ML20099D756

Advises That Based on Discussion,Reasonable Assurance Exists That Health & Safety of Public Will Not Be Endangered by & That No Significant Environmental Effects Will Result from Dismantling of Facility According to Decommissioning Plan

ML20099D756
Person / Time
Site:	05000231
Issue date:	10/24/1973
From:	Muller D US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
To:	Skovholt D US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
Shared Package
ML20099D115	List: ML20099D109 ML20099D249 ML20099D432 ML20099D581 ML20099D698 ML20099D741 ML20099D756 ML20099E491 ML20099E496 ML20099E508 ML20099E541 ML20099E555 ML20099E565
References
NUDOCS 9208060320
Download: ML20099D756 (7)

Text

' j,J.-

jj OCT 2 4 1973 p

Docket No. 50-231' j

~0. 'Skovholt,' Assistant Director for Operating Reactors L t'

ENVIRONIENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE SEFOR (SOUTH EAST FAST OXIDE REACTOR) DECOMIS$10HING PLAN OF GENERAL ELECTRIC

-Introduction

,. f!?

L,

-General Electric,-(GE),' on behalf of itself and Southwest Atomic Energy

~

M Associates (SAEA), applied for _ authority to dismantle the SEFOR facility E

according-to their SEFOR Decomeissioning Plan in their letter of April-17, l Mll 1973. The decommissioning plan proposes to render the reactor pemanently inoperable _using appropriate and safe ndans. GE and SAEA further propose 1 G' G

to voluntarily surrender the current liennse under 10 CFR 50.to possess O

< but not operate SEFOR. The State Board of Health of Arkansas would then im assume regulatory _ control over the-remair.ing property at the site because as an agreement States Arkansas has control over by-product, source, and i

Q,m.

quantities of special nuclear material insufficient to form a critical

~

1 i.

v mass.

.('

LSEFOR Facility -

,,, yr

_ The SEFOR Facility is? located two miles east of Strickley in Washington

\\

County, Arkansas... The site consists of a:620 acre tract of land having a.

minimum exclusion distance of 0.4 miles. The buildings of the facility are l-contained inside an exclusion fenced area of less than two_ acres (-1.8 acms) a[

-located:neer the center of-the 620 acm tract. Physical intrusion inside.

1 the exclusion area by1 unauthorized persons is monitored-by an alarm systen, g

i.m n/M '

The SEFOR facility is at present completely deactivated and secured. All -'

bd c reactor fuel,-_ sodium..and NaK have' been removd from the site. The primary and secondary sodium cooling systems have tet.. filled with dry nitrogen gas-which is maintained at positive' pressure. Neither_ gaseous nor liquid radio-active ~ noterials are present on the~ site. Activated by-product materials in solid form consisting-of acthated steel, boron carbide. etc. are stored m

in the refueling cell.which.is inside the inner containment. - The calculated -

quantities of. radioactive material stored in the SEFOR refueling cells as These activity calcu-

.of October 1,'1973, is given in Table I (enclosed).

L

-lations are based on those' given in: Proposed Change No.15 to Technical Specifications of License DR-15 as acciosed. in letter ' dated October 31, 1972.

L~

None of the activated materials are in a liquid, gaseous, powder, or airborne L

..A ENCLOSURE 2

^()

9208060320 920716 PDR ORG NRRB PDR' a.

w

~

'~ ~

,.~

D. Skovholt OCT 2 4 1973 C.

fom. No natural mechanisms have been identified which could lead to the disbursal of the solid radioactive material from its present storage location.

As noted earlier, all activated material is located within the inner contairment. Access to the inner contairr,ent by unauthorized personnel would require disabling the intrusion alarm and forcible entry through three locked access doors to reach the inner contatment space. Even after forcible entry into the inner containment region, it would require the use of special tools such as a cutting torch or other hetYy equipment 1"/""l to forcibly remove steel structures in order to penetrate through to the stored radioactive material. An alarm system which indicates entry through either the fence or any locked door will initiate a telephone call to the

'F SEFOR Site Representative (local person under contract), and if he is not

[

avsilable, the Washington County Sheriff's Office will receive a call. The b{

alarm systems for unauthorized entry are fail-safe in the sense that a power failure will initiate an alam. The highest radiation level in any ~

area that can be accessed by breaking locks and security alarms, but not removing welded structure is 0.5 mR/hr. There is one location on a sodium n

~

drain tank that had a local contact reading of 0.8 mR/hr. No detectable s

(

alpha contamination is present in any accessible areas of the facility or G

in the inaccessible refueling cell. Radiation levels, including natural background, range from 0.02 to 0.04 mR/hr. at the fence and from 0.02 to

{

0.05 mR/hr. at the outside walls of the building.

y h.,

Decomissioning P1an lI The reactor will be rendered inoperable by evacuation of the present nitrogen j.

gas from and admission of air into the prinary coolant system. 16 radio-y "'

activity is expected to be exhausted with the nitrogen gas since no radio-H active gases or liquids are present in the system. The gas will nevertheless be monitored such that the exhausted activity never exceeds 10 times background j,J activity. The release of any activity during this process will also be less ni than the primary Technical Specification Release Limit of SEFOR as licensed for operation. The r.cisture in the admitted air will react with any residual sodlun which exists in the solid state as a thin film on the walls of system i

or in pockets which could not be drained (~630 uci of Na-22 estimated). The HaOH resulting from this react. ion introduces the potential for stress corrosion cracking of the system components. Such corrosion cracking could eliminate

~

the pressure contairnent capability of the system. However, no pressure containment capability is required since the system will remain at akbient temperature in an unpressurized state. The amount cf hydrogan fomed in the system (-l%) will be less than the minimum explosive limit (-4.1% in normal air) and will be in oxygen depleted air due to reaction with sojiun.

ENCLOSURE 2

~

(j

i

' ' ' ~

._r'-

9...

m,

\\

D. Skovholt OCT 2 4 1973 l

[-

1-[

Deconmissioning Impact The health and afety of the public will not be endangered and no significant environmental impact is expected to result from implementation of the proposed decornf:1foning plan. These conclusions are based"on the following considerations.

1.

The SEFOR facility is located in a remote area where it is not a public n'uisance.

2.

The small area of the facility occupied by buildings has been f!!""'

adequately fenced with the building locked and provided with an alarm system to prevent access by unauthorized permns. Radiation

.(F levels at the fence as well as the edge of the _buildleg are within l

the requirements of 10 rJR 20.105. "Permissibla levels of radiation i jy

-in unrestricted areas".

,(*

3.

In the highly unlikely event that someone should gain unauthorized access into the facility buildings, a maximsu exposure of 5 mR might

}l p be possible for a 10 hour1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> period.

/-

4.

There is no detectable alpha contamination in accessible areas of

~

facility.

("

5.

All reactor fuel has been removed from tte sita, y

6.

The coolant sodium and NaK have been removed frem the site,

- @3 l

'il j 7.. No radioactive gases or liquids are present in the reactor cooling w'

system.

[

8.

hu release of Na-22 to the environment is-expected during evacuation C

of N2 prior te introduction of air into the cooling system. (The

. evacuation of dry N9 to environment will be monitored to ensure that "

_any released activity does not exceed 10 times bac ground activity.)-

k

+u

~

p Alternatives to the Proposed Plan 1.

Maintain Present System with Inert Gas:

The system has been disman*. led to the extent that, for practical l~

purposes, it cannot be returned to an operating reactor. The cost l-of maintaining inerting gas in the systen appears unnecessary and l.

it is desirable to allow ambient air int.o the system under controlled conditions rather than maintain the potential for such to occur at some time in the future without control by the applicant.

ENCLOSURE 2

/,.)

T

.g.

T N

w g*-

J v

e-4

Cf 4

C. 7 T : : ~

' T p :2..

.=

j.3.

1-g --

.i-D. Skovholt

.4 -

OCT 2 4 1973 i

f:

2.

Removal of Structures and Return of Land to Original Conditions:

D The small-amount of land (<2 acr-*) enclosed by the exclusion fence is only a small percentage (<0

.) of the original site area and represents an insignificant -

antage of similar land surroundihg i

the site. The value of these two acres of land is estimated to be 8

c less than $1,000. The removal of structures and restoration of this land-to agriculture would cost hundreds of thousand dollars and is not considered' economically worthwhile at this tim 6.

, ~

conclusion sw, '

'O

-The-staff concludes from the above facts and discussion that there is

.g.

reasonable. assurance that the health and safety of the pubite will not 6 'l be endangered by and that no-significant environmental effects will result pl from dismantling the facility according to the SEFOR deconcissioning plan

. submitted by General Electric. Further, the staff concludes that a W

dismantling order granting authority to General Electric to dismantle the--

SEFOR facility is not a major Federal' action significantly affecting the 4]

quality of the envinxinent.

'h original signed by

, A./

Daniel R. Muller

- {- -

Daniel R. !%11er, Assistant Director for Environmental Projects te L..

Directorate of Licensing F

Enclosure:

i-I Table I-lh.

~ Distribution:

h i

. Docket File

..p L Reading.

- is..

-RPA cading ifEP-3 Jeading i

EP-3 File-RSchemel,.L:0R-l~

PErickson,.L:0R DRMul1er, L:EP

BJYoungblood, L:EP-3 i

DRNelson, L:EP-3 l

.GK0 icker, L:EP-2 GWKnighton, L:EP-1 WHRegan,.L:EP-4 OGC v'

L:EP-3 L:EP-3 L:EP H Ext. 7241 l.

v-

' DRNelson: age -BJYoungblood DRMuller

'10/23/73.

10/ /73 10/ /73 ENCLOSURE 2

-v - --

w

..-..-;--..,...~....u.__

t, + :......,...

..i, s, 4

,,c s Table I-

.i.

f Total Activity (As of October 1, 1973)

(

~

Isotole Activity (Ci)

S7.

'2860 co

+,--

S8 322

'Co mnw 60 2280 ih,! 'nts Co

',i b

F 54.

511

.l

.Mr 4

In:{

I, a.!-

65 2

o Zn J!f:

4 TOTAL-5.975

+

I

./

v,no,

{','

lb g' -

k.

l ?i.'.(,,.

la. ; t

-- r jet *. -

1, 9 -.

g,

'l }' ' t

-tim

.:ll!!j i tillhu

.(

8 ENCLOSURE 2

7-i I

s..

.a een, -

_ eeen

-w.,

w. 3w -... % -

t t

+

'(

j, t,

i g

\\

NEGATIVE DETERMINATION REGARDING DECOMMISSIONING OF THE SOUTH EAST p

FAST OXIDE REACTOR (SEFOR)

.j General Electric, on behalf of itself and Southwest Atomic Energy Associates, applied for authority to dismantle the South East Fast Oxide Reactor (SEFOR) facility. The SEFOR facility is located in Washington County, Arkansas. The site consists of a 620 acre # -

tract of land. The buildings of the facility are contained inside an exclusion fenced area of less than two acres located near the center of the tract.

Physical intrusion inside the exclusion area by unauthorized persons is monitored by an alam system.

The decomissioning plan proposes to render the reactor permanently

?"-

inoperable using appropriate and safe means. The State Board of Health of Arkansas will then assume regulatory control over the 4'

remaining property at the site because as an agreement State, Arkansas has control over by-product, source, and quantities of special nuclear material insufficient to form a critical mass, wb The SEFOR facility is at present completely deactivated and secured.

~

All reactor fuel, sodium, and NaK have been removed from the site.

D Neither gaseous nor liquid radioactive materials are present on the site. Activated by-product materials, about 6000 curies consisting almost entirely of Cocalt 57 and Cobalt 60, in solid form, consisting 3

of activated steel, boron carbide, etc., are stored in the refueling s

cell which is inside the containment.

C The AEC staff decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement

~-

covering the decomissioning of SEFOR since the health and safety of the public will not be endangered and no significant environmental iP.

impact is expected to result from implementation of the proposed decommissioning plan.'

These conclusions are based in part on the

~

following considerations: the SEFOR facility is located in a remote I N area where is it not a public nuisance; the small area of the facility

- f occupied by buildings has been adequately fenced and the building locked an provided with an alam system to prevent access by G

unauthorized persons; in the highly unlikely event that someone should gain unauthorized access into the facility buildings, the maximum exposure he could receive would be 12 mR in any 24-hour period; all reactor fuel, coolant todium and NaK has been removed from the site.

ENCLOSURE 3 g

l

-