the final dischargo.
- 3. There shall be no discharge of floating sollds or visible foam in other then trace amounts.
4 Samples taken in coupliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the fo11owin6 location (s): At the discharge from the final treatment pond.
l 1 i
)
t NATIONAL f0LLUTAt4T 111Scitt.RCF. f.I.1mMATiuM SYSTIN INSTRUCTIONS FOR CO.vLET!ON OF Tite INinlSTAIAL MJXITORIT. REPORT FOR:t
- 1. "RUPorting l'criml" - isalisates the dates for gvriod for which the report is submitteJ
- 2. " Permit Number" - is the number which appears in upper middle part of the first page of your permit. Ex. VA 0000123.
- 3. " Discharge Number" - is the discharge number stated in the permit. Usually, the effluent pipe frem the treatment plant is designated as *001" (use three digits). A separate monitoring report should be submitted for cach permitted point source.
4 " Parameter" - enter additional parameters (with theia corresponding units) covered in your permit which have not been listed on the form.
- 5. If your permit does not contain'ef fluent- timitations for the listed parameter, put t;/A in the corresponding block. A second sheet with blank parameter spaces is available for industries reporting more than 8 parameters in one discharge.
- 6. " Report Month" - indicates the month for which the report is subaitted.
- 7. Enter reported minimum, average and maximum values in units specified for each parameter as appropriate. " Average" is the arithmetic average computed over actual time discharge is operating. " Maximum" and " minimum" values are extreme values observed during the reporting period.
- 8. "No.Ex" - specify the number of analyzed samples that exceed the maximum (and/or i
minicum, as appropriate) permit conditions. If none, enter "0".
- 9. " Dates of Violation" - indicate dates when the sample that exceeds the minimum or maximum values were taken.
- 19. " Dates SWCS Notified" - indicate the date when the State Water Control Board was notified. about the violation.
- 11. " Frequency of Analysin" - represent the actual f requency of samplin- and analysis -S for che month being reported. " Cont" may be used for continuous. "1/ week" for one day per week."1/ month" for ,
onu day per conth, etc.
- 12. " Sample Type" gspecify type of sample collected for the reporting month (grab or hour composite). The following coding system is reconmended:
24 hour composite - 24 HC 8 hour composite - 8 HC Crab - C Immersion Stab 111:stion - 1.5. l
- 13. Do not enter values in shaded boxes. {
14 Report additional data, if required in your pcroit, in the space labeled l
" additional reporting requirement" (e.g. production figures for seafood i industry). Also use this space to report overflows or by-passes if any occurred (indicate dates of occurrence). If the abovn do not apply to you, indicate N/A. or either puttinent comments you wish to make. [
l A-3 i I i~ _}}