ML20239A191
| ML20239A191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1987 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20239A183 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8709170169 | |
| Download: ML20239A191 (68) | |
Text
_ _ - _ _ _
1
-ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR RENEWAL ~OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SNM-1227 l
l DOCKET NO. 70-1257 ADVANCED NUCLEAR FUELS CORPORATION l
l l
1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards August ~1987.
87091701'69 870910' PDR. ADOCK 07001257, B
PDR'
.1
.o :
a i
\\
i ABSTRACT
'This Enviror, mental' Assessment contains an assessment.of the' environment'al impact l
associated with the continuing operation under license renewal of the Advanced' Nuclear Fuels Corporation fuel fabrication facility at Richland,. Washington,'
l pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and' Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 51 (10 CFR Part 51), as. amended, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations.
This assessment examines the
~j environmental impacts res'ulting from operations and mitigating actions that may
{
be necessaiy. Operational impacts are not anticipated on terrestrial and' aquatic l
ecological resources (including endangered or threatened species).'
No signif-j
~
icant impacts are anticipated from normal operational releases of radioactivity.
l 1
l
.l l
l 1
i l
l l
1 l'
iii 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT...............................................................
iii LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................
vii LIST OF TABLES...........................................
vii ACR0NYMS.................................................
viii 1
PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTI0N...............................
1-1 1.1 Introduction................................................
1-1 1.2 Summa ry of the Proposed Action..............................
1-2 1.3 Need for the Proposed Action...............................
1-2 1.4 The Scoping Process........................................
1-2 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1..........................,...................
1-3 2
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTI0N......................
2-1 2.1 The Alternative of No License Renewa1.......................
2-1 2.2 The Alternative of License Renewa1..........................
2-1 2.2.1 Description of Current Operations...................
2-1.
2.2.2 Waste Confinement and Effluent Control...............
'2-4 2.3 Decommissioning............................
2-8 2.4 Safeguards...................................................
2-8 2.5 Staff Evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives....
2-9 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2..............................................
2-9 3
THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT...........................
3-1 3.1 Site Location...............................................
3-1 3.2 Climatology and Meteorology.................................
3-1 3.2.1 Climatology..........................................
3-1 3.2.2 Winds, Tornadoes, and Storms.........................
3-1 3.2.3 Meteorology..........................................
.3-1 3.2.4 Air Quality...........................................
3-6' 3.3 Demography and Socioeconomic...............................
3-6.
3.4 'Lani........................................................
3-6 3.4.1 Site Area............................................
3-6 3.4.2 Adjacent Area........................................
3-6 3.4.3 Floodplains_and Wetlands.............................
3-8 v.
1 I
r i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'J l
Page~
]
.3.5 Hydrology.............
3-8 q
3.5.1 Surface Water........................................
3-8 3.5.2 G ro u n dw a t e r............................................
3-8 j
3.6 Geology.and Seismicity......................................
3-8 l
3.6.1 Geology..............................................
.3-8 3.6.2 Seismicity...........................................
3-9 3.7 Biota...............................................
3-9 3.7.1' Terrestrial.................................
3-9 l
3.7.2 Aquatic..............................................
3-10 l
l-3.7.3 Threatened and Endangered Species..........!.........
3-10 8
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3..............................................
3-10 i
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED LICENSE RENEWAL.......
4-1 4.1 Monitoring Programs..........................................
4-1 4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Program..........................
4-1 4.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Program.....................
4 l 4.1.3 Mitigating Measures..................................
4-7 l
4.2 Direct Effects and Their Significance.......................
4-7 l
4.2.1 ' Air Quality..........................................
4-7 L
4.2.2 Land Use.............................................
4-7 i
4.2.3 Water Quality........................................
4-7 4.2.4 Ecologica1...........................................
4-8 4.2.5 Radiological Impacts.................................
4-8 4.3 Indirect Effects and Their Significance.....................
4-10 4.3.1 Potential Effects of Accidents.......................
4-10 4.3.2 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and i
the Objectives of Federal', Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies...................................
4-14 4.3.3 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural
. 4-14.
Resources, and Society...............................-
i REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4..............................................
4 !
APPENDIX A STATE EFFLUENT DISCHARGE PERMIT NO. 3919 APPENDIX'B GROUNDWATER TEST WELL DATA 1
l l
vi
8 0
l l
LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 Site plan for the ANF Plant......................................
2-2 3.1 Wind characteristics..............................................
3-2 4.1 Field sample station locations...................................
4-4 4.2 Groundwater well locations.......................................
4-5 LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Annual gaseous effluent data.....................................
2-4
- 2. 2 Annual liquid effluent (sewer) data..............................
2-6 3.1 Joint frequency distribution.....................................
3-3
- 3. 2 Annual average atmospheric dilution factors......................
3-4 3.3 Population distribution within 50 miles of the ANF site..........
3-7 4.1 Estimated incinerator emissions............................
4-1 4.2 ANF field sampling program.......................................
4-2 4.3 Groundwater sampling program.....................................
4-3 4.4 Environmental sampling data......................................
4-6 4.5 Estimated maximum dose to the nearest resident...................
4-9 4.6 Dose commitments from airborne discharges to the population within 50 miles of the ANF plant.................................
4-10 l
1 9
l l
vii l
l
ACRONYMS ADU ammonium diuranate AMAD activity median aerodynamic diameter ANF Advanced Nuclear Fuels AR ammonia recovery CEQ Council on Environmental Policy CFR Code of Federal Regulations EIA environmental impact appraisal EIS environmental impact statement FES final environmental statement HEPA high efficiency particulate air 1
i ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection LUR lagoon uranium recovery i
l NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission SNM special nuclear material SWUR solid waste uranium recovery X/Q atmospheric dispersion factors l
l viii
e i
l' PURPOSE OF AND NEED-F0R THE ACTION 1.1 Introduction The Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF) facility in Richland, Washington, manufactures low-enriched uranium fuel for light-water reactors.
In response to.an application by ANF for renewal of Special. Nuclear Material (SHi) License-l No. SNM-1227, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this envi-ronmental assessment.
The document was prepared pursuant to NRC regulations (10 CFR Part 51) which implement requirements of the National Environmental-Policy.Act (NEPA) of 1969 (P.L.91-190).
Part 51 also reflects'the Council on Environmental Quality.(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) for implementing NEPA.
Sections 51.14 and 51.30 of the NRC regulations define " environmental assessment" as-follows:
1.
An environmental assessment is a concise public document, for which the NRC'is responsible, that serves,to j
briefly provide sufficient evidence and. analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact,-
1 aid the NRC's. compliance with NEPA when.no EIS is'necessary, and facilitate preparation of an EIS when one'is necessary.
I 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, i
and of the environmental impacts of the preposed action and alternatives.
It shall also include a listing of agencies and persons contacted.
i The facility began operation in September.1971 under an interim operating license.
Final Environmental Statements were issued in 1974.
The full-term license was issued in 1974.
An Environmental Impact Appraisal was issued in August 1981 evaluating the environmental impacts of operations at that time, Subsequent to the 1981 license renewal, several environmentally related changes y
were made to the plant and its operations, including the following:
1.
Disposal of solid waste containing no more than 30 pCi/ gram of low-enriched uranium.
i 2.
Discharge of process liquids to the sewer.-
- 3.
Operation of liquid waste treatment facilities.
4.
Operation of a Solids Basin for processing lagoon solids.
5.
Operation of facilities for dry conversion of uranium hexafluoride to uranium oxide.
1-1
' 6.
Operation of facilities for the recovery of uranium from chemical process waste s'olutions.
- 1. 2 Summary of the Proposed Action The proposed ~ action is the renewal of the SNM license (SNM-1227), which is necessary for ANF to continue an existing fuel fabrication operation at the Richland facility.
Principal operations include (1) conversion of UFs to U0 2 powder, (2) pressing the powder into fuel pellets, (3) encapsulation of the pellets into fuel rods, (4) fabrication of the fuel rods into fuel assemblies,
't and (5) uranium scrap recovery.
l The current application for renewal of the SNM license covers previously autho-rized operations and includes a request for approval to operate an incinerator to treat combustible material containing enriched uranium.
- 1. 3 Need for the Proposed Action The ANF facility is one of several industrial facilities dedicated to the fab-rication of fuel elements for light-water reactors.
Although the demand for nuclear reactors has declined, there is a continuing demand to meet the needs for operating reactors.
Because ANF is a supplier of. fuel for reactors, denial 1
of the license renewal would-necessitate expansion of similar activities at another existing fuel fabrication facility or the construction and operation of a new plant.
Although denying the renewal of the SNM license for ANF is.an alternative available to the NRC, it would be considered only if issues of pub-i lic health and safety cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the NRC.
1.4 The Scoping Process The environmental impacts of-operation of the ANF facility have been previously assessed by the NRC in an EIA dated August 1981 and two FESS in 1974.
Along with its current application to the NRC for license renewal, ANF submitted an environmental report.1'2 In addition, the applicant provided the NRC with responses to staff questions.3,4 In conducting its current environmental assess-ment for license renewal, the staff toured the plant site and surrounding area
(
on March 17-18, 1987, and met with the applicant to discuss data and information provided earlier and to obtain supplemental information.
The staff also spoke to the Department of Ecology and the Air Pollution Control Board in the State of Washington about the renewal.
Because of the previous documentation and the low level of impacts predicted for continued operation of the ANF facility (Section 4), the staff determined that a formal scoping process was unnecessary.
To assess the impacts of ANF's operation, the staff concluded that this environ-mental assessment should address effluent controls, environmental monitoring, and the environmental impacts of normal operation and of accidents.
The affected environment at the site and plant operations are described to the extent neces-sary for this assessment.
l l
1-2 i
l
i i
l l
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1-l 1
1.
AdvancedNuclearFuelsCorporation-(ANF),1986.
Revised application for Renewal i
of Special Nuclear Material' License No.1 SNM-1227 (NRC Docket No. 70-1257) i July 1987 submitted by letter dated August 17, 1987.
- 2..
ANF.
1986. Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report. Docket No. 70-1257. September 1986.
3.
ANF.
1987. Letter from.C. Malody, ANF, to M. Horn, NRC, in response to NRC questions. Docket No. 70-1257. Ap!il 30, 1987.
1 4.
ANF.
1987. Letter from C. Malody, ANF, to M. Horn, NRC, in response to NRC questions. Docket No. 70-1257. May 18, 1987.'
l 1
l i
l l
1 l
1-3 f
___.___m______._________m.__
i 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
)
2.1 The Alternative of No License Renewal l
1 Not granting a license renewal for ANF would result in the cessation of commer-cial fuel fabrication at the site.
This alternative would be conridered only l
if issues of public health and safety could not be resolved.
If license renewal is denied, the minor environmental impacts described in Section 4 would not occur.
2.2 The Alternative of License Renewal This alternative, which is the proposed action, would result in the continued operation of the ANF facility.
The following sections describe present opera-j tions, waste confinement, and effluent control.
l 2.2.1 Description of Current Operations fhe facility consists of 24 buildings, plus various outside facilities including 6 lagoons.
A detailed site plan is shown in Figure 2.1.
The major steps of the operation are discussed below.1 1
\\
2.2.1.1 Conversion of UFs to U0 2 UFs is rectived at a maximum enrichment of 5 percent U235 in standard cylinders i
and shipping packages.
As needed, a Ur, cylinder is removed from the UFs cylinder storage area to the vaporization facilities of the U0 2 Building.
The UFe is vaporized by heating the cylinder in a vaporization chest.
Ammonium diuranate process In the ADU process, the vaporized UFs is hydrolyzed to uranyl fluoride (00 f )
22 t
by mixing with water.
The U0 F is mixed with ammonium hydroxide to produce 22 ammonium diuranate (ADU) precipitate.
Continuous centrifuges are used to sepa-rate solid ADU from the liquid stream.
The solids are dried and then fed into a calciner to produce a dry uranium oxide product.
The ammonia and water vapors from the dryer are removed from the offgas stream by scrubbing in the process offgas system.
The offgas from the calciner is discharged through a liquid scrubber and is HEPA filtered.
The liquid from the centrifugation is further treated and discharged to the waste storage lagoon system.
Dry Conversion The dry conversion process contacts a mixture of steam, nitrogen, and hydrogen with vaporized UFs to form dry uranium oxide powder.
The offgas stream contain-ing excess steam, hydrogen, nitrogen, and hydrogen fluoride (HF) is treated by condensing and neutralizing the acid, scrubbing the non-condensible gases via the chemical area process offgas system scrubber, and then is exhaustea through HEPA filters.
2-1
1 V
i
]
e,ess M
m.. m
&m1
., = -
M f c.
10 01 L.
f :..:::,;-
\\
r-
~E,.a -. "..'
{-
- i N I
_.d L-,
/
i eL _. A.
3 A C1 b' g'
//
.2 s.
as, I"'lO A, J ::.'l*
~Y
,,u,
',mp 7,/ 1
'[
- f
,g i
o
/
na a =
.~ 1.
g,,,,
l'T._J =s:
.=
i v
i ra
,",'u
e ls i
l O
A Jl R'J lll'."'
J 1
,. a r
enterf t.a.tg isfft8ffl0ft
\\
C,_, n.1:,
A, u
una facute
,a a
/
g i
~
_.e G = r=s -
l
)
p___
j n =~ - - -
u
. 3y%
EE 7
W h3 Mk.4 d.C SEph.g 6
amm
. ~u.
t.
r
.rts t =,
i s...
caare a cmure L,
L.g n_ 3 I
t I
j i
'a'.10"Ll L_a 4
j i
Figure 2.1 Site plan for ANF plant l
1 2-2 i
I 4
4
q l
a 2.2.1.2 0xide Powder The U0 is processed to enhance its sintering and pressing characteristics.
2
'These process steps include blending, milling, compaction, and granulation.
The powder is then stored in the powder stor' ge facility.
a 2.2.1.3 Pelletizing j
The prepared uranium oxide powder is pressed into pellets and sintered in high l
temperature hydrogen furnaces.
These cperatcons are followed by grinding the pellets to final diameter.
The pellets are then water washed to remove grinding dust, dried, and inspected.
The pellets are then loaded into trays for storage.
2.2.1.4 Rod Fabrication Fabrication of uranium oxide fuel rods requires various processing and inspection steps including outgassing, loading, welding, leak checking, assaying, x-raying, i
etching, autoclaving, final inspection, and storage.
The etch roon is equipped l
with a separate offgas scrubber and filter system used to treat any fumes given off by the hydrofluore acid etch solution and stop etch bath.
2.2.1.5 Bundle Assembly 1
i
)
The bundle assembly operation is comprised of several operations, rod pickling, assembly, inspection, cleaning, storage, and packaging.
2.2.1.6 Scrap Recovery i
Scrap UO2 powder and pellets are recovered by two routes, one dry and one wet.
In each case, the initial processing step is oxidation of the U02 to U 0s.
j 3
(
V0 33 Facility
{
Scrap uranium enters the U 0 1
facility in either pellet or powder form.
The
{
38 scrap is placed in trays and oxidized in high temperature furnaces.
The U 0 3 3 produced is then screened to remove klinkers and gravity discharged into con-l tainers.
Powder drums are weighed, blended, and sampled to verify purity and i
enrichment as required for further processing steps.
i UNH Facility 0xidized scrap powder which is not dry blended with virgin powder may be pro-cessed through the UNH facility.
In this facility, uranium oxide is transported to powder receivers located above each dissolver.
A nitric acid / water mixture i
is heated in the dissolver and pumped over the uranium oxide powder until the oxide is dissolved.
The uranyl nitrate is filtered and pumped to storage tanks where it is held until processed through a uranium conversion line.
Exhaust from the dissolver feedhoods is HEPA filtered before leaving the area, and the offgas from the dissolvers is treated through a multi-stage liquid scrubber to remove N0 prior to HEPA filtration.
x 2-3
V Scrap Recovery Area Where scrap is not of acceptable purity to rejoin-the virgin uranium.cxide pro-cessing stream, the material _may be processed through the Scrap Recovery Area.
This facility has provisions for dissolving uranium oxide and purifying it through use of a solvent extraction system.
The clean UNH from this operation L
is then reacted with aqueous ammonia to form ammonium diuranate.
The precipi-tate is then. centrifuged, dried,- and calcined to UO,'all within the Scrap 2
Recovery Facility.
2.2.2 Waste Confinement and Effluent Control l
Operations at ENC generate gaseous and particulate emissions and liquid and solid wastes. All waste streams are treated prior to their release to the environment.
The following sections discuss the types of effluents from the plant and describe methods for their control.
The applicci.a's monitoring of effluent streams and the environment is addressed in Section 4.1.
2.2.2.1 Gaseous / Particulate Emissions Air from contaminated areas and process equipment or enclosures where uncon-tained uranium compounds are handled is passed through one stage of HEPA filters before release through stacks approximately 50 feet above ground level (20 feet above roof level).
The HEPA filters are certified'by the manufacturer to be at least 99.97 percent efficient for the removal of 0.3 mic.ron particulate.
Emissions consist of uranium, ammonia, ammonium fluoride, and hydrogen fluoride.
The offgas from the calciner'is discharged through a liquid scrubber prior to HEPA filtration.
The offgases from the UFs conversion process and the acid etching are treated via a liquid scrubber and then exhausted through HEPA i
filters.
Isokinetic sampling is provided on all exhaust air stacks servicing areas in which uncontained radioactive materials are used, processed, or other-wise handled.
Samples are analyzed weekly for gross alpha. ' Annual-releases for the years 1981-1986 are reported in Table 2.1.2 Table 2.1 Annual gaseous effluent data Microcuries Maximum Fluoride (ppm)
Year U
Pu FP K3 K9 K10 K31 K32 1
1981
<20
<0.1 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.10 1982
<22
< 0.1 0.07-1.87 10.60 0.02 0.11
]
1983
<24
<0.1 0.03 1.31 3.70 7.68 2.38 1984
<7
<0.1 0.07 0.45 1.60 0.01 0.12 1985
<15
<0.02
<2.88 0.02 0.12 21.99
- 0.01 0.69.
1986
<17
- 0. 0
<2.8 0.04 0.28 0.53 0.02 0.25 2-4 A
i 2.2.2.2 Liquid Wastes Liquid effluents from the plant consist primarily of process cooling water, chemical waste liquids, and sanitary waste water.
Released liquid wastes are
-combined and discharged to the lift station where the total combined liquid effluent from the plant-is pumped to the Richland Municipal Sewage System.
l Discharges to the sewer system are limited by the State Effluent Discharge Per-
' l mit.No. 3919 issued by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
A copy is provided as Appendix.A.
The combined liquid effluent is continuously sampled, and flow is measured prior to the lift station.
The composited samples are analyzed for uranium and regulated chemicals.
Annual releases for the years 1981-1986 are' reported in Table 2.2.2 The municipal system provides a sewage treatment process and ultimately discharges into the Yakima River at its con-fluence with the Columbis River.
. Sanitary Wastes Sanitary Wastes are discharged to the sanitary sewer system which joins other liquid wastes prior to being discharged to the lift station.
Process Cooling Waste. Water Process cooling water is discharged from various facilities.via building sewer
)
systems separate from both sanitary and process chemical waste sewers.
The pro-
+
cess cooling waste waters may be disposed by discharge to the municipal sewage system, used to irrigate ANF property, or by discharge to the Process Chemical Waste Storage Lagoon System.
a Process Chemical Wastes l.
All process radioactive liquid wastes are routed to lagoon storage.
Some lagoon solutions require further treatment prior to discard to the sewer.
These solu-tions may be treated as necessary for chemical / radioactivity removal prior to release to the sanitary sewer system.
The facilities and processes which are l
involved in handling the liquid wastes are describad below.
Lagoon System i
The lagoons provide confinement for all uranium and chemically contaminated i
liquid wastes generated _at the ANF site.
Natural evaporation, controlled waste addition, waste discharge to the municipal sewer, and water additions are used to control the volume of liquid d ored in the lagoons.
There are six liquid waste storage lagoons, one solids leach pit and one sand storage pit.
Lagoon 1 is used as a receiver of ammonia-bearing solutions from the conversion area with a low level of uranium and is the feed lagoon for the-amoonia recovery process.
Lagoon 2 is used as an accountability lagoon for high uranium-bearing solutions.
Lagoon 3 is a storage lagoon for high-uranium wastes and serves as the feed lagoon to the Lagoon Uranium Recovery facility (LUR).
Lagoon 4 is a storage lagoon for low-uranium content waste from the LUR process.
It also serves as the feed lagoon for LUR waste to the Ammonia Recovery facility (AR).
Lagoon SA is a storage lagoon for waste streams from the AR facility and miscellaneous low uranium, low-ammonia chemical wastes.
Disposal of wastes from lagoon SA to the sewer is accomplished after verification of the waste uranium 2-5 l
4-l Table 2.2 Annual liquid effluent (sewer) data LLimit Limit daily daily Daily Daily Parameter avg.
-max.
Year avg.
max.-
1981 3.6 E+5 4.2 E+5 Flow-(gal).
5 E+5 5 E+5-1982
-2.6 E+5 3.4 E+5 1983-2.4 E+5 4.1'E+5 1984 2.8 E+5 3.5 E+5 1985-3;9 E+5
'4.5 E+5 1986 2.8 E+5 3.8 E+5 1
l 1
NH3 as N (mg/1) 25 30 1981
- 3. 6
.17.2 U
1982 3.7 34.6 1983 5.3 28.8 1984 4.0 26.3 1985 9.5 22.2' 1986 3.4 17.1 1981 NO as'N (1b/d) 600 700 1982 I
3 1983 40 239 1984 64 149 1985 341 593 1986 190 570 Suspend Solids 300 600 1981 (mg/1) 198" 1983 12 65 1984 12 65 1985 70 63 1986 61 131 pH > 5 1982 7.6 10.
1983 7.8 11.
1984 8.2 10.2 1985 10.2 11.
1986 9.0 11.0 Fluoride mg/l 1982
- 6. 3 44 l
'1983 4.0 21 1984 28 149 i
Fluoride 1bs/d(2) 2500 3500 1985 1215' 2204 1986
'805 2209
' 1 Change in. units due to revision of state discharge permit.
i i
I 2-6
0 Table 2.2 (Continued)
Parameter Limit Year Yearly Total j
1981
<0.085 Uranium (Ci) 1.0 Ci/ year 1982
<0.080 1
1983
<0.093(2) 1 1984
<0.068 j
'1985
<0.080 1986
<0.060 l
l 2Thorium was identified as an effluent of the ELO Gadolinia Separations operation, approximately 0.47 curies of Thorium-234 and Protactinium-234 were discharged in addition to the uranium.
i I
and chemical content.
Lagoon 5B is currently used to store high-uranium wastes which will be treated for uranium recovery.
Once emptied, it will be used to l
receive AR facility waste for metered discharge to the City sewer. The solids
' leach pit is used for development of a process to recover uranium from'the lagoon solids and the sand storage pit solids.
The sand pit is used as a. storage I
pit or trench for sand and sludge that has been removed from the' liquid storage i
lagoons during clean up over the years of operation.
Ammonia Recovery (AR) 1 The unneutralized low-uranium content liquid process waste from lagoon 1 is i
transferred to a feed tank along with AR building sump wastes, recycle stripper bottoms, and ammonium hydroxide product for rework.
The feed solution is pumped via a flow control system and a recovery heat exchanger to the ammonia stripper.
The system is designed to produce 20 to 30 wt percent ammonia product solution and waste effluent at less than 100 ppm ammonia.
l Lagoon Uranium Recovery (LUR) e The LOR facility is provided to recover low-enriched uranium from stored high-uranium content liquid chemical wastes.
Following uranium recovery, the waste-is treated for ammonia removal, then disposed to the municipal sewer.
High-uranium content waste is pumped from the lagoon into the LUR. precipitation l
tank where the uranium is precipitated from solution by addition of a reductant.
and. allowed to settle.
At the end of the settling period, the supernatant is decanted to lagoon storage.
The uranium precipitate is slurried to the washer tank and receives water washes for extraneous chemical removal.
The washed I
precipitate is then slurried into a container, dissolved in aluminum nitrate solution,. transferred to drums, and placed in storage.
The recovered uranium is purified for reuse through existing solvent extraction facilities.-
The lagoon solids uranium recovery facility consists of the solids leach pit and tank, the sand trench, and lagoons 2 and/or 3.
The slime and fines in the sand 2-7
trench and lagoon solids will' be processed by filtering and washing.
After the' economic uranium values have been removed, the solids will be filtered, combined with drying and solidifying agents, and packaged.for disposal.
The water and 4
the uranium-bearing material are discharged to lagoonc 2 and/or 3 for temporary
-)
storage.
l 2.2.2.3 Solid Wastes l
L
- Uranium contaminated solid waste is segregated into noncombustible and combus-tible types and is stored either in a warehouse or other designated area within l
l, the controlled area.
Noncombustible waste is stored until shipment to a perma-
)
nent waste disposal site.
The combustible wastes'may be processed through the Solid Waste Uranium Recovery (SWUR) facility to obtain volume reduction and the recovery of uranium.
Solid Waste Uranium Recovery Facility i
The SWUR process is divided-into five systems:
feed preparation, incineration, offgas cleaning, ash handling, and ash leaching.
The combustible wastes con-
.sist of paper, plastics, wood, etc.
The incinerator exhaust gas contains par-ticulates, vapors, and gases.
Cooling of the gases and removal of the acid gases and potentially radioactive particles is accomplished by components which con-sist of'a quench column, high-energy venturi scrubber, packed column, mist-i eliminator, reheater, and HEPA filtration module.
The liquid effluent is pro-portionally sampled and discharged to lagoon SA.
The quantity of additional liquid waste to lagoon 5A will typically be less than 1 gallon per minute.
The ash will be screened, milled, drummed, and stored.
Ash-is leached with a sodium carbonate-sodium, bicarbonate-sodium, and hypochlorite solution'at elevated temperatures.
The leaching solution and solids are separated by filtration.
The solids nre mixed with drying and solidifying. agents and loaded into con-tainers for disposal.
The leaching solution is treated with acid and routed to l
the miscellaneous uranium recovery system for precipitation and recovery of-the i
2.3 Decommissioning All major material licensees are required to submit a general decommissioning plan to be effected at the end of plant life.
This plan describes how the facilities and grounds will be decontaminated so that they can be released for unrestricted use.
The plan identifies and discusses the major' factors that influence the cost.of decontaminating the facilities and grounds 'and provides a cost estimate for these activities.
The' decommissioning plan and a corporate commitment to provide funds for this effort are incorporated as conditions of the license.
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.
l 2-8
l l
l l
The NRC's current regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 provide requirements for the physical security and protection of fixed sites and for nuclear raterials in transit.
Physical securit I
strategic SNM include (1) y requirements for protecting fornula quantities of establishing and training a security organization l
(with armed guards), (2) installing physical barriers, and (3) establishing
{
security response and safeguards contingency plans.
The NRC's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73, described briefly above, are applied in the review:; 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, i
l 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 proposed action is insignificant.
2.5 Staff Evaluation of the Proposed Action and Alternatives l
The staff believes that the operations at the ANF facility are performed in a manner that protects both the public and the environment from unusual or adverse 1
inpact. The denial of license renewal would provide very little in the way of j
environmental benefits. The environriental impact of continued operation is expected to be insignificant. The licensee has incorporated the folicwing requirements into their application:
1 1.
The licensee shall inform the NRC of any violation of the Washington State Discharge permit (Sect. 4.1.1).
1 2.
Within 30 days, ANF shall develop and submit for NRC review and approval a monthly monitoring program for the sludge at the Richland Treatment Plant.
l This program shall include action levels and actions to be taken (Sect. 4.1.2).
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2 l
1.
Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation, (ANF), 1986.
Revised Application for i
Rerewal of Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1227. Docket No.
i 70-1257, July 1987 submitted by letter dated August 7, 1987, 2.
ANF, 1987. Letter from C. Malody, to M. Horn, NRC, in response to NRC Questions. Docket No. 70-1257. April 30, 1987.
l l
2-9
l 1
3 THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Site Location The ANF facility is located just inside the northern boundary of the City of Richland in the southeastern portion of Washington.
The site coordinates are 46 22' north latitude and 119 16' west longitude.
The site consists of a 320-acre tract.
ANF is bordered on the north by Horn Rapids Road and the Hanford Reservation.
3.2 Climatology and Meteorology 3.2.1 Climatology The Richland area is subject to large temperature variatiors caused by the moun-tain ranges to the west, which prevent moderating Pacific Ocean breezes from reaching the area, and the orientation of the Rocky Mountains, which permits cold l
Canadian air to spill into the basin in the winter.
The normal maximum tempera-q l
tures of 95 F occurs in July, and the normal minimuin temperatures of 20 F occurs in January.
The total annual amount of precipitation in the Richland area is l
on the average 6.4 inches.
It is distributed unevenly, with nearly an inch per month occurring in November, December, and January, while July and August average l
only about 0.2 inches.
Snowfalls of 1 inch or more occur on the average of twice each month in December and January.
3.2.2 Winds, Tornadoes, and Storms Severe weather in the Columbia Basin consists of wind, thunderstorms, and an j
occasional tornado. Wind speeds of approximately 60 mph are expected 1 year out of 2, and speeds in excess of 50 mph are expected every year.
The average annual frequency of thunderstorms in the Richmond area is 11.
Hail occurs about once a year on the average.
Fourteen tornadoes have been recorded in the i
Columbia Basin during the past 56 years.
No tornadoes have been recorded within l
20 miles of the facility.
Within a 100-mile circular area centered at the ANF l
site, the expected number of tornadoes is 0.4 per year.
The probability that a tornado will strike the specific ANF site during any given year is 6.1 X 10-81 3.2.3 Meteorology 1
1 i
The prevailing wind at the ANF site is from the southwest along the Yakima River corridor, which enters the Columbia Basin near the site.
Secondary direction l
frequency maxima are from the northwest and the southeast along the axis of the Columbia River Valley, and the lowest frequencies are from the east and north-east.
This pattern holds most of the year, with the exception of a few months in the fall and early winter, when the wind direction is predominantly from the north and northwest.
Measurements of the wind characteristics in the vicinity of the site are summarized by Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1.
The annual average x/Q values are tabulated in Table 3.2.
i 3-1 1
l
i I
e.
% CALM 4 02 85 24 l
i MILES PER MOUR
)
i NORTH k
12.2 %
l 3.2% m/s 16.0 3*
3.3
{
5 8/.
pq g,
20 % 30 %
s.o 1
) q g_
{.2 4.s 300 AREA E4 1
,/
EXXON NUCLEAR
/
t i.,
17.s SITE
/
17.4 3.s z.s 4.2 Ver. few. speed 5.0% /o.6
. N., ~ ~',
calm o.6 %
\\
\\.
]g'-~~
t u
/
~
y
{
/
RICHLAND
/
AIRPORT
-RICHLAND "f
I a.9 % /
12.7 4.6mA 4.6
"'/-
'N
,13.8 4.6 N*
4.8 =
2.6 N
g.'
j.9, b./
,s l
20.3 3.8 l
4.9 f
Ver. low speed 8.4 % /O.7m/s Calm G.7 %
\\
Figure 3.1 Wind characteristics 3-2
i l
t j
Table 3.1 Joint frequency distribution k
Pasquill Wind direction Mind speed stability NE E
SE S
SW W
NW N
Total j
Calm G
.10
.11
.26
.14
.12
.058
.097
.20 1
(presumed F
.10
.11
.26
.14
.12
.058
.097
.20 0-0.5 mph)
D
.033
.035.087
.046
.042
.019
.032
.065 C
.10
.11
.26
.14
.12
.058
.097
.20 l
All
.33
.35
.87
.46
.42
.19
.32
.65 3.59%
0.6-3 mph G
.66
.69 1.71
.90
.81
.38
.63 1.28 i
F
.66
.69 1.71
.90
.81
.38
.63 1.28 i
D
.22
.23
.57
.30
.27
.13
.21
.43 I
C
.66
.69 1.71
.90
.81
.38
.63 1.28
)
All 2.19 2.30 5.71 2.99 2.72 1.26 2.11 4.28 23.56%
4-7 mph F
1.08 1.17 3.49 2.36 3.26 2.12 2.84 2.64 0
.18
.19
.58
.39
.54'
.35
.47
.44 l
C
.54
.58 1.75 1.18 1.63 1.06 1.42 1.32 1
ALL 1.80 1.95 5.82 3.94 5.43 3.53 4.73 4.40 31.60%
l 8-12 mph F
.38
.24
.97
.95 2.76 2.18 2.96
.94 D
.063.04
.16
.16
.46
.36
.49
.16
{
C
.19
.12
.49
.47 1.38 1.09 1.48
.47 i
All
.63
.40 1.61 1.58 4.60 3.63 4.93 1.57 18.95%
i 13-19 mph F
.16
.19
.52 2.09
.93 1.47
.29 D
.027
.032
.087
.35
.16
.25
.048 C
.082
.097
.26 1.04
.46
.74
.14 All
.27
.32
.87 3.48 1.55 2.45
.48 9.42%
i 19-24 mph F
.24 1.00
.26
.60 D
.039
.17
.043
.10 C
.12
.50
.13
.30 All
.39 1.67
.43 1.00 3.49%
l 25-31 mph F
.095
.42
.043
.34 D
.016
.070
.007
.057 C
.047
.21
.021
.17 All
.16
.70
.072
.57 1.50%
l 32-38 mph F
.18 0
.031 C
.092 All
.31
.31%
Variable
- G
.13
.14
.35
.18
.16
.076
.13
.26 0-3 mph F
.13
.14
.35
.18
.16
.076
.13
.26 D
.044.046.12
.060
.055
.025
.043
.086 C
.13
.14
.35
.18
.16
.076
.13
.26 All
.44
.46 1.15
.60
.55
.25
.43
.85 4.74%
Variable #
F
.067.072.22
.15
.20
.13
.18
.16 4-7 mph D
.011.012 035
.024
.034
.022
.029
.027 C
.033.036.11
.073
.10
.065
.088
.082 All
.11
.12
.35
.24
.34
.22
.29
.27 1.94%
CDirection frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 0-3 mph class.
fDirection frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 4-7 mph class.
3-3
0 7884525937222214 4
1111911121111232 0000000000000000 7777777777777777 0
0000000000000000 0
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 0
s 9630754694937309 ro 0
4560371735677154 t
3 2222112232111343 c
a 0000000000000000 f
n 7777777777777777 o
0 0000000000000000 i
0 t
0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 8140593356739362 u
l 0
0233285551788137 i
2 4443223454222575 d
0000000000000000 c
i s
r e
7767777667777666 e
l 0
0000000000000000 h
i 0
p M
0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE s
5836891711361145 o
n 0
6908384038568273 m
i 1
9917568119666111 t
a e
0000000000000000 c
e n
g a
6666666666666666 a
t 0
0000000000000000 r
s 0
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE e
i 0
9765419532148893 v
D a
5 3459370624666923 222111'2232111243 l
a 0000000000000000 unn 6666666666666666 A
0 0000000000000000 0
0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 2
2454112866716289 4
2346838532122074 3
3332122343222454 e
0000000000000000 l
ba 6666666666666666 T
0 0000000000000000 0
0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 4209727821063212 3
7918641248223956 4453234564333586 0000000000000000 6666666656666555 0
0000000000000000 0
0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
)
9245332219125274 d
2 1587692112567041 e
8886457918555111 b
u 0000000000000000 c
r 5555555555555555 e
0 0000000000000000 t
0 0
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE em 4327260897470738
/
1 1237259381445689 c
2221111222111232 e
e s
0000000000000D00
(
Q 5555555555555545
/
0 0000000000000000 I
0 H
5 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE C
5687333315988547 0
3571555064234918 e
6665345786444718 g
a O000000000000000 re t v ne na ot a
ii E
E E
E W
W W
W l l t s NEN SES SWS NWN pa c
NNNEEESS5SSWWWNN u
em F n ro N n i r A a Df
0 0116147281444679 3
2221 111222111232 0000000000000000 7777777777777777 0000000000000000 0
3 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 2101209648261237
)
0 1235726421112963 d
2 3332122343222354
't 0000000000000000 no C
7777777777777767
(
0000000000000000 0
s 2
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE r
6546579156754469 o
0 8027210599901301 t
1 5 6 6 4. :.4 5 6 7 5 3 4 4 7 1 8 c
a 0000000000000000 f
n 6666766666776666 o
0000000000000000 i
s t
e 0
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE u
l 1
2726324824980858 l
i 4451902594570759 m
5 1111711111991121 i
d n
0000000000000000 c
i i
r s
6666666666666666 e
e 0000000000000000 h
i p
r EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE s
a 5
5555481639604444 o
d 7892594077899498 m
n 4
2222112332111343 t
u a
o 00000000',b000000 b
e g
t 6666666666666666 a
n 0000000000000000 r
e e
m EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE v
g 4
7157739032162349 a
e 8011173329667893 3443223453222465 S
3 l
a 0000000000000000 u
n n
6666666666666656 A
0000000000000000 t
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 2
n 3
0482417958199191 e
1350443721112605 3
m 2
6665345686444718 g
e e
0000000000000000 l
s b
a h
5555665555666555 T
c 0000000000000000 a
e EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 2
4943520886521533 f
r 2230001362357527 o
1 1111791111888121 0000000000000000 de b
5555555555555555 u
0000000000000000 c
1 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE r
5 7034504592494334 e
4678950865334328 t
3332123343222464 e
m 0000000000000000
/ce ne s
ot
(
ii E
E E
E W
W W
W t s NEN SES SWS NWN Q
c NNNEEESS5SSWWWNN
/
em I
ro H
ir C
Df
q i
3.2.4 Air Quality The ANF site is located in an area where the quality of the ambient air meets the National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, except for particulate.
High concentrations of airborne dust, which originate primarily from agricultural activities, are characteristic of most of southeastern Washington State.
Consequently, the Tri-Cities area is classified as a Prior-ity I region with respect to suspended particulate.
For the remaining air pollutants, Priority II is applicable, which places the region in general con-formance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
3.3 Demography and Socioeconomic The City of Richland, in which ANF is located, along with Pasco and Kennewick
)
comprise a metropolitan area known as the Tri-Cities.
In 1980, the Tri-Cities population was 84,750.
Table 3.3 shows the 1980 population distribution within a 50-mile radius of the site by compass direction and radii interval.
Approxi-mately 720 persons are employed on site.
ANF estimates,that the maximum number l
of employees would be 820.
Plant employment represents 1.2 percent of 1986 1
total area employment (62,500), which is not a significant fraction of the area employment.
3.4 Land j
i 3.4.1 Site Area i
The ANF facility is located on a 320-acre tract of a 6,100-acre parcel of land known as the Horn Rapids Triangle.
3.4.2 Adjacent Area The city of Richland owns two-thirds of the land in the triangle. The remaining land is owned by the Bureau of Land Management.
The northeastern portion of the triangle is zoned for light industry and the remainder is zoned agricultural.
j The land use in Benton County, within a 5-mile radius of the facility, comprises rural residential southwest of the plant, high density residential southeast of the plant, and unoccupied desert northeast and northwest of the plant.
Approxi-mately 180 acres of land are being farmed for alfalfa east-southeast of the plant, and an additional alfalfa field of about 65 acres lies southeast of the plant.
Because the soil is salty, land close to the ANF plant is not well suited for cash crops.
However, a number of acres of irrigated pasture supports horses, beef cattle, and a few sheep and milk cows.
It is estimated that there are a few hundred head of cattle within 5 miles of the plant in Benton County.
The closest herd of about 50 beef cattle is located about 3 miles southwest of the plant.
The portion of Franklin County which lies within a 5-mile rats of the facility is primarily an agricultural area.
The principal crops are alfalfa, hay, and potatoes.
There are 2 commercial dairy herds in this area comprising roughly 150 cows.
There are about an equal number of beef cattle.
3-6
Table 3.3 Population distribution within 50 miles of the ANF site (By compass sector and distance)
Compass Miles Sector 0-5 5-10.
10-20.
20-30 30-40
.40-50
. TOTAL N
0 0
140 520.
1,350 1,050 3,060 NNE 0
20' 250 530 4,450 1,420 6,670 NE 0
130 700 1,500 1,220 550 4,100 ENE 50 150 500 180 270 250 1,400 E
100-200 250 250 150 550 1,500 ESE 120'
.2,700 4,260 420 650 900 9,050 SE 2,730
. 3,780 48,880 2,600 1,160 690 59,840
'SSE 13,750 13,030 15,160 410c 1,920 1,900 46,170 S-13,710-5,680 4,550 4,670 11,680-3,030 43,320 SSW 960 320 450 260 2,600
.1,200-5,790.
SW 1,120.
240 880
.510 320 410 3,480
)
WSW 170 1,750 1,360 6,200 10,240 810 20,530' W
250 430 1,020 1,650 15,450 17,510 36,310 WNW 0
0 0
1,280
'1,300 2,670 5,250 NW 0
0 0-110 590 1,160 1,860 NNW 0
0 0
10 300 1,580-1,890 TOTAL 32,960 28,430 78,400 21,100 53,650 35,680 250,220 1
l 1
i 3-7
3.4.3 Floodplains and Wetlands The maximum probable flood level for the Columbia River includes the site.
Based or estimates, the site is considered subject to maximum floodir.g to a depth of about 7 feet.
The level exceeds any historical documentation.
The facility is about 6 feet above the level expected from the 500 year flood.
Flooding on the Yakima River would not affect the ANF site.
j 3.5 Hydrology l
3.5.1 Surface Water f
The ANF site lies between the Yakima and Columbia Rivers.
The Columbia is fed by snowmelt in the mountains far to the north and by groundwater =ilong its path.
It is subject to flooding, chiefly during the spring melt season.
Four large floods have occurred during the past 100 years.
The flow of the Columbia is presently regulated by the many dams upstream of Richland in Washington State and British Columbia.
The average daily discharge ranges from a controlled minimum of 76,000 cfs to 239,000 cfs.
At the closest point, the site lies about 25 feet above the river level at a Columbia River flow rate of 260,000 cfs.
The Columbia's water is of good chemical and bacteriological qual.ity, and the river is used for irrigation, power generation, municipal water supplies, trans-portation, fishing, and water sports.
The only other surface drainage in the area consists of two abandoned irrigation ditches one-half mile east and west of the site that contain water during and for short periods, following rains.
3.5.2 Groundwater t
Groundwater occurs in unconfined sand and gravel aquifers with the water table at between 11 and 30 feet below the surface of the site.
Groundwater under artesian conditions also occurs at great depths within the basaltic bedrock.
Recharge of shallow aquifers is chiefly from the Yakima River to the west.
Water movement is mainly to the east with the water table discharging to the Columbia River.
Deep aquifers have recharge areas in hills to the west and southwest.
Previous hydrogeologic studies of the Hanford area have found the region to be largely dominated by the Pasco gravels and the Ringold Formation.
Both of these strata were deposited as sediments of the ancestral Columbia River.
The area is underlain by the Columbia River Basalt group.
Onsite monitoring wells indicate the water table is presently located in the Ringold Formation.
This unconfined aquifer is formed by an impervious silt and clay layer.
' 3. 6 Geology and Seismicity 3.6.1 Geology The Columbia Basin is underlain by very thick sequences of ' basaltic lava flows more than 10,000 feet thick.
Within the area of the basaltic lava flows are a 3-8
c number of structural basins that contain layers of unconsolidated sands and gravels tens to hundreds of feet thick over the basaltic bedrock.
The ANF site li'es near the southeastern margin of the largest of such structural basins, known as the Pasco Basin.
Borings and excavations at the site show a shallow layer of loose sand overlying.
i interbedded sands, gravels, and silts that are partly consolidated at depths.
The depth to basaltic bedrock has been estimated at about 150 feet.
Engineering studies have shown that the unconsolidated materials at the site provide good natural foundations for structures.
The materials are easily excavated with hand and power tools and are good sources of sand and gravel for road construc-tion purposes.
The lava beds and some of the. overlying materials in the Pasco Basin are gently deformed into very broad folds that have overall dips toward the center of the basin.
This structure is broken by several east-west trending linear zones of discontinuous folds and small faults that.are marked by ridges and chains of hills and buttes that stand above the general basin topography.
The basin is bounded on the north and south by zones of sharper folding and.f ilting in which resistant lava beds have been uplifted to form hilly ridges.
4 3.6.2 Seismicity The ANF site lies in a region classified as' Zone 2, corresponding to Inten-l sity VII on the Modified Mercalli Scale of 1931.
No faults or other active j
tectonic features have been identified at the site.
Although no damage from earthquakes has been reported at the site, there have been three earthquakes during the past 100 years of intensity large enough to cause moderate damage to structures within 30 to 60 miles of the site.
It has been estimated that the maximum intensity experienced at the ANF site during historic earthquakes was approximately V on the modified Mercalli scale, produc-ing a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.02g.
The maximum seismic event likely to affect the plant is estimated to have an intensity of VII at an epi-center 7 miles from' the site and would induce a maximum ground acceleration of 0.25 at the site.
3.7 Biota I
3.7.1 Terrestrial The ANF site is located in a relatively flat, desert steppe.
Sagebrush and antelope bitterbrush predominate among the pristine plant communities in the Cheatgrass, brome, and sandberg bluegrass prevail in the understory.
area.
Alien vegetation, such as Russian thistle, mustard, and rabbit brush have encroached on the native flora.
The most abundant mammals in.the vicinity of the site are pocket mice and deer-mice.
Jackrabbits and coyotes are also scattered throughout the area.
Larger and more mobile mammals, such as mule deer, prefer the shores and islands of the Columbia River, with limited use of the more barren inland steppe.
In the fall and winter, the mule deer may wander inland to forage upon the shoots of chpat-grass and the leaves and smaller twigs of bitterbush.
In the summer, the deer are frequently found in the distant Rattlesnake Hills.
3-9
The most abundant reptile is the side-blotched lizard.
Snakes, especially the gopher snake and the Pacific rattlesnake, are occasionally encountered.
Birds are not abundant in the sagebrush-bitterbrush type of vegetation.
The most. common resident birds are meadowlarks and horned larks.
The loggerhead shrike, although not abundant, is conspicuous.
During periods when food and cover are adequate,. game birds, such as chukar partridge, quail, ringneck phea-sant, and mourning dove, may be found in the vicinity of the site.
The region is used as a hunting ground by birds of prey, such as the marshhawk and golden
)
eagle in the winter and the burrowing owl and Swainson's hawk in the summer.
'l During the fall and winter, migrating flocks of Canadian geese fcrage upon the.
cheatgrass and alfalfa.in the vicinity of the site.
3.7.2 Aquatic i
Waterfowl are of major importance in the area.
Approximately 200 pairs of I
Canadian geese reside on the river islands in the vicinity of the site and pro -
duce an annual average of roughly 700 goslings.
An estimated 100 pairs of ducks also rest on these islands.
Two islands.are used as rookeries by colonies of California and ring-billed gulls.
Approximately 6,000 nesting pairs annually produce 10,000-20,000 young.
3.7.3.
Threatened and Endangered Species The bald eagle and the peregrine falcon are the only wildlife in the vicinity that are on the list of endangered species.
These birds either once occured in the area or have been observed passing through the area.
Two other birds, the Long-Billed Curlew and Swainson's Hawk which are candidates for the endangered species list, nest and use the area.
1 REFERENCES FOR SECTION 3 i
1.
Advanced Nuclear Fuels Corporation (ANF), 1986.
Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report.
Docket No. 70-1257.
September 1986.
l 1
1 3-10 l
i
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED LICENSE RENEWAL The following sections discuss the direct environmental effects of operations and activities at the ANF facility and the significance of the effects.
The analyses regarding air and water quality, land use,'and ecological and radio-logical impacts were based primarily on data provided by the applicant.
4.1 Monitoring Programs An effluent and environmental monitoring program is conducted by ANF to demon-strate compliance with appropriate environmental protection standards and to j
provide, where possible, site-specific data which would preclude the need to use conservative assumptions in assessing radiation exposures.
4.1.1 Effluent Monitoring Program 4.1.1.1 Radiological l
Continuous isokinetic sampling is provided on all exhaust air stacks servicing areas in which uncontained radioactive materials are used, processed, or other-l wise handled.
The samples are analyzed on a weekly basis for gross alpha activ-j ity as a measure of uranium content.
Results are compiled semiannually and q
reported to the NRC.
A summary of emissions is presented in Table 2.1.
With 1
the incinerator operating at capacity, the applicant believes that future emis-sions from the plant will not vary from past norms.
The licensee will still be limited to emissions of 50 pCi/ quarter.
i The liquid effluent discharged to the municipal sewer system is continuously sampled, with composite samples collected daily and analyzed for uranium.
The annual releases are given in Table 2.2.
4.1.1.2 Nonradiological Stack emissions from five stacks are monitored isokinetically-and analyzed for fluorides.
The results of this monitoring program for 1981-1985 have been j
reported as ppm in Table 2.1.
Three of the stacks are sampled on a monthly basis for oxides of nitrogen.
The applicant's projected chemical emissions from the incinerator are shown in Table 4.1.
These levels are not of concern environmentally.
The incinerator exhaust gas will be continuously sampled for halide content following offgas treatment.
l Table 4.1 Estimated incinerator emissions lb/m hcl
<0.1 NO}
<5 50
<0.01 4-1
l l
l Plant liquid effluent' is monitored in accordance with the requirements of the'
.l facility's Waste Discard Permit-issued by the. Department of Ecology of the State of Washington.
The details of the parameter monitoring, sampling methods,' and frequency, and effluent limitations are included in Appendix A.
The Department of Ecology sets and enforces nonradiological~ effluent limitations for ANF.
Under NEPA however, the NRC's environmental assessment of'ANF opera-
-l tions is required to' include the impact of both radiological and nonradio-logical contaminants.
In order for the NRC to be aware of any potential. problems with the nonradiological effluents, ANF has agreed to report violations of the t
State Effluent Discharge Permit to the NRC.
4.1.2 Environmental Monitoring Program ANF conducts an environmental monitoring program that includes the monitoring of groundwater, soil, forage, and air.
Sampling stations have been established both onsite and offsite near points of expected maxi'aum concentrations. -The sampling program.is outlined in Table 4.2 and the sampling locations are shown.
I in Figure 4.L Table 4.2 ANF field sampling program l
Sample Sample Sampling i
Station Type Frequency Analysis 1
1 1
Soil Quarterly Uranium j
2 Soil Quarterly Uranium 3
Air Monthly Fluoride 4
Air Monthly Fluoride 5
Forage Monthly
- Fluoride 6
Forage Monthly
- Fluoride j
- During the growing season only (April-October),
l l
Potential releases to the groundwater from the liquid waste storage lagoons are monitored by sampling the "between liners" leak detection system.
In addition, l
test wells around the periphery of the lagoon system are monitored to detect-leaks that have penetrated both liners and to follow the movement.of-- any ground-l water contamination.
The groundwater sampling program is provided in Table 4.3.
l See Figure.4.2 for the sample locations.
i Chemical air quality is controlled by the State of Washington and requires i
monitoring.of fluoride and oxidized nitrogen.
For fluorides, limits are placed' on ambient air and forage, and not'on stack emissions.
N0 monitoring is used x
to verify _that the N0 at the site boundary is less than 0.05 ppm.
x The environmental sampling data is presented in Table'4.4.
The data shows that, with the exception of two quarters in 1982, the fluoride values for ambient air and forage have been less than half of the state limits.
There have.been no l
instances where ANF exceeds the limits.
l l
l 4-2 1
r l
l l
l l
I Table 4.3 Groundwater sampling program j
Parameter Monitoring Frequency Location Sample Type l
Fluoride as F Quarterly Well Group B Grab NO as N 1 per 6 months Well Group A Grab I
3 NH as N 1 per 6 months Well Group A Grab 1
pH 1 per 6 months Well Group A Grab Presence of liquid Monthly Lagoon interliner Grab l
sampling system l
l Gross Alpha / Beta Quarterly Well Group B Grab Gross Alpha / Beta Semiannually Well Group C Grab Monitoring Well Group A is Wells 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 15, and 16.
Monitoring Well Group B is Wells 1-7, 11, 12, 13, and 19-21.
Monitoring Well Group C is Well 9,14,15, and 16.
i l
1 The uranium soil samples range from 0 to 2 ppm except for a couple of sample dates where the values are in the 6 to 9 ppm range.
There is no explanation for these higher values, however in each case the value was down on the next i
sampling date.
Even the 8.6 ppm sample is only about 21 pCi/gm, which is below the Branch Technical Position value of 30 pCi/gm.
The values are generally at or near background levels.
The staff will not require ANF to expand their soil monitoring program for uranium.
j i
The monitoring data for the groundwater wells is presented in Appendix B.
The data generally shows that the contaminated plume, from former lagoon leakage, l
is continuing to move offsite.
While still above the drinking water standard, wells 1, 2, and 9 are showing a downward trend.
The plume is expected to flow l
beneath the DOE property, cross Stevens Drive, and eventualy enter the Columbia River near the southern end of the 300 area, having little, if any, impact on the river water quality.
In the vicinity of the plume, the groundwater within the aquifer exceeds the i
Federal drinking water standards making the water unfit for human consumption.
l Should groundwater be required for drinking water purposes, the wells would have l
to be dr. led to the lower aquifer.
However, it is unlikely that the aquifer l
l d
would be used for human consumption purposes in the future.
The water quality in the 300 area is wel.1 documented as being highly contaminated.
In addition, j
this region is currently served by city water lines from the City of Richland, i
The applicant is required to continue monitoring these wells under their State i
Discharge Permit.
The staff does not plan, at this time, to require any addi-tional monitoring beyond what is currently done.
l ANF discharges their liquid effluent to the Richland Municipal Sewage System.
j There is some concern that the radioactive components of the effluent may 1
4-3 l
1
I
\\
! /J
\\
l 300 AREA I
i
\\ I l
I l
1 I
I HORN RAPIDS ROAD uo@
1 f
o j
i e gaso i
]
a E ma l
E
~l
%* '\\
1 a
l g sATTERE I
co m a nou i
v
\\
I s
i 1
a N
i E
4 E
en l
,z s
E l
l 4
{
i i
i Figure 4.1 Field sample station locations 4-4
')
}
HORN RAPIDS ROAD
/
/
~
I 1
t5 e l6 4
A e le e
- 18 e 17 i
1 N
x-x x-x x_x
,_g_,
I
.i
.2 M
LAGOON LAGOON No. 5-A No. t j
j 2e
'.e LAGOON t.AGOON (By N.E. Comer No. 5-8 of S.F. Building) 4 M
,21 M
=-x~~x-x-
.s
-l SAND TRENCH LAGOON x
a M
l No.3 M
M
.,2 7
M
~
{
LAGOON No.4 I
M l
.,3
[
x-x- - x - x-x- x - x x-Figure 4.2 Groundwater well locations 4-5
Table 4.4 Environmental sampling data
- 12
- 11 Station Station.
Station Station Station Station no. 1 no. 2 no. 3(a) no. 4(a) no. F(b) no. 6(b) l Type of sample Soil Soil Air Air Forage Forage Frequency Qtr Qtr Mo.
Mo.
Mo.(c)
Mo.(c)
Qtr Avg Qtr Avg Qtr Avg Qtr Avg Units Yr/Qtr U (ppm)
U (ppm)
F (ppb)
F (ppb)
F (ppm)
F (ppm) i I
81-1 0.17 0.13 7.6 81-2 0.5 0.4 0.26 0.25 0.52 14.0 81-3 0.4 0.4 0.08 0.08 3.6 12.0 81-4
- 2. 0 0.3 0.04 0.05 17.0 82-1 0.2 0.11 0.06 0.06 82-2 0.2 0.2 0.26 0.19 10.3 24.0 82-3
<0.1 6.0 0.23.
0.23 6.3 25.0 82-4 0.05 0.06 10.2 83-1 0.04 0.05 11.3 7.8 83-2
<0.7 0.4 0.17 0.12 7.5 83-3 1.0 4.9 0.09 0.07
- 7. 0 17.9 83-4
<0.3 0.4 0.05 0.04 3.0 14.0 84-1 0.7 2.0 0.13 0.11 84-2 8.6
- 1. 2 0.08 0.07 8.0 8.5 84-3 0.06 0.06 12.0 84-4 0.7 2.6 0.10 0.09 4.2 2.4 85-1 8.0 1.0 0.09 0.06 85-2 0.2 0.5 0.19 0.13 2.5 2.9 85-3 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.07 85-4 0.1 0.1 0.15 0.14 86-1 2.3
- 0. 3 0.07 0.07 86-2 2.3 0.3 0.05 0.09
- 3. 3
- 3. 3 86-3 1.2 0.9 0.10 0.09 5.7
- 4. 2 86-4 0.1 0.1 0.09 0.06 8.4 8.5 Lizait 0.5(d) 40(*)
(a) Data prior to 6/84 are from Stations 12 and 11, respectively.
(b) Data prior to 6/84 are from Stations 11 and 12, respectively.
(c)During growiag season only (Aoril-October).
(d)WAC 18-48-130 (e)WAC 18-48-120 4-6
precipitate from the liquid, thereby causing elevated levels in the sludge.
Experience at other locations has shown this to occur.
In order to monitor the sludge concentration, ANF hac agreed to take a monthly sample from.the sewage i
treatment facility and analyze the sludge for uranium.
If a running average of the analyses over a 6-month period exceeds 25 picocuries per gram, or any single confirmed result equals or exceeds 30 picocuries per gram,' an immediate inves-tigation will be required and a plan of action instituted.
The action plan will require a reduction or elimination of discards to the sewer system until the.
sewer sludges'contain less than 25 picocuries per gram.
The NRC will be notified anytime a confirmed monthly sample result is 25 pC1/gm or higher.
The data from l
this program can be used as early warning indicators of potential reconcentration
{
problems.
4.1.3 Mitigating Measures Routine operation, of the ANF fuel fabrication facility is expected to. result in small environmental impacts, and no mitigatory measures are required.
ANF's effluent and environmental monitoring program will be continued, with the addi -
tion of sludge sampling, in order to confirm this conclusion.
4.2 Direct Effects and Their Significance 4.2.1 Air Quality 1
The normal operation of the ANF fuel fabrication plant results in the release of small amounts of both radiological and nonradiological containments.
The non-radioactive gaseous emissions are not expected to result in measurable changes in air quality beyond the plant site boundary.
ANF is in compliance with Washington State requirements for N0 and fluoride.
Radiological impacts are discussed in x
Section 4.2.5.
4.2.2 Land Use The main site development and construction activities have already occurred at the ANF plant.
Operation of the ANF plant has had no adverse effects on land l
use in the past, and there are no plans to expand the facility.
Therefore, no additional impacts on land use, historical sites, or floodplains and wetlands l
will result from license renewal.
Any proposal for new facilities or expanded operations during the license renewal period will necessitate an evaluation of land use impacts. Additionally, there will be minimal impacts.on future land use after. decommissioning because the site will then be required to meet federal 1
standards for unrestricted use.
4.2.3 Water Quality Operation of the ANF plant does release 'small amounts of liquid effluents to the surface water (Columbia River) via.the public sewage system.
Discharge to the sewer system is limited by the State Effluent Discharge Permit No. 3919 and NRC license.
Discharges have remained below limits and are not expected to have any adverse effects on the water quality, 4-7
}
4.2.4 Ecological Continued operation of the ANF plant will have no significant impacts on terres-trial vegetation or wildlife other than continued cccupation of potential habitat by industrial facilities.
No threatened or endangered species should be affected i
by continued plant operation.
No adverse effects on aquatic life should result i
from operations.
4.2.5 Radiological Impacts The radiological impacts of the ANF facility were assessed by calculating the maximum dose to the individual living at the nearest residence and to the local population within an 80-km (50 mile) radius of the plant site.
Where site-specific information was not available, assumptions that would tend to maximize l
the dose were used in the calculations.
It is only when such conservative f
assumptions yield a dose near or exceeding the applicable limit that ANF is required to obtain appropriate data for a more realistic evaluation.
Except 3
where specified, the term " dose" as referred to in this appraisal, is actually a 50 year dose commitment for all exposures; that is, the total dose to the j
reference organ that will accrue from 1 year of intake of radionuclides during
~
the remaining lifetime (50 years) of the individual.
The doses were calculated using radioactive effluent r61 ease rates measured at the ANF plant.
The gases and liquid effluent scurce terms used in the calcula-tions were the maximum annual releases during the past 6 years shown in-Tables 2.1 and 2.2, respectively.
This equates to 24 pCi/ year of uranium activity released to the atmosphere and 0.09 Ci/ year of uranium discharged to the sewer system.
For the airborne emissions, source terms are coupled with atmospheric dispersion factors (Table 3.2) generated using the Gaussian Plume Model and diffusion coefficients for Pasquill type turbulence as in Regulatory Guide 1.111.2 Dose via significant pathways are determined based on models presented in Regulatory Guide 1.1093 with the exception that for inhalation and ingestion pathways, dose l
conversion factors for various organs were taken from NUREG/CR-0150, Volume III.4 The inhalation dose factors were produced using the ICRP Task Group Lung Model and depend on the particle size and solubility of released _ compounds.
Because the particle size and solubility of ANF's airborne emissions have not been i
determined, conservative assumptions for these parameters have been m;je.
Namely, the particles passing through HEPA filters are assumed to have an AMAD of 0.3pm. The released particles are further assumed to be completely in an insoluble form to provide a maximum calculated lung dose for the inhalation pathway and then, completely in a' soluble form to provide a maximum calculated bone dose for the ingestion pathway.
Doses due to liquid pathways were not calculated.
The liquid effluent is dis-charged to the Richland sewer system where it is diluted by other liquid wastes.
The Richland municipal sewer system discharges their processed waste liquid into the Yakima River above the confluence with the Columbia River.
The additional radioactivity due to ANF operations is not expected to raise the level in the Columbia River above the river's current background levels.
4-8
Doses to the Maximally Exposed Individual The nearest residence to the ANF plant is a residence located about 3,600 meters (2 1/10 miles) southeast of the facility.
For airborne emissions, the pathways considered in the individual dose estimates were (a) direct irradiation from ground deposition, (b) immersion in the airborne plume, (c) direct inhalation,.
and (d) ingestion of vegetation, meat, and milk that are conservatively assumed to be produced at the nearest residence.
The models and various assumptions involved in the above pathways can be referred to in greater detail in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
Table 4.5 summarizes the cal-culated doses from airborne effluents.
Table 4.5 Estimated maximum dose to the nearest resident Organ Dose (mrem /yr)
(
Pathway Total Body Lung Bone Kidney Direct irradiation 1.2 x 10 8 1.2 x 10 6 1.7 x 10 8 1.1 x 10 8 Immersion in air 3.7 x 10 10 3.5 x 10 10 5.2 x 10 10 3.2 x 10 10 a
Direct inhalation 1.1 x 10 4 3.3 x 10 3 3.1 x 10 4 6.7 x 10 s Ingestion b
Vegetable 2.8 x 10.s 8.4 x 10 7 3.9 x 10 4 8.4 x 10.s j
Meat 1.9 x 10 7 5.7 x 10 9 2.6 x 10 8 5.7 x 10 7 Milk 8.1 x 10 7 2.4 x 10 8 1.1 x 10 5 2.4 x 10 6 Total millirem /yr) 1.4 x 10 4 3.3 x 10 3 7.1 x 10 4 1.6 x 10 4 aAssumes 80 percent residence time.
j Includes leafy and non-leafy vegtables.
Since site-specific information is
{
not available, it is assumed that 76 percent of the produce (non-leafy) and j
100 percent of the leafy vegetables consumed are grown at the nearest residence.
]
1 Even with the conservative assumptions, the doses shown in Table 4.5 are below the EPA standards for uranium fuel cycle facilities (40 CFR Part 190).
The total body dose of 1.4 x 10 4 mrem /yr is only about 5.6 x 10 4 percent of the limit of 25 mrem /yr. The highest organ dose of 3.3 x 10 3 mrem to the lung is about
.01 percent of the applicable EPA standard.
As shown in Table 4.5, the critical pathway is through inhalation resulting in a maximum dose to the lung of 3.3 x 10 3 mrem /yr.
The above calculations assume a normal adult, but the staff has also considered a critical individual (an infant os v-1 years of age) at the nearest residence.
The lung dose to an infant will be increased by a factor of about 1.9 which is equivalent to 0.01 mrem /yr.
This dose is about.04 percent of the EPA standard.
Therefore, normal operation of 3
the ANF plant over the past 6 years has resulted in maximum annual doses at the nearest residence that are well below 40 CFR 190 iimits.
To ensure that future operations at ANF also comply with these limits and in keeping with the prin-ciples of ALARA, ANF is required by license to report to the NRC and take cor-rective action if their gaseous effluent exceeds 50pCi/ quarter.
This release 4-9
i l
l rate has been previously determined to result in a lung dose of 9.5 mrem / year to a hypothetical individual living at the fenceline.s Doses to the Population Within 50 Miles of the Plant Site The 1980 population within a 50-mile radius of the plant is shown in Table 3.3.
Over 250,000 people live within this area.
Population doses were calculated based on the dose estimates at the nearest residence; the ratio of X/Q's at the nearest residence and at various segments within the 50-mile radius, and the population in the corresponding segments.
The population dose estimates con-sidered the exposure pathways via airborne effluents. The population dose com-mitments from routine releases by ANF are shown in Table 4.6.
The natural back-ground dose rate to the total body is 135 mrem / year, which results in a'popula-j tion dose within 50 miles around ANF of 33,750 man-rem.
The total body dose l
rate of 4.8x10 3 man-rem shown in Table 4.6 is negligible compared to this back-ground value.
I Table 4.6 Dose commitments from airborne dischargesto the population within 50 miles of the ANF plant I
Organ Dose (man-rem)"
j Pathway Total Body Lung Bone Kidney Direct irradiation 2.2 x 10 e 2.1 x 10 8 3.1 x 10 8 1.9 x 10 8 Immersion in air 1.8 x 10 8 1.6 x 10 8 2.4 x 10 8 1.5 x 10 8 Directingalation 4.8 x 10 3
.15 2.2 x 10 3 4.6 x 10 4 Ingestion 2.0 x 10 11 6.0 x 10 13 2.7 x 10 10 6.0 x 10 11 Total 4.8 x 10 3
.15 2.' x 10 3 4.6 x 10 4 1
aAssumes all adults.
bIngestion of vegetables, meat, and milk with the same radioactivity concentra-tions as the postulated food produced at the nearest residence, 1
4.3 Indirect Effects and Their Significance l
4.3.1 Potential Effects of Accidents Accidents that could occur at the ANF site are both radiological and nonradio-logical in nature.
The fabrication of fuel for nuclear reactors involves the chemical processing of low-enriched uranium.
With the exception of a criticality accident and-the potential rupture of a UFs cylinder, the environmental impacts which would result from postulated accidents at the ANF plant should be similar to the impacts of a manufacturing plant in which nonradioactive chemicals are stored.
The radiological environmental impacts of the more probable postulated accidents are insignificant at this facility.
4.3.1.1 Radiological Accidents Although several minor accidents are likely to happen during the life of the plant (e.g., a small pipeline leak or a small spill), most will not result in a 4-10
significant release of uranium to the environment.
'he addition of the incin-erator does not change the types of credible accidents.
Therefore, the accident analysis in support of this assessment is limited to the consideration of severe low probability accidents that could potentially result in the release of large quantities of radioactivity, a UFe release, or a criticality accident.
The radio-logical consequences of a transportation accident, a fire, and an explosion are also evaluated.
UFe Release 1
Cylinders for shipping 2 tons of UFs are stored outside.
The UFs is a solid at embient temperature (sublimes at 132 F) and is only heated and vaporized
)
inside the facility.
Therefore, the possibility of an outdoor release of liquid UFs is extremely remote.
If a cylinder of solid UFs were to fail outside, for any reason, the UFs would vaporize very slowly.
Because UFe reacts with atmo-spher'ic moicture to form uranyl fluoride (UO F ), which is a nonvolatile solid, 2 2 such a leak would tend to be self sealing.
Therefore, the quantity of material released from such an accident involving a cylinder of solid UFs would not con-tribute significantly to the plant's normal emissions, and the potential offsite consequences would not be a concern.
The potential offsite doses resulting from a large failure of a UFs cylinder while stored outside at ANF were previously estimated in another environmental impact appraisal.6 Conservative calculations yielded maximum organ doses of 1.1 rem to the bone for an individual at the nearest residence.
This calculation assumed a release of 540 kg of UFs in
)
15 minutes with a 1pm AMAD.
A ground level release was assumed with a building
(
wake effect of 1.
The possibility of such an accident at ANF is very remote and was only evaluated for a worst case analysis.
Fire Probability of a fire with sufficient intensity to release radioactive materials is exceedingly small.
The effects of a fire would be mitigated by engineered safety features protecting against fire and permitting control of a fire if it j
occurred.
An unchecked fire within a building could eventually cause structural damage due to excessive and prolonged heat applied to the structural steel columns and could destroy the final filters and other confinement systems.
4 There are features incorporated to minimize the probability of such a fire.
It is concluded that the provisions for both protection and control of fires makes the probability of an unchecked fire which might result in inordinate environ-mental effects remote.
ANF looked at a fire that could occur in the incinerator's waste sorting hood.
The estimated maximum quantity of contaminated combustible waste material which could be involved in the fire is 900 pounds containing about 6 kgs of low-enriched uranium.
The results of the fire would be less severe than those discussed for the outdoor failure of UFe cylinders.
It's estimated that only about 0.15 milligrams of uranium would be released to the atmosphere.
i Explosions The remote possibility of an explosion occurring does exist.
For example, an explosion could occur in the sintering furnace, autoclave, or incinerator.
If an explosion were to o,ccur in the sintering furnace or the autoclave, there could be a temporary internal contamination problem, but no release of i
4-11
i radioactive material to the environs would be likely to occur because of the size and nature of the pellets and rods.
ANF has analyzed an explosion in the incinerator consisting of a ruptured aerosol can in the primary chamber.
The incinerator would be momentarily pressurized-which would result in release of uranium contaminated ash to the operating area.
1 The exhaust ventilation system prefilters and two-stage HEPA filters would con-j fine the contamination to the operating' area.
Some of the uranium would be -
released to the atmosphere via the building exhaust stack.
Assuming a 9 kg
)
incinerator inventory with-5 percent release to the operating area of which 10 percent would be picked up by the building exhaust ventilation system, the overall release would only be about 0.011 milligrams of uranium, less severe than other postulated accidents.
1 Criticality Accident The effects of a postulated criticality accident have been considered, although the possibility of such an accident at a low-enrichment uranium facility is remote.
Historically, no accident of this kind has ever occurred in a low-enrichment fabrication facility.
Achievement of criticality with low enriched uranium requires carefully controlled conditions and is not likely to happen accidentally.
In addition, at ANF, programs of design review, procedure control, engineered safeguards, and audits are implemented routinely to prevent a criti-cality accident of this kind.
The postulated criticality accidents have the following characteristics (per J
The accident results in 1018 fissions produced in a series of pulses within a supercritical liquid system.
I The accident releases only the volatile fission products produced by the
)
above number of fissions.
At this time radioactive decay begins.
In the event of a criticality accident, an individual at the nearest residence (located 2-1/10 miles SE of the plant) would receive exposure from internal as 1
well as external sources of radiation. The doses to an individual resulting from direct exposure to prompt neutron and gamma radiation, from submersion in I
a cloud containing beta-and gamma emmitting fission products, and from inhala-tion of the fission. products in the cloud have been calculated in a previous EIA for the facility.6 The results of the calculations, which are considered con-servative, indicate that an individual at the nearest residence would receive a gamma dose to the whole body of 3.7 x 10 3 rem and a dose to the thyroid of 1.7 These doses are below the limits of 1 rem to the whole body and 5 rem to-rem.
the thyroid as specified in the EPA's Protective Action Guides.
These calcula-tions assumed adverse meteorological conditions (a wind blowing at 1 m/sec under an F type of stability), a ground level release lasting 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, and a building wake effect.
Transportation Accident Transportation accidents involving uranium-bearing meterials or chemical process supplies could occur at or in proximity to the plant.
The effects of such acci-dents should be smaller than those of similar accidents taking place in areas 4-12 4
i
.(
I of higher population density.
A vehicular accident involving a truck carrying l
uranium or chemicals has a low probability of occurrence (10 6 per vehicle mile) i and a much lower probability for extremely severe accidents (1013 per vehicle mile).
Truck shipments'to the ANF plant include the routine shipment of enriched UFs cylinders and process chemicals and an occasional shipment of radioactive mate-rial in other forms (such as returned unirrad'ated fuel rods).
Shipments from j
the plant include the routine shipment-of finished fuel assemblies, uranium dioxide powder, and uranium dioxide pellets as well as waste material shipped for offsite disposal at licensed waste burial grounds.
i The worst possible transportation accident at the site involving the release of j
radioact'ive material would involve the rupture of a cylinder containing solid 1
UFs.
During transport, the cylinders are contained within a protective overpack which makes a cylinder rupture very unlikely for most feasible transportation accidents.
Nevertheless, the results of this accident would be the same as those discussed for the outdoor failure of a solid UFs cylinder, i
4.3.1.2 Nonradiological Accidents l
Environmental impacts that may occur at a low-level enrichment nuclear fuel fabrication plant would most likely result from possible accidents associated with potentially harmful chemicals rather than from radioactive materials.
- Thus, the ANF plant can be considered in the same class as any other manufacturing plant where significant quantities of nonradioactive chemicals are processed.
Accidents that are likely to occur during the. life of the plant include minor process-equipment leaks and small spills.
Operators can quickly detect these leaks and spills and take corrective action.
Accidents occurring in the outside chemical storage areas could result in complete or partial emptying of a bulk j
chemical storage tank.
Such a release is considered very unl.ikely.because stor-age vessels are designed using good engineering practices and are filled accord-i ing to safe operating procedures.
To experience a rupture or failure, some unforeseen catastrophic disaster would have to occur or all current safety sys-tems would have to deteriorate simultaneously.
Nevertheless,.the most conceiv-able release scenarios involve (1) exposure of the storage vessels to an intense, prolonged fire with subsequent release of vapors through pressure-relief valves 3
and (2) tank rupture caused by a projectile from an adjacent explosion.
l Airborne concentrations of vapors in the release area could be excessive, but after dispersion in the atmosphere, concentrations at the site boundary would not likely require isolation of offsite areas or temporary evacuation of I
residents.
Some of the potential vapors, such as ammonia and hydrogen fluoride, have pungent suffocating odors which would force capable people'away and' aid in limiting offsite exposures.
ANF has approved a plan calling.for the elimination of the West Tank Farm, eventual elimination'of all tanks near the building in the East Tank Farm, and disposal of the sulfuric acid tank.
All liquid chemical storage tank pads will i
be either diked to the full capacity of the: tank or drcined to a lagoon via a sump and pump.
4-13
.i
4.3.2 Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives of Federal, Regional, State, and Local Plans and Policies j
At this' time, the staff is not aware of any conflict between the proposed action and the objectives of federal, regional, state, or local plans, policies,.or controls for the action proposed as.long as proper agencies are contacted, proper applications are submitted, and proper monitoring and mitigatory measures are taken to protect the environment and public health and safety.
I 4.3.3 Effects on Urban Quality, Historical and Cultural Resources, and Society 1
i The environmental effects of the proposed license renewal action as discussed above are considered to be insignificant.
The facility has not affected histor-i ical or cultural resources.
The short-term social effects during operation are I
and will be minimal, and there will be minimal effects after decommissioning and j
reclamation because the site will be required to meet Federal standards for l
unrestricted use.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4 1.
NRC.
1981.
" Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Technical Position, Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium or Uranium Wastes from Past Operations.
" Federal Register.
146 p. 52061.
October 23.
2.
NRC.
1977.
" Methods of Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effidents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors."
'l Regulatory GL. de 1.111, July.
3.
NRC.
1977.
" Calculations of Annual Doses to Mar, from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR l
Part 50, Appendix I," Regulatory Guide 1.109.
4.
Dunning, D. E., Jr., et al.1981.
Estimates of Internal Dose Equivalent i
to 22 Target Ocgans for Radionuclides Occurring in Routine Releases from Nuclear Fuel-Cycle Facilities.
Vol III.
ORNL/NUREG/TM-190/U3.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
October.
(Also published as NUREG/CR-0150.)
5.
U.S. NRC, Order to Modify License in the Matter of Exxon Nuclear Company.
Docket No. 70-1257, Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1227, Amend-ment No. 22,' January 28, 1980.
6.
U.S. NRC Environmental Impact Appraisal Related to License Renewal of Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1227, Docket No. 70-1257, August 1981.
7.
NRC.
1979.
" Assumptions Used fer Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of Accidental Nuclear Criticality in a Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant." Regulatory Guide 3.34.
Revision July 1.
4-14
i I
Appendix A State Effluent Discharge Permit No. 3919 l
i.
l l
l d
l
)
1 I
4 A-1 4
i
-)
i Page 1 of 7 Permit No.:
3919 Issuance Date:
May 27, 1982 1
Expiration Date: May 27, 1987 i
STATE OF WASHINGTON k
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY STATE WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT
)
In compliance with the provisions of Chapter 90.48 RCW as amended and Chapter 372-24 WAC:
Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
P. O. Box 130 Richland, Washington 99352 t
I s
Plant Location:
f Receiving water: City of Richland Sanitary Sewerage System 2
2101 Horn Rapids Rd.
Richland, Washington Discharge Location:
Wit.hin SW 1/4, j
Sec. 15, T. 10 N., R. 28 E.W.M.
in Benton County J
Industry Type:
Nuclear Reactor Waterway Segment No.:
26-00-02
)
Fuels Manubrcuring is authorized to discharge in accordance with the conditions which follow.
~ w en V t.a Russell K. Taylor, Re'gif al Manager _,
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGf Central Regional Office (8) 1. ',_ $}ds,. } }$ **
- ,4th2thE0EBhh 'l ? M.M *.
.h h Whh> uWN*M^
"~~ ^ ^
Page 2 of 7' d
Permit No.:
3919.
+
J S1. FINAL FEFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONEORING REQUIRDDTTS Beginning on the date of issuance and lasting through the expira-a.
tion date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge cooling water, treated process wastewater and sanitary wastewater to the City of RichlarJ sanitary sewer subject to the following limitations and monitoring requirements:
EFFLIENT LIMITATIONS i
Parameter Daily Average Daily Maximum 1
Flow 500,000 gal 500,000 gal j
NH as N 25 mg/l 30 mg/l 3
tD as N 600 M day 100 M y 1
3 l
Fluoride (as F) 2500 lb/ day 3500 lb/ day
]
pH not less than 5.0
)
j l
Total Suspended Solids 300 mg/l 600 mg/l J
wunoRINo ammeurs Parameter Monitoring Frequency Iocation' Sample Tvpe l
I d'ily lift station meter Flow a
NH as N daily lift station grab 3
- as N daily lift station.
ccrnposite.
3 Fluorido (as F) daily lift station ccanposite 2
12i daily lift station grab Total Suspended Solids weekly lift station ecmposite b..
Beginning on the date of issuance of this permit and' lasting through the expiration date of this permit, the permittee is authorized to discharge process wastewater to lined storage /
evaporation lagoons subject to the following limitations and nonitoring requirements:
i e
S greNthegtwgnh.g,wwwssg tsuve,wEsg.wn.a wwwwb % maastsieweepsuess's tsnEstve%pgswutAA vsmsVWWWWWWWWWNUutewedtfbr>dt 99d1 i.
w t#0coeWhf*f t,% +4'
't.'V ttQt% _
4
=
4.
'i'* tsut8tswwwww s<g s e
. /
Page 3 of 7 Permit No.: 3919 l
1 i
1 Sl. FINAL EFFI11D7f LIMITATIONS AIO MCNTIORIIG FEQUIRENNTS, Continued l
EFFIUDTP LIMITATIO4S 1'
1 No contamination of groundwater i
l KNI'IORIIG REQUIREMENTS Parameter Monitoring Frequency Iccation Sanple Type Fluoride as F Quarterly Well' Group B
' grab J
l 103 as N 1 per 6 months Well Group A grab j
1 NH3 as N 1 per 6 months Well Group A grab pH 1 per 6 ntnths Well Group A grab l
Presence of liquid Monthly Lagoon interliner I
sampling system grab The daily average is defined as the average of the measured values obtained over a calendar month's time.
l The daily maximum is defined as the greatest allowable value for any calendar day.
Itnitoring Well Group A is Wells 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 15 and 16.
Monitoring Well Group B is Wella 1-7, 11, 12, 13 and 19-21.
S2. MJNI'IORING AND itwuiwuG The permittee shall monitor the operations and efficiency of all treatment and control facilities and the quantity and quality of the waste discharged.
A record of all such data shall be maintained. 'Ihe permittee shall monitor the parameters as specified in condition S1 of this permit.
a.
Reporting Monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall be sum-marized and reported on a form provided by the department, to be subnitted no la'r.r than the 15th day of the nonth following the ccxnpleted reporting period. The report shall be sent to the Depart-ment of Ecology, 3601 West Washington,.Yakima, Washington 98903.
b.-
Records Retention The permittee shall retain for a mininum of three years all records of monitoring activities and results, include all reports of recordings frcxn continuous monitoring instrumentation. 'Ihis period of retention shall be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation.
regarding the discharge of pollutants by the permittee or when re-quested by the director.
,,, a mme
I Pags 4 of 7 Permit No.:
3919 4
c.
eding of Results_
ruc each measurement or sample taken, the permittee shall record the following information:
(1) the date, exact place, and time of sampl1~6; (2) the dates the analyses were performed; (3) who per-formed the analyses; (4) the a. alytical techniques or methods used; and (5) the results of all analyses.
d.
Representative Sampling Samples and measurements taken to meet the requirements of this condition shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
l e.
Test Procedures i
All sampling ari analytical methods used to meet the^ monitoring re-quirements specified in this permit snall, unless approved otherwise l
l in writing by the department, conform to the Guidelines Establishing l
Test Procedures for the Analysis of Pollutants, contained in 40 CFR l
Part 136, as published in the Federal Register of December 1,1976, or latest revision thereof, which currently references the following publications:
1)
American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewaters.
2)
American Society for Tes' ting and Materials, A.S.T.M. Standards, Part 31, Water, Atmospheric Analysis.
l 3)
Environmental Protectir-Agency, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, i
S3.
OTHER REQUIREMENTS l
i a.
Solid Waste Disposal 1.
The permittee shall handle and dispose of all solid waste material in such a manner as to prevent its entry ihto state ground or surface waters and in accordance with all state and federal requirements governing hazardous and radioactive waste materials.
]
i 2.
The permittee shall not permit leachate from its solid waste material to enter state surface waters without providiag all known, available and reasonable methods of treatment, nor permit such leachate to cause any adverse effect on state ground waters. The pensittee shall apply for a permit or permit modification as may be required for such discharges.
1 i
l e
L..w=
s==
tmgs w
g g u et an + s e t.s. ae i..a ss %
.g g es m %.%s,
, w es,
$ g vws s g
w. 6
,o w n. witVOu ts k
%%t 30%b @fPqt40naq'o 9s AmhafiRMs'!n& M C
Pege 5.of 7 Parmit No.:
3919-i y
l b.
National Retreatment S tandards k
\\
The permittee shall meet the following requirements e.
rp ted ' from 40 CFR 403.5 National Retreatment Standards: prohibit d discharges:
1.
Pollutants introduced into POTW's by any source >f a nondomestic discharge shall not inhibit or interfere with the operation or i
performance of the works.
These general prohibitions apply to all such users of a POW whether or not the, user is subject 'to
)
other National Retreatment Standards or any National, State, j
or local Retreatment Requirements.
2.
The following pollutants may not be introduced into a.POTW:
(a)
Pollutants which create a fire or' explosion hazard in the POTW; q
l (b) Pollutants which will cause corrosive structural damage to -
the POTW, but in no case d'ischarges with pH lower than l
such discharges; 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate j
(c) Solid or viscous pollutants in amounts which will cause i
obstruction to the flow in sewers, or other ' interference with the operation of the POW; -
i 1
(d) Any polittant, including oxygen' demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released in 'a discharge of such~ volume or strength as to cause interference in the POW; (e) Heat in amounts which will inhibit ~ biological activity in the POTW rusulting in interference but in no case heat in such quantitits that the temperature at the treatment works influent exceeds 40\\; C (104h; F) unless the works is designed to accommoda te such heat.
All requirements and ordinances of the City of Richland pertaining to c.
discharge of wastes into the city of Richland sanitary sewage system are hereby made a condition of this permit, t
y f
g g
+4
, p g en.=vm 4
q ou sa'*F=
'r'_M%
_1.M_I_D"
- 2$
Page6 of 7 Permit No.
3919 CENERAL CONDITIONS C1.
All discharges and activities authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit. The discharge of any pollutant more frequently than or at a level in excess of that identified and autho-rized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the terms and condi-tions of this permit.
G2.
Whenever a facility expansion, production increase, or process modifica-tion is anticipated which will result in a new or increased discharge, or which will cause any of the conditions of this permit to be exceeded, a new application must be submitted together with the necessary reports and engineering plans for the proposed changes. No change shall be made until plans have been approved and a new permit or permit modification has been issued.
G3.
The diversion or bypass of any discharge from facilities utilized by the permittee to maintain compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (a) where unavoidable to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, or (b) where excessive storm drainage or run-l l
off would damage any facilities necessary for compliance with the terms l
and conditions of this permit.
The permittee shall immediately notify l
l the Department in writing of each such diversion or bypass in accordance l
with the procedure specified in Condition G4.
G4.
In the event the permittee is unable to comply with any of the conditions of this permit because of a breakdo'wn of equipment or facilities, an acci-dent caused by human error or negligence, or any other cause, such as an I
act of nature, the permittee shall:
l l
a.
Immediately take action to stop, contain, and clean up the unauthori-zed discharges and correct the problem.
l b.
Immediately notify.the Department so that an investigation can be made to evaluate the impact and the corrective actions taken and determine additional action that must be taken, c.
Submit a detailed written report to the Department describing the l
breakdown, the actual quantity and quality of resulting waste dis-l charges, corrective action taken, steps taken to prevent a recurrence, 4
and any other pertinent information.
Compliance with these requirements does not relieve the permittee from l
l responsibility to maintain continuous compliance with the conditions of
[
l this permit or the resulting liability for failure to comply.
l 1
Page 7 'of 7 Permit No.
3919
~
G5.
The-permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and effia ciently operate all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and con-ditions of this permit.
G6.
Af ter notice and opportunity for a hearing this permit may be nodified,-
suspended orl revoked in whole or in part during-its term for cause in-cluding but not limited to the following:
Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit; a.
i I
b.
Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; A change in the condition of the receiving waters or any other con-c.
dition that requires'either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge.
G7.
The permittee shall, at all reasonable times, allow authorized represent-atives of the Department:
To enter upon the permittee's premises for the purpose of inspecting a.
and investigating conditions relating to the pollution of, or possible pollution of, any of = the waters of the state, or for the purpose of -
investigating compliance sdth any of the terms of this permit; b.
To have access to and copy any records required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this permit;
- i To inspect any monitoring equipment or monitoring method required by c.
this permit; or d.
To sample any discharge of pollutants.
G8.
If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent standard or-prohibition) is esta-blished under Section 307(a) of the Federal Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge authorized herein and such standard
~
or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation upon such pollu-tant in this permit, this permit shall be revised or modified in accor-dance'with t'ie toxic effluent standard or prohibition and the permittee shall be notified.
Section 307(a) requires that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall promulgate effluent standards (or proh1'sition) for toxic pollutants which he has listed as such.
G9.
Nothing in this. permit shall be construed as excusing -the permittee from compliance with any applicable Federal' State, or local statutes, ordi-nanc(s, or regulations.
9 g
. g. h. e han% end tenhw%te*d*dSd5 4.46%bt*%%t
+ *4M8h 94
'e
't h M9* '4 % 84 #5 46#D* '9 8t '*
48984 A 8'893*##D""'#U'M**'***P.
0_'
I. l.
l D Il
--L--
---i
Appendix B Groundwater Test Well Data 9
B-1
i l
1 WELL #1 U
Alpha Beta F
NOa NH3
)a/Qtr ppm pCi/L pC1/L ppm ppm ppm gH 1
1:1/1
<0.1 5.2 68 72
)
1/2
< 0.1 5.1 79 81 11/3
<0.1 7.6 38 26 81/4
<0.1 11.2 27 30
)
82/1
<0.1 171 21.8 72 73 82/2
<0.1 9.7 63 94 82/3
<0.1 6.0 49 107 82/4
<0.1 11.7 81 108
.83/1
<0.1 4.0 59 72 83/2
<0.1 6.0 81 69 83/3
<0.1 4.8 60 35 3
83/4
<0.1
- 2. 9 52 46 l
84/1
<0.1 3.8 52 49 l
84/2 24.4 24.4 4.0 1
84/3 8.7 46.4 5.0 53 29 84/4
- 9. 9 91.7 4.0 85/1 11.1 55.6 4.0 71 90 8.2 l
l 85/2 12.1 29.2
- 2. 0
?
85/3 8.0 18.0 2.9 64 7.8 83/4 42.4 30.4 6.2 86/1 22.1 17.4 3.
46 20
- 7. 9 86/2 19.1 24.8-2.6 l
86/3 12.8 15.8 3
42 19
- 7. 8 86/4 52.6 23.2 5
l l
I i
l l
l I
l l
l B-2
~
~1 l
WELL #2 i
U Alpha Beta F
NO NH 3
3 Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm pH 81/1
< 0,1 14.0 34 145 1
81/2
<0.1 9.7 65 147 81/3
<0.1
- 7. 0 42 85 i
81/4
<0.1 6.5 18 85 l
82/1
< 0.1 144 18.9 34 99 82/2
< 0.1 11.6 37 114 82/3
< 0.1 7.1 33 102 82/4
<0.1 8.0 39 29 83/1
<01
- 8. 5 65 163 83/2
<0.1 3.3 57 108 83/3
<0.1
- 4. 5 18 55 83/4
<0.1 4.1 6
46 j
l 84/1
<0.1 7.6 44 60 84/2 148 77.6 7.2 1
84/3 131 61.1 7.0 43 36 i
l 84/4 111 68.1 7.0 l
1 85/1 91.1 70.1 7.5 57 82 7.2 l
85/2 281.0 87.3 4.0
{
85/3 98.3 50.3 8.4 69 7
l 85/4 86.2 38.2 5.2 1
l 86/1 22.1 17.4 3.
38 32 7.5 I
86/2 38.5 27.3 5.8 l
86/3 58.6 33.7 8
34 43
- 7. 9 86/4 34.8 30.1 4
I i
l l-B-3
WELL #3 U
Alpha Beta F
Yr/ Qty ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1
<0.1 0.92 81/2
<0.1 0.80 1
81/3
<0.1 0.54 81/4
< 0.1 0.46 82/1
<0.1 58 0.52 82/2
<0.1 0.81 82/3
<0.1 0.56 82/4
<0.1 0.40
{
83/1
<0.1 1.30 83/2
<0.1 0.65 83/3
<0.1 0.41 83/4
<0.1 0.45 84/1
<0.1 0 46 84/2 5.1 40.6 0.50 84/3 5.6 19.9 1.00 84/4 11.6 31.7 6.00 85/1 19.8 48.5 0.80 85/2 44.1 24.5 1.50 j
85/3
- 9. 2 22.4 0.50 85/4 6.6 28.2 0.48 4
86/1 3.8 17.2 0.4 86/2 8.3 27.3 0.5 86/3 6.1 41.6 0.5 86/4
- 2. 6 14.7 0.5 l
I a
l i
B-4 J
WELL #4 U
Alpha Beta F
i Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1 0.83 81/2 0.63 l
81/3 0.68 81/4 0.65 82/1 0.45 82/2 0.67 82/3 0.39 82/4
< 0.1 0.43 83/1
< 0.1 0.91 83/2
<0.1 0.37 83/3
<0.1 0.36 83/4
<0.1 0.42 84/1
<0.1 0.35 84/2 46.4 28.6 0.40 84/3
- 5. 0 26.2 0.10 84/4 7.1 26.7 0.50 85/1 6.9 29.1 0.70 85/2 9.9 33.1 2.00 85/3
- 7. 6 19.5 0.50-85/4 3.9 19.8 0.45 86/1 4.2 18.9 0.4 86/2
- 7. 3 19.4 0.4 86/3 4.8 41.8
- 1. 0 86/<
- 2. 3 13.8 0.5 B-5
______n
k
)
o WELL #5 U
Alpha Beta F
{
Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm j
i 81/1 0.51 81/2 0.28' 81/3 0.29 81/4 0.31 82/1 0.27 82/2 0.60 l
82/3 0.27 82/4
<0.1 0.41 1
83/1
<0.1 0.85 83/2
<0.1 0.40 83/3
<0.1 0.28 83/4
<0.1 0.28 84/1
<0.1 0.35 84/2 3.2 32.9 0.45 84/3 3.3 28.8 14.0 84/4
- 1. 8 5.54 0.30 85/1 7.8 38.9 0.40 85/2 1.4 10.7 0.50
)
85/3 0.2 10.4 0.30-85/4 0.03 8.8 0.21 86/1 1.6 7.4 0.2 86/2 0.23
- 6. 5 -
0.2 86/3 1.69
- 8. 9 0.7 86/4 0.05
- 7. 3
- 0. 4 I
l I
i 8-6 l
1 l
1 WELL #6 I
U Alpha Beta F
j Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L pg 81/1 0.51 81/2 0.54 j
81/3 0.25 l
81/4 0.33 82/1 0.53 82/2 0.49 82/3 0.30 82/4
< 0.1 0.34 83/1
<0.1 0.83 I
83/2
< 0.1 4.80 83/5
<0.1 0.30 83/4
<0.1 0.40
)
84/1
<0.1 0.39 84/2 8.3 19.7 0.60 84/3 3.4 9.0 0.40 84/4 4.4 27.2 0.30 85/1 8.8 23.1 0.80 85/2
- 6. 7 14.6 1.30 85/3 0.1 11.0 0.50 85/4 5.4 14.3 0.30 86/1 2.5 12.
- 0. 2 86/2 2.5 8.1 0.2 86/3 2.4 11.5 0.3 86/4 2.2 11.3
- 0. 3 B-7 l
a
s WELL #7 U
Alpha Beta F
Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1 0.39 81/2 0.28 d
81/3 0.35 81/4 0.38 82/1 0.42 82/2 0.48 l
82/3 0.31 82/4
< 0.1 0.37 83/1
< 0.1 1.53 j
83/2
< 0.1 0.50 i
83/3
<0.1 0.33 l
83/4
<0.1 0.40 l
l 84/1
<0.1 0.39 l
84/2 2.2 5.1 0.47
.)
84/3 2.6 4.5 0.70 l
j 84/4 3.1
- 5. 7 0.40 l
\\
85/1 3.2 5.0 0.70 l
l 85/2 3.9 5.9 0.70 l
85/3
- 2. 0
- 7. 0 0.30 85/4
- 2. 0 5.3 0.30 86/1
- 0. 8 4.7 0.3 86/2 0.92 5.0 0.2 i
86/3 0.27 5.9 0.2 l
86/4 0.79 4.6 0.4 l
1 l
l l
B-8
I' l
)
WELL #9 U
Alpha Beta F
N0s NH 3 Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm pH 81/1 75 193 81/2 75 129 81/3 40 112 81/4 37 90 82/1 390 47 107 82/2 64 164 82/3 53 131 82/4
<0.1 56 130 83/1
< 0.1 58 132 83/2
<0.1 67 120 83/3
<0.1 48 96 83/4
<0.1 11 95 84/1
<0.1 21 105 84/2
<0.1 84/3 109.0 47.0 86 178 84/4 85/1 17.4 73.8 94 84
- 8. 0 85/2 j
85/3 69.4 36.3 75 14 8.3 85/4 i
86/1 80.2 39.7 59 92
- 8. 2 I
86/2 86/3 49.5 44.7 1.0 68 70
- 7. 9 86/4 1
-l l
)
4 B-9 L
WELL #11-U Alpha Beta F
Yr/Qtr gE3 pCi/L
. Ci/L ppm p
81/1 0.51
=
81/2 0.46 81/3 0.38 i
81/4 0.38 82/1 0.45 82/2 0.62 82/3 0.37 82/4
<0.1 0.43 83/1
<0.1 0.62 83/2
<0.1 0.50 83/3
<0.1 0.42 83/4
<0.1 0.43 1
84/1
<0.1 0.34 84/2 1., 3
- 7. 5 0.38 84/3 2.1 5.0 0.70
]
84/4 4.3 5.0 0.40-d 85/1 3.9 9.0 1.00 85/2 4.6 9.1 0.60.
i 85/3 0.1 6.6 0.30 85/4 2.7 3.9 0.30
-j 86/1 0.3 5.1 0.3
)
86/2 02 4.9 0, 2
{
86/3 2.5 6.9 0.3 J
86/4 1.4 5.0 0.3 I
i j
1 B-10 1
.-____--___w_-___-
a WELL #12 U
Alpha Beta F
Yr/Qtr pgm pCi/L PCi/L pg 81/1 0.60 81/2 0.39 l
81/3 0.39 I
81/4 0.40 82/1 0.49 1
82/2 0.65 82/3 0.40
]
82/4
<0.1 0.33 l
t j
83/1
<0.1 0.61 83/2
<0.1 0.55 83/3
<u.1 0.35 83/4
<0.1 0.57 j
i 84/1
<0.1 0.41
)
84/2 7.1 7.0 3.00 84/3 0.8 8.3 0.60 l
84/4 1.8 5.0 0.40
{
l 85/1
- 0. 2 7.3 1.00 i
85/2 2.6 6.7 1.00 85/3 3.7 4.0 0.30 1
85/4 1.0 6.7 0.23
{
i l
86/3
- 2. 6 4.8 0.2
]
86/2 4.5
- 6. 7 0.3 l
4 8G/3 3.25 6.16
- 0. 4
)
36/4 0.15 6.7 0.3
{
\\
l 1
i I
i l
l 1
l l
l 8-11
WELL #13 U
Alpha Beta-F NO NH 3
3 Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L. ppm ppm ppm pH 81/1 0.35 2.6
-0.19 81/2 0.27
- 3. 2 0.02 81/3 0.55 2.1 0.19 81/4 0.38 1.4 0.53 82/1 0.29 2.5 0.33 82/2 0.46 3.1 0.12 82/3 0.38 1.4 0.16 82/4
<0.1 0.25 0.8 f,. 22 83/1
<0.1 0.41 3.5 0.10 83/2
<0.1 0.45 4.4 0.90 83/3
<0.1 0.39 1.6 0.35 83/4
<0.1 0.60
- 1. 3 0.67 84/1
<0.1 0.34
- 2. 8 0.11 84/2 2.1
- 0. 5 0.47 s
84/3 2.6 0.7 0.70 2.7 0.16 84/3 3.1
- 1. 9 85/1 4.3 6.9 1.00 10.2 0.74 8.0 1
85/2 3.0 5.6 0.30 85/3 1.6 3.5 0.30
- 5. 6 8.0 l
85/4 1.8
- 6. 6 0.30 86/1 1.1 4.0 0.3 5.6 1.4 8.0 86/2 2.4 4.2 0.3 86/3 1.4 4.92 0.4 3.4 1.9
- 7. 9 86/4 8-12
WELL'#14
~
U Alpha Beta F
NO3 NHs Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L pg ppm pg pH i
81/1 53 71 I
81/2 77 43 81/3 34 58 81/4 21 84 82/1 67 40 86 82/2 37 111 82/3 51 170 82/4
<0.1 65 72 83/1
<0.1 68 84 83/2
<0.1 68 85
?
83/3
<0.1 52 148 83/4
<0.1 41 71 4
i 84/1
<0.1 75 120 l
84/2 l
84/3 25.0 18.0 64 77 i
84/4 I
85/1 7.8 25.4 46 38 7.0 l
85/2 85/3 55.0 23.0 49 7.3 85/4 1
86/1 59.0 29.8 52 9
7.4 86/2 8.6/3 65 27.9 6
49 8.5 7.6 86/4 B-13
WELL #15 U
Alpha Beta F
N0s NHs Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm ppm ppm pH 81/1 80 225 81/2 65 123 81/3 39 134 81/4 22 129 82/1 230 46 101 82/2 61 123 82/3
~
41 135 82/4
<0.1 31
'160 83/1
<0.1 54 94 83/2
<0.1 51 90 83/3
< 0.1 11 69 83/4
<0.1 39 87 84/1
< 0.1 64 73 84/2 84/3 88.0 52.0 53 122 84/4 85/1 82.2 80.1 85 100
- 7. 5 85/2 3
85/3 29.0 34.0 49 7.1 85/4 i
86/1 71 46.2 56 73
- 7. 7 86/2 86/3 46.3 49.1 13 33.9 101 8
86/4 8-14 w ________
a og WELL #16 i
U Alpha Beta F
N0a NH l
3 Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/l ppm ppm ggm pH 81/1 81/2 81/3 81/4 82/1 82/2 82/3 24 43 82/4
<0.1 13 72 I
83/1
<0.1 4.1 39 83/2
<0.1 0.90 32 83/3
<0.1
- 1. 2 43 83/4
<0 1 1.5 38 84/1
<0.1 1.4 33 84/2 84/3 2.3 10.0 1.4 54 84/4 4
85/1 4.9 20.0 1.8 44 8.6 85/2 85/3 0.9 11.5 1.1
~ 8. 8 85/4 i
86/1 0.86 13.7
- 1. 4 22 8.4 i
86/2 86/3 0.8 10.4 9
- 1. 4 34
- 8. 8 86/4 j
i i
B-15
l i
WELL #19 l
U Alpha Beta F
l' Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/L pCi/L ppm 81/1 1
81/2 l
81/3 81/4 1
82/1 82/2 82/3 82/4
<0.1 0.46 83/1
<0.1 1.70 83/2
< 0.1 0.55 83/3
< 0.1 0.40 83/4
<0.1 0.55' 84/1
<0.1 0.43 84/2 4.2 5.5 3.00 84/3 2.8
- 5. 0 2.00 84/4 1.U 4.4 0.30 85/1
- 4. 9 9.3 1.50 85/2 4.1 19.1 2.00
{
85/3 4.5 19.0 0.20 1
85/4 4,0 11.5 0.24 j
)
86/1 1.2 5.3 3
86/2 2.2 8.2
- 0. 3
)
86/3 2.2 13.6 0.4 i
86/4 1.5
- 7. 2 0.4 I
i i
l l
l l
1 B-16 I
- - ~ - - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - -. _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - -
t s
?
-9 <:< r
- i.
WELL #20 U'
' Alpha; Beta' F
Yr/Qtri ppm-pCi/L pCi/L ppm
' 81/1 81/2 81/3 81/4 1.
82/1-82/2 L
82/3 82/4-
< 0.1 0.'35 83/1
<0.1 0.50 83/2-
<0.1 0.50
'83/3
<0.1 0.35 83/4
<0.1' O.41 l:
84/1
< 0.1 0.37 L
84/2
' 2. 2 4.8 1.00
. 84/3 0.8 3.2 1.00 84/4
- 1. 5 5.9 0.40 l
85/1 3.8' 11.0 1.00 85/2 2.4 19.2-0.70 85/3 2.8 8.9 0.30 e5/4 3.1 4.1 0.30
.86/1.
- 1. 7 6.2 0.3 86/2
- 3. 8
- 9. 9 0.2
- 86/3 1.7 8.4 0.5 86/4 2.8 543 0.3 1
l l
)
p i-I i
I i
B-17
. r
1 l
l r
WELL #21 U
Alpha Beta F
Yr/Qtr ppm pCi/t pCi/L ppm 81/1 81/2 81/3 81/4 82/1 82/2 82/3 82/4 83/1 83/2
< 0.1 0.80 83/3
<0.1 0.35 83/4
<0.1 0.51 84/1
< 0.1 0.41 84/2 3.2 8.2
- 1. 0 l
84/3 2.4 5.9 1.00 j
84/4
- 1. 6 7.1 0.40 85/1 4.1 17.1 0.50 85/2 2.5 24.0 0.80 85/3
- 2. 6 4.0 0.30 85/4 3.5 4.0 0.33 86/1 2.1
- 3. 7 0.2 86/2 2.4 7.6 0.3 86/3
- 1. 3 6.6 0.6 I
86/4 1.4 5.6
- 0. 3 1
1 1
1 l
l B-18
_ _ _ _ _