DoE/EA-0333
August,
1988
DECONTAMINATION AND DECOMMISSIONINGFACILITY
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT
FEED MATERIALS ~ODUCTION CENTER
FERNALD,OHIO
OAK RIDGE=RAmONS
OFFICE
DepatimntofEnergy
OX Rdge,Tennessee
-——.
.——
—-—. —-—
—
.
.
.
...
-.—.
.--_. -_—
— —.———
.
.
Environmental Assessment
Decontamination
and
Decommissioning Facility
.. -
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ..
....
_.”
_..,
.
..-
2.
.-—
——
—-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-..
—...
———--
TABLEOF CONTENTS
PAGE
iv
LIST oF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
v
1.0 PURPOSEAND NEED FOR ACTION
OF PROPOSEDACTIONAND ALTERNATIVES
2.0 DESCRIPTION
2-1
2-1
2.1 PROPOSEDACTION
2.1.1 Site Preparation
2-2
2.1.2 PhysicalDescription
2-5
2.1.3 ProcessDescription
2-g
2.1.3.1 Incoming’
Stagingand Equipment
BreakdownArea
2.1.3.2 WaterWash Area
2.1.3.3 Freon/Ultrasonic
Area
2.1.3.4 AbrasiveGrit Blast
2.1.3.5 StagingOut Area
2.1.4 Waste HandlingSystems
2.1.5 Health,Safetyand Environmental
Quality
ControlPrograms
2.2 DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSEDALTERNATIVES
2-1o
2-11
2-12
2-13
2-14
2-14
2-16
2-lg
2.2.1 Upgradethe ExistingD&D Facility
2-lg
2.2.2 TransportContaminated
MaterialOff Site
for Disposal
2-20
2.2.3 No Action
2-20
OF THE AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT
3.0 DESCRIPTION
3-1
3.1 TOPOGRAPHY
3-1
3.2 GEOLOGYAND SOILS
3-1
3.3 GROUNDWATERHYDROLOGYAND WATERQUALITY
3.4 SURFACEWATERHYDROLOGYAND WATERQUALITY
3-3
3-5
3-6
3.5 CLIMATE
3.6 AIR QUALITY =
3-8
WILDLIFE,AND AQUATICECOSYSTEMS
3.7 VEGETATION,
3.7.1 Vegetation
!-
1-1
3-11
3-11
3.7.2 Wildlife
3-14
3.7.3 AquaticEcosystems
3-15
3.7.4 Threatenedand EndangeredSpecies
3-17
3.8 CULTURALRESOURCES
3-17
3.9 DEMOGRAPHYAND LAND USE
PARAMETERS
3.10OTHERENVIRONMENTAL
3-lg
-.
MIS:6402-TofC
i
3-20
TABLEOF CONTENTS
(Continued
)
PAGE
CONSEQUENCES
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL
4-1
4.1 ASSESSMENTBASISAND METHODOLOGY
4-1
4.1.1 Characterization
of PotentialContaminants
4-1
4.1.2 Dose AssessmentMethodology
4-3
4.2 PROPOSEDACTIONROUTINEOPERATIONALCHARACTERISTICS
4-4
4.2.1 Nonradiological
Releasesto Air
4-4
4.2.2 Radiological
Releasesto Air
4-6
4.2.3 Radiological
and Nonradiological
Releasesto Land
4-7
4.2.4 Releasesto SurfaceWater
4-8
4.3 ROUTINEOPERATIONALEXPOSURERESULTINGFROM PROPOSEDACTION
4.3.1 Radiological
Exposureto Workers
4-9
4-9
4.3.2 Radiological
Exposureto the Public
4-1o
4.3.3 HealthImpactsResultingfrom RoutineExposure
4.3.4 EcologicalImpacts
4-12
4-12
4.3.5 Impactsfrom CriteriaPollutants
4-12
4.3.6 Nonradiological
Occupational
Healthand Safety
4-13
4.3.7 Impactson OtherEnvironmental
Parmeters
4.4 POTENTIALACCIDENTALEXPOSUREAND IMPACTSRESULTING
FROM THE PROPOSEDACTION
4-13
4-13
4.4.1 ReleaseScenarios
4-15
4.4.2 Radiological
ExposuresResultingfrom Accidents
4-17
4.4.3 HealthImpactsResultingfrom AccidentalExposures
4-lg
4.4.4 EcologicalEffectsof Accidents
4-19
4.5 EVALUATIONOFALTERNATIVES
4-lg
4.5.1 Upgra~ethe PresentD&D Facility
4-20
4.5.2 TransportContaminated
MaterialOff Site
for Disposal
4-21
4.5.3 No Action
4-21
4.6 COMPARISONOF-ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
4-21
5.0 MITIGATIONMEASURES
5-1
6.0 PERSONSAND ORGANIZATIONS
CONSULTED
6-1
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
APPENDIXA - DOSE ASSESSMENTMETHODOLOGY
MIS:6402-TofC
iA
-—.
..
.
...
. .. ——.-
—’ --
.-
—.--—-
. .. —-—
. .._-
—
______
..
,,
LIST OF T~LES
TITLE
TABLENO.
Decontamination
Processesfor the Proposed
Decontamination
and Decommissioning
Facility
2-1
Uraniu Concentrations
in Soil,Five-YearAverage
3-2
Radionuclide
Five-YearAverageConcentration
4-1
Emissions
AirborneConcentrations
- Nonradiological
..
4-2
D&D FacilityAnnualAverageReleasesDuringRoutine
Operations
4-3
MaximumAnnualAverageAir Concentration
of RadionuclidesOff Site Due to DuringRoutineOperationof
the ProposedD&D Facility
4-4
MaximumSurfaceDepositionand SurfaceWater
Concentrations
From 25 Yearsof RoutineOperations
4-5
RadiationExposuresFrom RoutineOperations
4-6
Consequences
of PostulatedAccidents
4-7
Peak Air Concentration
and TotalGroundDepositionfor
Accidents
4-8
Comparisonof Carcinogenic
and GeneticRisk From
Radiological
Exposure
..
..
..
—.
MIS:6402-TofC
iB
-..
.
LIST OF FIGU~S
FIGURENO.
TITLE
1-1
FeedMaterialsProductionCenterRegionaland Land
LocationMap
1-2
Feed MaterialsProductionCenterDetailedLocationMap
2-1
ProposedDecontamination
and Decommissioning
Building
Locationon FMPC Site
2-2
FloorPlan for ProposedDecontamination
and
Decommissioning
Building
3-1
Windrosefor GreaterCincinnatiInternational
Airport
(1958-1962,1970-1974)
Superimposed
on FMPC Site
3-2
VegetationTypesOccurringat FMPC PlantSite
3-3
Archaeological
and HistoricSiteson NationalRegister
of HistoricPlaces!Jithin
EightKilometersof FMPC
MIS:6402-TofC
iC
,-.,
1.0 PURPOSEAND NEED FOR ACTION
The Feed MaterialsProductionCenter (FMPC)is a U.S. Departmentof Energy
(DOE)uraniummetal productionfacilitylocatedon a 425-hectaresite”near
Fernald,Ohio,about 33 kilometersnorthwestof downtownCincinnati(Figure
l-l). Most of the site is locatedwithinHamiltonCounty,althoughapproximately81 hectaresare situatedin ButlerCounty. The villagesof Fernald,
New Baltimore,Ross,and Shandonare all locatedwithina few kilometersof
the plant.
Currentlyundermanagementof the Westinghouse
MaterialsCompanyof Ohio
(WMCO);the FMPC has been in operationsince 1954. It consistsof nine
separateproductionplantsand 47 suPPortbuildingsand facilities~including
radioactive
waste treatmentand storagefacilities.The primarymissionof
the FMPC is the productionof purifiedurani~ metaland uranim compoundsfor
use at otherDOE defensefacilities. A smallmount of thoriumprocessinghas
also been conductedat the FMPC.
Operationsat the FMPC resultin radioactivecontamination
of tools,scrap
materials,equipmentand vehiclesused in materialstransport. Itemsrequiring decontamination
rangefrom smallhand toolsto largepiecesof machinery
and bulk containersused for transporting
uranim-bearingpowders. At the
and decommissioning
(D&D)facility
presenttime,only a smalldecontamination
is in operationat the FMPC. The existingfacilitywas constructedin the
mid-1950’sand utilizestechnologies,
such as nitricacid bathsand lowpressuresteam-cleaning,
whichhave becomeoutdated. The existingfacilityis
inadequateto handlecurrentand futureoperationalneeds in an environmentallyacceptablemanner. In recognitionof the inadequacyof the existing
facilityand in anticipationof expandedfuturerequirements,
the DOE proposes
to constructa new D&D facilityat the FMPC as part of the Environmental,
Healthand SafetyImprovements
project(87-D-159).The prop~sedlocationfor
thisnew facilityis shownon Figure 1-2.
The proposedfacilityis intendedto providefor a varietyof cleaningand
decontamination
processes. The typesof ~terials expectedto be treatedin
the facilityincludethe following:
MIS:6402-lC
1-1
I
II
M’;. CARMEL
I
61
u.
Fl..0 -
.
[$ DoovEN”
X-Y:
I-?*.
CINCINNATI
.
LOOATION DIAGRAM
FIGURE 1-1
FEED MATERIALSPRODUCTION CENTER
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
LOCATON MAP
PREPARED FOR
3
9 KIlomators
SCALE
FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
-.
..
—
!
I
0 I
[’
0
I
!
d AMS-3
$
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
3LA~T
0
0
I
i
39°17’23”
1
SCALE
“o
NOTE:
COORDINATES AT CENTER OF PRODUCTION AREA:
LONUTUDE 84* 4f 19., LATITUDE 39°17” 58*
900
Meters
FIGURE
1-2
FEED MATERIALSPRODWTION CENTER
LEGEND
SECURITY FENCE
PROPERTY LINE FENCE
GRID UNE
-0.0—
e
AMS-5
AIR QUAUTY MONITOR
SITES
DETAILED LO@TION MAP
PREPARED FOR
FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
●
●
●
●
●
sevenmillionkilograms
Contaminated
Scrap Metal - Approximately
of contaminated
scrapmetal will be generatedthroughplanned
demolitionprojectsat the FMPC. A portionof this scrapwill be
classifiedas low-levelradioactivewasteand disposedof off
site. The remainderwill includeboth recyclableand nonrecyclablematerialswhichwill be treatedat the proposedD&D
facility.
Vehicles- Normaloperationsat the FMPC includeuse of a variety
of vehiclesthat includeforklifttrucks,automobilesand transport trucks,as well as heavy construction
equipment. Uranium
productsand suppliesare transportedto and from the site via
flatbedand tractor-trailer
vehicles. The potentialexistsfor
any of thesevehiclesto becomecontaminated.These vehicles
requireperiodicdecontamination
to reduceoccupational
doses to
personnelperformingvehiclemaintenance.
ReusableEquipment- Reusableequipmentrangingin size from hand
toolsand smallmotorsto largemachineswill requiredecontamination. Many small itemscan be decontaminated
simultaneously
as
a load. Largerequipment(weighingmore than 2,700kilogramsor
greaterthan 3.7 by 2.4 by 1.8 metersin dimension)will be
brokendown into smallerpiecesor decontaminated
in the proposed
D&D facilityvehicledecontamination
station.
T-Hoppers- T-hoppersare largebulk containersused for
transporting
uranium-bearing
powdersto the FMPC from the DOE’s
Puducah,Kentuckyand Hanford,Washingtonsites. FMPC is responsiblefor decontamination
and repairof each of 434 T-hoppers
prior to off-siteshipment. The T-hoppersare on a three-year
refurbishment
cycle. Currently,approximately
200 hoppers
labeled“out-of-service”
are awaitingdecontamination
and repair.
FurnacePots - FMPC productionprocessesutilizefurnacepots
which becomecontaminated
duringnormaloperationsand may suffer
erosionwhen contactedby moltenuraniummetal. Contamination
consistsof tightlyadheringunconvertedgreensalt(uranium
tetraflouride)
and metallicuraniumthat becomesfused to furnace
pot surfaces. An estimated400 such pots per year requiredecontaminationprior to off-siterefurbishment
or disposalas scrap.
In summary,there is a.criticalneed at the FMPC to replacethe existing
inadequateD&D facilitywith a totallynew facilityofferinggreatlyenlarged
capacityand efficiency. The amountof newly generatedscrapmetal,in addition to vehicles,equipment,T-hoppers,and furnacepots,cannotbe accommodatedby the existingD&D facility. The proposednew facilitywill provide
for D&D needs projectedover the next 25 years. Once the operationalcapability of the new facilityhas been proven,the existingD&D facilitywill be
decommissioned
and evaluatedfor alternativeuses.
MIS:6402-lC
1-4
“=
2.0 DESCRIPTIONOF PROPOSEDACTIONAND MTERNATIVES
This sectiondiscussesthe proposedactionand alternativeactionswhich
constitutedecontamination
and decommissioning
activitiesrequiredat the FMPC
site. The proposedactionis to:
Constructa new D&D facilityon a previouslyunusedtractof land within
the FMPC processarea,at the northeastcornerof the FMPC. The new
facilitywill have the capacityto decontaminate
variousitemsincluding
vehicles,furnacepots,T-hoppers,largeequipment,and scrap. The
designwill accommodatethe D&D needs associatedwith contaminated
process equipmentand vehicles,and newly generatedscrapresultingfrom
ongoingand futureenvironmental
improvementprojects. The facilityis
intendedto utilizestate-of-the-industry,
commercially
available
technologyin an environmentally
safe manner (A. M. Kinney,1988).
consideredare:
Otheralternatives
Upgradethe technologyof the existingD&D facilityto accommodatesite
process/equipment
decontamination
requirements
and to upgradefacility
exhaustfiltrationand contamination
control.
Ship contaminated
materialoff site for disposalas low-levelradioactivewastewithoutdecontamination
or recyclingof reusablematerial.
No Action[an alternativewhichmust be addressedin all National
Environmental
PolicyAct (NEPA)documentation].This alternativewould
providefor continuedoperationof the existingD&D facility.
The overallpurposeof this sectionis to describethe proposedactionand
alternatives
in sufficientdetailto allow for a reasonedcomparativeevaluationof possibleimpacts. The evaluationof impactsis containedin Section
4.0.
2.1
PROPOSEDACTION
The preferredalternativeis to constructa new D&D facilitywhichwill
adequatelymeet FMPC needs for decontamination
of: toolsand auxiliary
equipment(e.g.,vehicles)for recycle,maintenanceor resale;production
equipmentto meet processspecifications;
and scrapmaterialto meet criteria
for unrestricted
use to allow recyclingor sale. Radioactive
contamination
presenton such equipmentand articlesis made up of surfaceresidueprimarily
consistingof urani~ metal or uranim compounds. Other radioactive
materials
.=.
presentare thoriumand thorim compounds,traces(lessthan ten partsper
MIS:6402-2C
2-1
billionby weight)of plutoniumin the total residue,and tracesof pitchblendeore materials(Click,1987). The physicalform of this residual
contamination
will range from looselyadheringto tightlybondedand fused.
The designbasisfor of the new D&D facilityis to process(Tope,1987):
●,
●
●
272,000kilogramsof currentlygeneratedconstruction
scrapmetal per
year,
50 vehiclesper year includingtrailers,tractors,forklifts,cars,
trucks,and heavy equipment,
1,000piecesof reusableequipmentper year,
●
T-Hoppersat the rate of two to threeper day, and
●
400 furnacepots per year.
Decontamination
processesto be utilizedin the new facilityconsistof dry
abrasiveblasting,high and ultra-highpressurizedwater spray,and freon/
ultrasoniccleaning. The typesof processesto be used and theirspecific
applications
are summarizedin Table 2-1. These processeshave been identiflexible,and consistentwith FMPC safetyand
fied as beingcost-effective,
environmental
protectionrequirements.
2.1.1 Site Preparation
The site for the proposednew D&D facilityis relativelyflat,previously
unused,and withinthe fencedproductionarea at the northeastside of the
FMPC. The locationof the D&D facilityin relationto its neighboringbuildings is shown in Figure2-1. Surfacewater drainsto existingcatchbasins
and inletsconnectedto the plant storm sewer. Vegetationconsistsof mowed
grasses. Site developmentactivitieswould consistof gradingand road
construction
activitie~.
Priorto construction,
soils in the disturbedarea will be sampledand
analyzedfor uraniumcontamination.mere requiredby FMPC operationalprocedures,any soil determinedto be contaminated
will be strippedand boxedfor
disposalas low-levelwaste.
MIS:6402-2C
2-2
— —.,
—,I
I
1
I
TABLE 2-1
DECONTNINATIONPROCESSESFOR TNE PROPOSEDDECONTWINATIONAND DECNISSIONING FACILITY
DRY ABRASIVEBLAST
PRESSURIZEDWATERSPRAY
FREON/ULTRASONIC
CLEANING
Type of
Decontamination
Fixed: film and base
metal removal
Fixed and smearable: film
and base metal removal
Smearable:loosely
adheringfilms
Application.
RecoverableScrap Metal
FurnacePots
Vehicles
T-hoppers
ReusableEquipment
FurnacePots
RecoverableScrap Metal
ReusableEquipment
ElectricalEquipment
MIS:6402-T2-1
1
. .
I
PROPOSED
DECONTAMINATION
&
DECOMMISS1ONING
FACILITY
2
EXISTING ~
DECONTAMINATION
DECOMMISSIONING
FAC1LITY
c
❑
>c
+
STORAGE
>c
?1
c
&
....
. ...:
E STREET
EXTENSION
v ..:
Y
PROPANE
STORAGE
‘
WAREHOUSE
&l
T
AREA
I
SPECIAL
PRODUCTS PLANT
MECHANICAL
SHOP
& STOREROOM
t
u
PLANT 8
i
1
RECOVERY
Q
4
GREENSALT
PLANT
METALS
PRODUCTION
PLANT
METALS
FABRICATING PLANT
t
PI LOT
PLANT
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
m
.....................
..........
‘o”’=I
Not to Scale
AREAS TO BE PAVED
FIGURE 2-1
PROPOSED
DECONTAMINAnON
AND DECOMMISSIONING
BUILDING LOCATION
ON FMPC SITE
PREPARED FOR
FERNALD
ENVIRONMENTAL
U. S.. DEPARTMENT
ASSESSMENT
OF ENERGY
Topsoilwill be strippedand stockpiledand the area will be roughgraded.
The finalgradingwill be performedso as to channelstormrunoffto the
existingstormwater drainagesystemat the FMpC. A totalof 6,325square
meterswill be graded includingroads,undergroundutilities,security
silt fences,straw
fencing,apronsand buildingarea. Duringconstruction,
and othererosioncontrolmeasureswill be employed. Topsoilwill be replaced
and unpaveddisturbedareaswill be revegetated
or coveredwith gravelafter
construction
activitiesare complete.
The roadsand pavedapronsfor the new facilityhave been locatedto
facilitatethe desiredtrafficmovementand work flow in the vicinityof the
D&D facility. Incomingwork will enterfrom the northside of the new
facilityand decontaminated
materialwill leavefrom the southside.
Two existingroadswill be extendedas shown in Figure2-1. The “E” street
(north-south)
extensionwill requirepavingof approximately
140metersof
road six meterswide. An extensionfrom “E” streetaroundthe west side of
the D&D site will requirethe pavingof approximately
55 metersof road six
meterswide. Pavingwill consistof 7.5 centimetersof asphaltover a 25centimeteraggregatebase.
Pavedapronswill be constructedas shownin Figure2-1 northand southof the
500 squaremeterswill be paved
D&D facility. A totalarea of approximately
in the samemanneras specifiedfor roads.
2.1.2 PhysicalDescription
The new D&D facilitywill be a rigidmetalshellstructuralsteelframe
buildingconstructedon a concreteslab. The facilitywill occupyapproximately
743
squaremetersand includes: an administrative
area,changerooms,
electricalroom,a processarea,a stagingout area,pump roomand an equipment platform. Fire protectioncoveragewill be providedthroughoutthe
entirefacilitywith an automaticsprinklersystemdesignedin accordancewith
NFPA 13 for ordinaryhazardoccupancy. A-drysystemwill be utilizedin the
truckstagingarea and a wet systemwill be utilizedthroughoutthe remainder
of the facility. The proposedfloorplan for the buildingis shownin Figure
2-2.
2-5
MIS:6402-2C
..
~250m
r
H----~A-lA.’’l
...=
BLACKTOP>
:.~.::.:.:.:
:::::::::::::::
,.....
n
POTENTIA’UY
CONTAMINATED
ARE*
FWRE
2-2
FLOOR PLAN FOR
PROPOSED DECONTAMINATION
Am DECOMMISSIONING B~LDING
N
PREPARED FOR
FERNALD ENVIRONMENT ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERW
\
The administrative
area will containan office,a healthphysicscounting
laboratory~
a Personnelbreak room~and restrooms.This sectionof the
buildingwill remain“clean”(freefrom potentialradioactivecontamination
area has about’66
associatedwith the processarea). The administrative
squaremetersof floorspace. The changeroomscontainshowers,toilets,
lavatoriesand lockersand have about 49 squaremetersof floorspace. The
electricalroomhas about 25 squaremetersof floorspace.
The processarea will house the materialhandlingoperations,the decontaminationprocessstations,the.waterwash area,and auxiliaryequipment. This
354-square-meter
area will be consideredpotentiallycontaminated.Adjacent
to the processarea will be the pump room and stagingout area for equipment
and materialsleavingthe facility. Thus,work will proceedthroughthe process area fromnorth to south. The stagingout area and pump room will occupy
233 squaremeters. The secondfloorof the building(equipment
approximately
platform)will houseprocessexhaustsystemequipmentand the heatingand
ventilationequipment. The equipmentplatformwill have an area of 228 square
metersand is considered“clean”becauseradioactivecontamination
will be
internallyconfinedwithinthe processexhaustsystem.
Radiological
monitoringwithinthe facilitywill consistof: radiation
surveyingof equipmentand materialsto be decontaminated;
monitoringof personnelhavingaccess to the processarea;constantair monitoringwithinthe
breakdownarea,grit blast room and stagingout area;and stackeffluent
monitoring.
Criticality
monitorsare requiredin any area where 700-grms U-235may be
present(DOE,1986a). Since this couldbe the case for the D&D facility,
criticality
monitoring-instrumentation
will also be provided. The FMPC plant
is designedto processuraniummaterialsenrichedup to 19.99weightpercent
U-235. Basedon 1,000assaysof all processstreams,an averageof 85 percent
of uraniummaterialprocessedis actuallydepleteduranium,with U-235enrichment 0.2 percentor less.Most of the remaining15 percentof uraniummaterial
processedat the FMPC is not enrichedto levelsgreaterthan two percentU-235
(Click,1987). In practice,contamination
presenton all equipmentand scrap
to be processedthroughthe D&D facilitywouldbe sampledand analyzedto
MIS:6402-2C
2-7
——
determineU-235 enrichmentlevelprior to transferto the D&D area. Any
materialswith U-235 levelshigh enoughto PotentiallyPose a criticality
hazardwill be batch processedthroughthe facility. In such instances,
specialproceduresand criticalitysafe equipmentmay be employedas dictated
by criticalityanalysesto be performedfor this facilityas part of the Final
SafetyAnalysisReportand OperationalSafetyReport.
The new D&D facilityis intendedto controlradioactivecontamination
through
a combinationof designfeaturesand operationalprocedures.All surfaces
withinpotentiallycontaminated
portionsof the facilityare proposedto have
a polyurethane
or epoxyfinishto facilitatedecontamination.Routine
inspectionand preventative
maintenancewill be implemented
to assurethat the
integrityof protectivefinishesis maintained. Changingroomsfor worker
personnel,with a combinedarea of 49 squaremeters,will separatethe clean
Personnel
administrative
area from the potentiallycontaminated
processarea.
..
will exit from the processarea throughthe changeroomswhereradiological
will be furthercontrolled
monitoringwill occur. The spreadof contamination
by the facilityventilationsystemand spentwater collectionsystem(2.1.4
WasteHandlingSystems).
The processarea will be maintainedat a negativepressure,with air flow from
areasof lowercontamination
potential(thestagingout area and equipment
breakdownarea) to areasof highercontamination
potential(thedecontamination processstationsand waterwash area). Air flow throughthe processarea
to the processair
will be “once through,”carryingairbornecontamination
exhaustsystem. The processair exhaustsystemwill consistof two parallel
trainsof MediumEfficiencyParticulateAir (MEPA)filtersand High Efficiency
ParticulateAir HEPA) filters. [Thesefiltersare capableof removingat
percentof airborneparticleswith a diameter
least95 percentand 99-.g7
greaterthan 0.3 microns,respectively.]The totalprocessair flow rate will
be 5.9 cubicmetersper secondto the buildingstack.
Equipmentplatformair will be suppliedthroughseparateintakelouversand
normallyexhaustto the stackbypassingthe filters. When filtersor the
abrasive-grit
blast area are being cleaned,creatinga potentialfor release
of contamination
to the equipmentplatform,equipmentplatformexhaustair
MIs:6402-2C
2-8
..
.
will be routedthroughthe MEPA and HEPA filters. The equipmentplatform
exhaustwill vary with seasonalventilationrequirements,
with exhaustflow
ratesrangingfrom zero to 7.3 cubicmetersper second. The administrative
area of the facilitywill have a completelyindependent
ventilation
system.
The spentwater collectionsystemwill consistof a seriesof trenchesand
pipingleadingto a centralcollectionsump. Spentwatergeneratedin the
processarea will be filteredto removeradioactive
particulate. The filtratewill be batch transferred
to the FMPC GeneralSump. It is anticipated
that less than 18,000litersof contaminated
waterper day will be generated
at the D&D facility. FMPC processknowledgeabout the originof contaminated
materialswill be used to identifypotentialcontributions
to the liquidwaste
streamwhichmay containchemicalconstituents
regulatedunderthe Resource
Conservation
and RecoveryAct (RCRA)’or the ToxicSubstancesControlAct
hazardousliquidwaste resultingfrom D&D activitieswill
(TSCA)
. Potentially
be sampledand analyzedto determinewhetherregulatedchemicalcomponentsare
present. Waste containinga hazardouschemicalcomponentwill be disposedof
in accordancewith applicablerequirements.
Generationof solidwaste is expectedto be in the rangeof fifty55-gallon
drumsper year (5,7ookilogrms) (A. M. Kinney,1988). Solidwastesgenerated
at the facility,such as contaminated
clothing,wet filtercake,and spent
filters,will be drummedand managedas low-levelradioactive
waste in
scrapmaterialis not
accordancewith DOE requirements.Decontaminated
includedin this estimatedsolidwastegenerationrate.
2.1.3 ProcessDescription
A wide rangeof decont~inationprocessand equipmentoptionswere considered
duringthe conceptualdesignof the facility. Criteriafor processselection
includedcommercialavailability;
suitabilityto FMPC requirements;
cost
effectiveness;
,flexibility;
and compliancewith environmental,
health.and
safetyrequirements.
A sufficientdegreeof redundancyexistsin the capabilities
of the selected
processesto allowfor flexibility
and responseto changingoperationaldeconof the selectedprocesseswas
taminationrequirements.The cost effectiveness
MIS:6402-2C
2-g
assessedrelativeto alternativeapproachesincludingburialof contaminated
of the candidate
equipmentand purchaseof new equipment. The productivity
processeswas also considered.
Consideration
was given to the cost of processingsecondarywastesincluding
the treatmentof airborneand liquidwastestrems. Decontamination
processes
were selectedwhichminimizethe generationof secondarywastes. The potentialhealthand safetyrisksassociatedwith the processesselectedhave been
reviewedand found to be manageablethroughphysicalisolation,administrative
processstepsare presented
controland training. Detailsof decontamination
in the followingsections.
2.1.3.1 EquipmentBreakdownArea
The breakdownarea would receivecontaminated
materialof all typesfrom
variouspartsof the site. mere practical,articleswith loosecontamination
will be baggedor enclosedprior to on-sitetransportto the D&D facilityto
minimizethe spreadof contamination.All such articlesarrivingat the D&D
facilitywill remainencloseduntil preparations
for cleaningare completed.
A 4,536-kilogram
live-loadhoist,tramwaycarrier,and cranewill be available
in the breakdownarea to facilitatehandlingof heavyequipmentand scrap. A
4,536-kilogram
live-loadmonorailhoistwill also be availableto transport
materialsbetweenthe breakdownarea and the waterwash area. The breakdown
area is locatedinsidethe facility,occupyingapproximately
111 squaremeters
of floorspace. Here,contaminated
articleswill be surveyed,vacuumed,and
reducedin size as necessary. A centralvacuumsystemwill be availableto
removeloosecontamination.Cuttingof scrapwill be performedin the water
wash area usingultra-high-pressure
waterand garnet.
..
The vacuumunit will pull a maximm of nine standardcubicmetersof air per
minute(Tope,1987). Articleswith visiblecontamination
wouldbe transferred
to the waterwash area prior to survey. After initialcleaning,such articles
will be radiationsurveyedto determineadditionaldecontamination
requirements basedon decontamination
goalsand/orreleasecriteriaestablishedfor
the particulararticle.
MIS:6402-2C
2-1o
—
.—.—
A smallportionof the equipmentbreakdownarea will be reservedfor the
decontamination
of articlescont~inatedwith hazardoussubstancesfor whicha
greaterdegreeof segregation
or specialhandlingis required. Withinthis
area,appropriateutilitieswouldbe providedso thatwhen necessary)
decontamination
taskscan be performedinsidea temporaryenclosurewithout
impacton otheractivities.
When an articleleavesthe equipmentbreakdownarea,the lay-downspacecan be
throughlycleanedusinghigh pressurewater. This potentiallycontaminated
waterwill be directedto the spentwatercollectionsystem. Ventilationair
from the equipmentbreakdownair wouldalso be potentially
contaminated.
Thus, it will serve in part as supplyair to the decontamination
processoperationsareasand will eventuallybe exhaustedto the buildingstackthrough
solidwastegeneratedin the
the exhaustfiltrationsystem. Radioactive
equipmentbreakdownarea will be disposedof in accordancewith low-level
wastemanagementrequirements
(DOE, 1984a).
2.1.3.2 WaterWash Area
A separatedecontamination
area for vehiclesand largeequipmentwill be
providedat the west side of the proposedD&D facility. Vehiclesor large
piecesof equipmentwill be driventhroughthe wash area whichwill measure
6.1 meterswide by 21.3meterslong. The vehiclewash wouldutilizehigh
pressurewatersprayto removesurfacecontamination.The systemwouldbe
capableof deliveringwaterat a nozzlepressureof 0.14 Newtonsper square
meterat a maximm waterusage rate of 17 litersper minute. A chemical
injectorwill be providedto enablethe introduction
of detergentsand
surfactantsinto the streamas needed. A sand injectorsystemwill be
availablefor lightgrit blastingif required.
..
The waterwash area will also house the ultra-high-pressure
watersystemused
waterwash system
to cleanT-hoppersand scrapmetal. The ultra-high-pressure
woulddeliverup to 24.2 Newtonsper squaremeterat a maximumwaterusage
rateof 16 litersper minute.
Usingspeciallyshapednozzlesand accessories,
the ultra-high-pressure
water
systemhas the capabilityfor size reductionand removalof contamination
MIS:6402-2C
2-11
—.—— —
embeddedin the surfaceof metals. Abrasivegrit injectorscouldalso be
activatedto increasethe effectiveness
of this system. A singlenozzlecould
decontaminate
a swath five to eightcentimeters
wide,whilean arrayof
nozzlesmay be employedto decontaminate
a largerarea. The nozzlescouldbe
mountedon a hand-heldlance, a roboticarm, or a motorizedcart to covera
defined,area
at each sweep. Cleaningrateswouldgenerallyrangeup to 11
detergents,and
squaremetersper hour. In addition,possiblesurfactants,
rust inhibitorswill be utilizedto enhanceperformance
of the cleaning
in
equipment. The materialsused will be low phosphateand bio-degradeable
natureand thereforeof no hazardto the environment.
Upon completionof high pressurewaterdecontamination,
the waterwash area
and associatedequipmentwouldbe washedusing the low-pressure
hose. Process
cleaningwaterused in decontamination
woulddrainto the spentwatercollection system. Ventilationexhaustair from the waterwash area wouldbe
directedthrougha mist eliminatorand air heaterdesignedto removewater
dropletsbeforeprocessingthroughthe MEPA/HEPAfiltrationsystem. Liquid
wastescollectedfrom the mist eliminatorwouldbe directedto the spentwater
collectionsystem.
2.1.3.3 Freon/Ultrasonic
Area
Freondecontamination
is very effectiveand can be used on some materialsthat
cannotbe cleanedusing conventional
methods(e.g.,electricmotorsor equipment). It will removemost organicmaterialsas well as soil and other
contaminants
withoutattackingmetalsor many plastics.
The freoncleaningarea is proposedto compriseapproximately
22 squaremeters
of floorspacewithinthe
jet
.. building. The processwoulduse high-pressure
nozzleswithinan enclosed,0.87 cubicmeter chamber. The systemwould
utilizea solventcirculationand recoverysystemwith a 150-litercapacity.
The chamberwouldalso housean ultrasonicsubmersiontankhavinga 315-liter
capacitylocatedbeneatha removablefloorpanel. This ultrasonictank would
be used for cleaningsmalltoolsand equipment,as well as hard to reach
placessuch as blindholes,crevices,and inaccessible
internalsurfaces.
(Ultrasonic
pulsesinducecavitationin the freonsolutionand causebubbles
to form at the metal-surface
interfaces.This methodis less damagingthan
MIS:6402-2C
2-12
r -,
high-pressure
water cleaningfor certaintypesof equipmentwhichmay be
adverselyaffectedby the waterstre~ imPingingon delicateor corrodible
parts.)
The freonsolventwouldbe held in a 150-literstainlesssteelholdingtank.
Duringcleaning,contaminated
freonwouldbe collectedin a processsump and
recycledin a subsequentpurgeand distillation
cycle. Duringthe purge
cycle,air from the cleaningchamberwouldbe processedthrougha roughing
filterand an air compressorto condensethe freonvapor. Air would thenbe
returnedto the chamber. Spentfreonwouldbe filteredthroughdisposable,
cotton-wound,
charcoalfiltersto removecontaminants.Furtherpurification
wouldbe accomplished
by distillation.Interlockswitchesin the decontmination chamberswouldpreventopeningof the chamberbeforethe completionof
the purgeand distillation
cycles.
2.1.3.4 AbrasiveGrit Blast
The abrasivecleaningprocesssystemwouldbe self-contained
in a metal
surfaceto remove
enclosure. It uses fine particlesimpactinga contaminated
embeddedradioactive
particles. Steelgrit or shot wouldbe used in most
applications
becauseit is durable,can be cleanedand recycled,and produces
very littledust. Particlesizesvaryingfrom 20 mesh (841pm) to 100mesh
(149 urn)size wouldbe used dependingon the application.Cleaningis more
rapidwith largerparticles,but can leavea roughsurfacemore susceptibleto
subsequentcontamination.
portionof
The abrasive-grit
blastsystemwouldbe housedin a 40-square-meter
the building. The grit blastwork area wouldbe a glovebox 2.3 meterslong
by 1.1meterswide by 1.8metershigh havinga weightcapacityof 341 kilogras (primarilyto accommodatethe cleaningof processfurnacepots). Abrasivematerialwouldbe deliveredwith a bucketelevatorthroughthe air washer
intoa 0.25 cubicmeter capacityfeedhopper. Abrasiveswouldbe injected
intoa high-velocity
jet of compressedair throughan air blasthose inside
the glovebox.
Air abrasiveblastingcan generatelargeamountsof dust. Blastingoperations
wouldbe performedundernegativepressurerelativeto the operatorarea.
[-” -
MIS:6402-2C
2-13
.
—.
Contaminated
grit would be removedfrom the chamberair duringoperationby
passingexhaustair througha dust collectorand subsequentprocessexhaust
filtration.
operations,grit and debriswould be
Upon completionof decontamination
removedfrom articlesbeingcleanedby air cleaningbeforeremovingthem from
the enclosedchamber. Grit would be conveyedfrom the chamberand recycled
throughan air washersystemwhichwouldseparatethe lightercontaminants
from the heaviergrit. The grit wouldbe collectedfor returnto the grit
would blow throughand fall intodrums for
holdingtank. The contaminants
disposal. Wastedisposalwouldbe accomplishedin accordancewith DOE
requirements
for low-levelradioactive
waste (DOE, 1984a).
2.1.3.5 StagingOut Area
Radiationsurveysof all materialundergoingany decontamination
processwould
be made by healthphysicspersonnelprior to releaseto the stagingout area.
The stagingout area wouldoccupy207 squaremetersadjoiningexitsfrom all
processareas. Radiationsurveyswould be performedat theseexit points.
Acceptablelevelsof residualcontamination
wouldbe basedon the intendeduse
levelsin Regulaof decontaminated
articles. Allowablesurfacecontamination
toryGuide 1.86 (U.S.AEC, 1974)would providethe basisfor healthphysics
equipmentwouldnot be
surveyreleasecriteria. In general,decontaminated
releasedfrom the D&D facilityunlessresidualcontamination
levelswere 20
percentor less of the removablecontamination
limitsfor alphaemittersand
equal to or less than the limitsfor beta emitters. Theselimitsconstitute
the releasecriteriafor unrestricted
off-siteuse. Higherresidualradioactivitylevelsmay be allowedfor equipmentdestinedfor on-siteuse since
radioactivecontamination
hazardsare marked,monitored,and occupational
exposureis controlledadministratively.
Contaminated
itemsfor use on-site
are processedprimarilyto reduceoccupational
exposure. Criteriafor deconlaminationlevelsfor on-siteuse vary dependingon intendeduse.
2.1.4.WasteHandlingSystems
Radioactive
waste is a byproductof FMPC decontamination
activities.The D&D
facilitywill have its own liquidand airborneeffluenttreatmentcapabili-
MIS:6402-2C
2-14
ties. Airborneeffluentsfrom the processarea will be filteredprior to
releaseas describedin Section2.1.2.
The spentWater
collectionsystemwill consistof a networkof drainage
controltrencheswhichwill channelall liquidsfrom breakdownand process
areasto an indoorsump. The smp will be equippedwith a filtrationsystem
comprisedof two bag filtersarrangedin series. The firstwill be a threebag unit whichwill receivemost of the solids;the secondwill serveas a
backupunit. Water in the holdingtankwill be smpled and analyzedfor
radioactivity
and hazardouschemicalconstituents
prior to batchtransferto
the FMPC GeneralSump. Dependingon the resultsof the analyses,the tank
contentswill thenbe dischargedto the appropriate
plantsump for treatment.
Operatingthe waterwash area at full capacitywill generateup to 5,800
litersof wastewaterper shift. Analysesof filtrateholdingtank samples
will providea checkon the contamination
levelsof D&D processwastewater.
Pressuredifferentials
acrossthe filterswill be monitoredto establishthe
schedulefor changingout bag filters. Wastewaterwill ultimatelybe dischargedfrom the FMPC in accordancewith NPDESpermitlimits. Since the
primarypurposeof this facilityis filteringresidueand not generating
waste,it will not be necessaryto revisethe NPDESpermit. The FMPC
treatmentfacilitieshave sufficientcapacityfor treatmentof all D&D
generatedwastestreams.
Liquideffluentswill drain into trencheswhichwill be cleanedusing lowpressurewaterhosesor a wet vacuumsystem. Filterresiduefrom the bag
filtersand wet vacuumwill be containerized
for disposalas low-level
radioactive
waste in accordancewith DOE requirements
(DOE,1984a).
The followingare the anticipatedwastecontributions
from each process
activity:
●
Pressurized
WaterSprays: Pressurized
waterwouldbe utilizedin
waterwouldenter
decontamination
activities.The contaminated
drainagetrenchesand sump drainsfromwhich it wouldbe collected.
Volatilechemicalcontaminants
and oils will be removedfrom articles
to be decontaminated
priorto transportto the D&D facility.
Air from the water wash area wouldexhaustat a velocityof 3.3 cubic
metersper second,througha high velocitymist eliminatorwith a
MIS:6402-2C
2-15
dropletremovalefficiencyratingof 98 percentfor ten-micron
dropletsand 99 percentfor 15-microndroplets. The air would then
pass throughan air heatercapableof heatingair to a 24 to 74
degreescentigraderangebeforeenteringthe MEPA/HEPAfiltration
system(Tope,1987).
●
FreonCleaningSystem: Contamination
removedduringcleaning
operationswouldbe presentin the liquidfreonand couldbe suspendedin the air of the glovebox containment.Contaminants
would
be removedfrom the liquidfreonby its passagethroughrespective
charcoalfilters
five-micron
and one-micron,
disposable,cotton-wound
(Tope,1987). Additionalcleaningof the solventwouldbe accomplishedthroughdistillation.Residuesremovedfrom this process
will be eithera solventor stillbottomresiduescontainingchlorinatedfluorocarbons,
whichare classifiedby the EPA as hazardous
waste (No.FOO1)and will be drummedand storedon site in accordance
with applicableRCRA requirements
for mixedhazardousand radioactive
wastes.
Air exhaustedfrom the freoncleaningarea will be directedto the
buildingprocessexhaustsystem.
removedduringair abrasive
c AbrasiveGrit System: Contamination
blastingwouldbe combinedwith abrasivegrit. The mixtureof
recoveredgrit and contaminated
particleswouldbe separatedby an
air separatorwhichwoulduse the differencein specificgravity
betweenthe contaminated
particlesand the steelgrit to segregate
the waste.This solidwastewouldbe drummedand treatedin accordance with low-levelradioactive
waste requirements
(DOE,lg84a).
Contaminants
removedfrom the furnacepots duringthisprocess
includeuraniumand magnesiumfluoridecompounds.
Air exhaustedfrom the abrasiveblastch=ber wouldpass througha
dust collectorto removeexcessparticulatecontamination
before
enteringthe buildingprocessexhaust. Dust wouldbe removedfrom
the collectoras necessaryand handledas low-levelradioactive
and/orhazardouschemicalwaste.
Articlesprocessedthroughthe facilitywith suspectedRCRAmaterialcontaminationwill be batchprocessed. Processknowledgeand preclassification
will
be used to identifythe potentialcontaminants.Solidwastefrom such a batch
processwouldbe drummedand managedas a RCRA-regulated
mixedwaste.
2.1.5 Health,Safetyand Environmental
QualityControlPrograms
The health,safety,and environmental
qualitycontrolsdescribedhere are an
integralpart of the proposedD&D facilitydesignin accordancewith DOE
healthand safetyobjectivesand regulatoryrequirements.They are not
consideredas additional“mitigation”
measuresfor the purposeof this
Environmental
Assessment.
MIS:6402-2C
2-16
..
---
-.—–,
-..,..
.
and operational
activitieswouldbe performedin accordancewith
Construction
Healthand Safetyregulations(29 CFR 1910)and DOE healthand
Occupational
safetyrequirements
(DOE, 1984b)in a mannerdesignedto minimizeworkerexpochemicaland safetyhazards. Potentialhazardswouldbe
sure to radiological,
identifiedby routinemonitoringand safetysurveys. Work procedureswouldbe
established
for all activitiesto assurethat radionuclide
emissionsare as
low as reasonablyachievable(ALARA)and thatothersafetyobjectivesare’met.
Soil samplestakennear the proposedsite of the D&D facilityhave shown
slightlyelevatedlevelsof uranium(ORAU,1985). Priorto the initiationof
construction
activities,
a fieldsurveywouldbe conductedto identifythe
locationand magnitudeof existingsurfacecontamination
at the construction
wouldbe made
site. Based’uponthe resultsof thissurvey,a determination
if any, to be takenduringfacilityconconcerningnecessaryprecautions,
wouldbe removedby surfacestrippingand
struction.Surfacecontamination
boxingall soilabovepresetlimitsto assureworkersafety. Boxedsoil will
be handled,storedand preparedfor disposition/disposal
in accordancewith
DOE approvedsite procedures.
The construction
work for the proposedprojectwould involveworkerhazards
associatedwith any construction
activityand are not uniqueto the proposed
facility. A safetyand healthplan wouldbe preparedby the construction
contractorand approvedby WMCO beforeany site preparation
or facility
construction
begins.
processarea wouldhave
Once facilityoperationsbegin, each decontamination
specificsafetyprotectionrequirements.For example:
..
Workersworkingnear or with high pressuredecontamination
equipment
wouldbe requiredto wear specialclothingand face protectionto
deflectback splashingsprayand contamination.Hearingprotection
wouldalso be requiredfor the equipmentoperator. .
●
●
Freon 113wouldbe used in the freoncleaningarea. This is a
nonflammable
liquidof low toxicity.Workerswouldwear radiation
protectionclothingand respiratory
protectionif requiredby the
healthphysicswork procedures.Specialcarewouldbe takento
preventreleaseof Freon 113 to the processarea. A freondetection
monitoringsystemwill operatecontinuously
to detectany accidental
MIS:6402-2C
2-17
release. The audibleand visualalarmswill be locatedon the walls
of the occupiedprocessarea. Freon vaporsdisplaceoxygenand, in
high concentrations,
can causedifficultyin breathingor suffocation. A freondetectionmonitorwould be employedto alarm if freon
is ventedto the processarea atmosphereand the area would be evacuated. Freon in the processarea would be removedby charcoalfiltration. Duringultrasoniccleaning,safetyprocedureswould prohibit
workercontactwith the tank. Further,precautionswouldbe taken to
make sure thatany equipmententeringthe freoncleaningarea would
be dry and that no freonwouldremainon equipmentexitingthe area,
sinceFreon 113 can decomposeand form compoundsthat releasefree
chlorine(phosgeneand hydrochloric
acid)upon contactwith water or
at temperatures
above 65 to 150 degreescentigrade.
●
~lorkers
performingabrasivegrit blastingwouldwear radiation
protectionclothingand respirators
as necessary.Specialcare would
be takento evacuateall airbornegrit and contamination
residues
beforeopeningthe grit blastcabinetto preventreleaseof particles
to the area atmosphere.
Radiological
safetywouldbe maintainedby,performing
operationswithinthe
facilityin accordancewith established
healthphysicsguidelines.These
guidelineswould indicateprecautionsto be takenwhen workingin areas where
airborneradioactivity
or radiationlevelsexceedprescribedlimits. These
limitswouldbe basedon ALARAobjectivesand DOE limitsfor occupational
radiationexposureof five rem (0.05sieverts)per year to any worker. The
facilitydesignobjectiveis to keep occupational
exposuresat less than 20
percentof this limit,or one rem per year per worker(DOE,1986b).
Routineradiological
monitoringwouldserve to identifysourcesof exposureto
D&D facilitypersonnel. Directradiationlevelswouldbe monitoredroutinely
usingboth portableinstruments
and passivedosimetry. Surfacecontamination
levelswouldbe surveyedroutinelyin order to assignadequatepersonalprotectiveclothingand respiratory
protection.Generalair samplersand continuous air monitors(CAMS)wouldbe locatedin the breakdownarea, the mezzanine
and the outgoingstagingarea to monitorair quality. The facilitywill be
designedto minimizethe potentialfor airborneuraniumconcentrations
that
,exceed1.1x10-13microcuries
{0.004becquerels)per milliliteraveragedover a
40-hourweek. This limitis basedon the maximumpermissibleconcentration
levelsfor insolubleuranim-238,which is expectedto be the most restrictive
limitfor the predominantcontaminant
at the D&D facility(Vaughan,1985).
Controlzoneswouldbe establishedto minimizethe spreadof contamination.
MIS:6402-2C
2-18
Radiationmonitorswouldbe placedat the exit of controlledareas and all
equipmentand personnelleavingthe radiationzoneswouldbe surveyed. All
workerswouldremovepersonalprotectiveclothingand showerprior to exiting
healthand safetyproceduresthat prohibitsmokthe facility. Radiological
ing,drinking,and eatingon the job wouldbe enforced. A break room wouldbe
providedin the “clean”administrative
portionof the facility. These safety
and radiationcontrolsare adequateto maintainpersonnelsafetyand to keep
occupational
radiationexposureswithinthe limitsfor workerhealth
protection.
2.2 DESCRIPTION
OF PROPOSEDALTERNATIVES
Reasonablealternatives
were examinedin the processof selectingthe
preferredaction. Theseincludeupgradingthe existingD&D facility,shipping
contaminated
materialoff site for d“isposal,
and takingno action. These
alternatives
are brieflydescribedin the followingsections.
2.2.1 Upgradethe ExistingD&D Facility
The existingD&D facility,Building69, is used for decontamination
of FMPC
site operationprocessequipmentsuch as furnacepots and smalleritems. D&D
methodsemployedat the facilityincludenitricacid bath and low pressure
and not capsteamcleaning. The equipmentin use is relativelyinefficient
able of meetingthe decontamination
throughputrequirements
of the site. For
exmple, a furnacepot has to remainin the acid bath for at leastone week
and as longas threeweeksto achievedecontamination
goals. In addition,
thereare currentlyno facilitiesfor thoroughdecontamination
of vehiclesand
construction
equipmentfor resale,althougha “carwash”stationis available
to reducecontamination
levelsof on-sitetrucks.
The presentfacilitycouldbe refurbishedto includemore up-to-date
decontamination
technologyand effluentcontrolssuchas are proposedfor the
new facility.This wouldimproveboth the decontamination
efficiencyand
throughputrates, as well as controlthe dischargeof airborneor waterborne
processoptionsand capacitywouldbe limited,
contamination.Decontamination
however,due to the relativelysmallsizeof the existingbuilding.
MIS:6402-2C
2-lg
.- .,.
Implementation
of this alternativewouldrequirethat the presentfacilitybe
closedfor an extendedperiodof time to completemodifications.Duringthis
time,no decont~inationof processequipmentcouldbe performedon site.
Contaminated
metal scrapand equipmentfrom currentoperationsand scrap
resultingfrom plannedrenovationprojectswould continueto accumulateat the
FMPC site. This alternativecouldsupportproductionneeds;however,continuing generationof scrapwould remaina potentialsourceof radioactiveand
chemicalcontaminant
releasesto the environmentfor the indefinitefuture.
2.2.2 TransportContaminated
MaterialOff Site for Disposal
The sevenmillionkilogramsof scrapanticipatedto be processedthroughthe
proposedD&D facilitycouldbe shippedto an off-sitedisposalfacility,
Largeequipment,scrap,and vehiclesrequiringdecontamination
couldbe sizereducedand disposedof as low-levelradioactive
wasteas well. Under this
alternative,
contaminated
wastematerialwouldbe handledin accordancewith
DOE requirements
for low-levelradioactive
wastedisposal. Environmental
consequences
of a low-levelwasteshipmentcampaignhave been consideredin
otherenvironmental
documentation
(DOE,1985)and have been shown to be
materialrepresents
acceptablylow. However,the shipmentof newly-generated
a 14-foldincreaseover the off-siteshipmentvolumepreviouslyconsidered,
and environmental
impactswouldbe proportionately
increasedor spreadover a
longerduration.
This actionwouldsignificantly
reducethe quantityof materialto be processedby the presentfacility. It wouldnot addressthe need for increased
efficiencyand size capabilityfor the decontamination
of FMPC processequipment or accommodateenvironmentally
acceptabledecontamination
of vehicles.
This alternativeis also
highercost than the
.. expectedto be of significantly
preferredaction.
2.2.3
NO
Action
The “no actionl’
alternativewouldmaintainthe statusquo. SmallFMPC process
equipmentitems.would
continueto be decontaminated
at the presentD&D facility with existinginefficient
technologyat a slow throughputrate. The
presentmethodsemployedare not as effectivein removingcontamination
as
more modernprocesses.The out-of-service
inventoryof T-Hoppersawaiting
MIS:6402-2C
2-20
,-.
decontamination
and repairwouldcontinueto increase. Sinceno capability
for thoroughvehicledecont~inationexistson site, routinemaintenance
activities
wouldhave to be performedon contaminated
vehicles. This practice
increases
occupational
exPosureand is not in keepingwith site ALARAgoals.
Contaminated
vehicleswouldeventuallyhave to be scrappedand replaced.
Additional
costsare associatedwith disposalof the scrapas low-levelradioactivewaste,includingprobabletransportto a low-levelwaste disposalsite,
and vehiclereplacementcosts. mile the designbasis for the proposedD&D
facilitydoes not addressthe currentbacklogof contaminated
metal and scrap
equipment,failureto proceedwith the proposedactionwould resultin continuing increasein the volumeof potentiallycontaminated
scrap. The backlogof
contaminated
metaland scrapwill be processedand recovered/recycled
as a
partof the Oak RidgeMetalsProgrm. All necessarypermitsand separateNEPA
documentation
to supportthiseffortwill be preparedby DOE Oak Ridge
Operations.
MIS:6402-2C
2-21
,-,
3.0 DESCRIPTIONOFTHE AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT
This sectiondiscussesthe physical,biological,land use, and demographic
characteristics
of the EMPC site and vicinitywhich couldpotentiallybe
affectedby construction
and operationof the D&D facility. This description
providesthe basisfor the impactassessmentdescribedin Section4.0.
3.1
TOPOGRAPHY
The FMPC site is situatedin the GreatMimi RiverBasinat an elevationof
approximately
180metersabove sea level. The presentlandscapeis characterizedby broad flat plains,rollingsurfacesalong glacialmoraines,and
low, roundedbedrockhillswhichprotrudethroughglacialdeposits. The Great
Mimi Riverand its tributarieshave removedsubstantialvolumesof the
glacialfill and have formedelevatedterracesalong the river. The FMPC is
locatedon one of theseterracesabove the riverand its floodplain. The
GreatMiamiRiverflows in a southerlydirectionaboutone kilometereast of
the site.
The 425-hectareFMPC site is relativelylevel in the area of the production
facilitiesbut slopesupwardnorthof the productionarea,risingto an elevationof 210 metersat the northernedge of the site. Naturaldrainageis in a
westerlydirectionto Paddy’sRun at an elevationof 170meters. This small
meanderingstrem flowsfrom north to south throughthe westernedge of the
propertyand dischargesto the GreatMiami River (Figurel-l).
3.2
GEOLOGYAND SOILS
The geologyof much of southwestern
Ohio consistsof relativelyflat lying
Paleozoicsedimentaryrocksoverlainby glacialdriftdeposits. In the vicinity of the FMPC,bedrockconsistsof induratedshale interbedded
with thin
limestoneunitsof Late Ordovicianage. No major geologicstructuresare
reportedto be presentin the area.
Priorto glaciation,this regionof southwestOhio was drainedby the Hamilton
Riversystemwhichwas over 3.2 kilometerswide and cut down approximately
60
metersinto the bedrock. Pleistoceneglacialdepositsassociatedwith the
Illinoianand Wisconsinglacialadvances100,000to 400,000yearsago overlie
the Paleozoicbedrock,fillingin or coveringpreglacialtopographicfeatures.
MIS:6402-3C
3-1
Eillingof the HamiltonRiverValleywith glacialoutwashand till created
extensivedepositsand aquifersknownas the “HamiltonTrough.” The trough
averages3.2 kilometersin width and 45 to 60 metersin depth near the FMPC.
The basaldepositsin the HamiltonTroughconsistof about 30 to 55 metersof
sand and gravelglacialoutwash. A continuousthree-to six-meterthick “blue
clay”layeroccurswithinthe sand and graveldepositsformingthe two sand
and gravelaquifersdiscussedin Section3.3.
The top of the clay layerseparatingthe sand and gravelunitsat the FMPC is
at a depthof approximately
38 meters. The uppermostsix to 15 metersof the
clay-rich
HamiltonTroughin the area of the FMPC consistsof predominantly
tillwith locallensesof sand and gravel. Locally,sand and graveldeposits
cropout at the surface.
The primarysoil unitspresentat the FMPC are the FincastleSilt Loam,
HenshawSilt Loam, RagsdaleSiltyClay Lore, XeniaSilt Loam,Martinsville
Silt Loam,HennepinSilt Lore,and GeneseeLoaM. The Fincastle,Henshaw,and
Ragsdalesoilscoverthe majorityof the site. Thesesoilsoccuron relativelyflat Wisconsintill plainsurfacesand are composedof silty loam at
by low
the surface. The soilsare poorlydrainedand are characterized
permeability
and seasonalwetness.
The Xeniaand Martinsville
soilsoccur in the southeastern
portionof the
FMPC. Xeniasoilsalso occuralongthe northboundary. These soilsare silt
loamswhichare moderatelywell drainedand have moderatepermeability.
Hennepinand GeneseesoilsoccuralongPaddy’sRun in the westernportionof
the site. Geneseesoilsconsistof loam and sandylom and occur in valley
..
floors. Hennepinsoilsconsistof siltyloam and occupyslopesalongmargins
of drainages.
Soil samplesare takenat each of the air monitoringsapling stations(Figure
1-2)once a year in accordancewith DOE requirements.These samplesconsist
of ten cores,two centimetersin diameterand five centimetersdeep. The core
samplesfor each locationare composite and analyzedfor uranim
concentrations.
MIS:6402-3C
3-2
,..
.
.—
NO DOE or EPA standardshave been establishedfor most soil radionuclide
a concentration
of 35 pCi (1.3Bq) of natural
levels. The NRC established
uraniumper gram (= 50 ppm)of soilswhich is the levelgenerallyused as an
interimguideline. DOE,however,requiresthat guidelinesfor residualradionuclideconcentrations
in soilmaterialbe derivedfrom basicdose limitsby
meansof an environmental
pathwayanalysisusingsite-specific
data. A soil
pathwaysstudy,whichwill establishsoil guidelinesfor the FMPC, is currentlyunderwayat the Universityof Cincinnatiand will be completedin 1988.
naturally-occurring
uranium-238concentrations
For the purposesof comparison,
in Ohio rangefrom 0.6 pCi/g(0.02Bq/g)to 2.2 pCi/g (0.08Bq/g). Total
uraniumis approximately
twicethis concentration>
sincetwo major isotopesof
uranim (U-238and U-234)occurtogethernaturallyin soil.
Uranim concentrations
measuredin soil during1987are shownin Table 3-1.
URANI~ CONC;~;T;~~S IN SOIL(l)
LOCATION
URANIUMCONCENTRATION(2)
(picocuries
per gram)
AMS-1
AMS-2
AMS-3
AMS-4
AMS-5
AMS-6
AMS-7
AMD-8
AMS-9
4.9
11.0
56.0
5.2
8.4
10.4
4.1
2.7
3.2
..
(l)WMCO,1988
(2)oto5 cmdepth
3.3 GROUNDWATERHYDROLOGYAND WATERQUALITY
Previousresearchof the geologyand groundwaterhydrologyof the FMPC has
identifiedthe presenceof threeaquifers: (1) the surficialtill or perched
aquifer,(2) the shallowsand and gravelaquifer,and (3) the deep sand and
gravelaquifer(Damesand Moore,1985a,1985b;and IT Corporation,1986). The
MIS:6402-3C
3-3
-. .,.
.
by
surficialclay-richtill layerdiscussedin Section3.2 is characterized
saturatedlensesof sand and gravel. These perchedzonesoccur from 1.2 to
2.7 metersbelowthe groundsurface. The zonesare probablylaterallydiscontinuousand are unlikelyto providedirectpathwaysfor rechargeto the lower
two aquifers.
The two principalaquifersat the site are referredto as the shallowand deep
sand and gravelaquifers. The shallowaquiferis approximately
23 meters
thickand occursbelowthe clay-richtill. The deep aquifer,approximately17
metersthick,occursapproximately
43 metersbelow the surfaceand is separatedfrom the shallowaquiferby a three-to six-meterthicklayerof “blue
clay.“
The shallowsand and gravelaquiferis unconfinedthroughoutthe area with
depth to waterbeingapproximately
17 metersbelowthe surface. Due to the
presenceof the semi-pervious
“blueclay“ bed, the deep aquiferis classified
as a semi-confined
or leaky-confined
aquiferat the FMPC. The transmissivity
of the shallowand deep sand and gravelaquifersis reportedto range from
5.0x10-3to 4.3x10-2squaremetersper second(m*/s). The hydraulicconductivity of thesetwo aquifersis reportedto rangefrom 80 to 110 metersper
day. Totalporosityhas been estimatedat 25 to 35 percent(Damesand Moore,
1g85a).
BetweenPaddy’sRun and New Baltimore,groundwatergenerallyflows from
northwestto south-southeast
under the FMPC towardthe Great Miami River.
Groundwaterpumpingat the FMPC and from industrialfacilitieseast of the
sitemay affectgroundwaterflow directionswithinthe area.
The two sand and gravelaquifersqualifyas a major groundwater resource
throughoutthe area. They are thoughtto be rechargedwith water over a large
areaand are not greatlyaffectedby localprecipitation.FMPC wells withdraw
an averageof 1,325cubicmetersof waterper day. Othermajor groundwater
Ohio Water
userswithin5.6 kilometersof the site includethe Southwestern
Company,the CincinnatiBoltenPlant,and the SouthwesternButlerCountyWater
Association.Thesethreeorganizations
cumulatively
withdrawapproximately
125,000cubicmetersof waterper day.
MIS:6402-3C
3-4
.
-.
~..
AS partof on-goingenvironmental
characterization
programsat the FMPC,
samplesof groundwaterhave been collectedfor chemicalanalysesfrom both
the FMPCand the surrounding
area. This programincludessamplingand analysis of 15 on-sitewellsand 22 off-sitewellso Samplingof on-sitewells is
conductedto monitorthe qualityof groundwaterat the site in conjunction
with the ResourceConservation
and RecoveryAct groundwatermonitoring
requirements.Recentsapling resultsof the groundwaterqualityunderlying
and in the vicinityof the FMPC can be found in DOE (1986c).
3.4
SURFACEWATERHYDROLOGYAND WATERQUALITY
Naturaldrainagefrom the FMPC site is towardPaddy’sRun, an intermittent
streamwhichruns fromnorthto southalong the westernedge of the property
(Figure1-2). A stormseweroutfallditchruns southwardfrom the south centralportionof the site to Paddy’sRun at the southboundary. The surficial
tillor perchedaquifer(Section3.3) intersectspaddY’sRun betweenWilleY
and New Havenroads. The exactlocationwhere Paddy’sRun intersectsthe
watertableand becomesperennialvariesseasonally.
Treatedliquidwaste,sewage,and some stormwater flowsfrom the FMPC to the
GreatMiamiRiverthroughan undergroundpipe. This dischargeis made in compliancewith a NationalPollutionDischargeEliminationSystem(NPDES)permit.
In addition,overflowfrom the stormsewercollectionsystemis routedto
Paddy’sRun via the stormseweroutfallditchdescribedabove (Figure1-2).
Surfacewatersampleshave been collectedfor chemicalcharacterization
from
both the FMPC site and surrounding
area. Studieshave indicatedthat the
stormseweroutfallditch is probablythe primarypathwayfor uranium-bearing
waterto reachthe shallowaquifer(Damesand Moore, 1985a)(Section3.3).
Waterflowinginto Paddy’sRun from the WasteStorageArea (Figure1-2)may
also contributeuranim-bearingwater (Damesand Moore, 1985a). Throughout
most of the site,the clay-richtillminimizesinfiltration
of surfacewater
intothe sand and gravelaquifer. However,the till thinsout in the southern
part of the FMPC,allowingincreasedsurfacewaterpercolationinto the
ground.
MIS:6402-3C
3-5
——.
-
3.5
CLIMATE
The FMPCarea Climate
iS
basicallyContinental
with a wide rangeof tempera-
tures. The area is subjectedto frequentchangesin the weatherdue to the
passageof nwerous cyclonicstormsduringwinterand springand the
occurrenceof thunderstorms
duringthe summer.
Mean annualprecipitation
is 102 centimeters
which is, generally,distributed
of
evenlythroughoutany 12-monthperiod. Monthlymaximm precipitation
approximately
ten centimeters
occur in May and July. Monthlyminimumprecipitationof approximately
six and one-thirdcentimetersoccur in February,
measuredat the FMPC
October,and December. The averageannualprecipitation
over a 20-yearperiodfrom lg60to 1979was 95.9 centimetersper year. Based
on annualaverageddata, the maximumrecorded24-hourstormevent is 13.2
as well as the
centimeters
of precipitation.The heaviestprecipitation,
precipitation
of the longestduration,is normallyassociatedwith low
pressuredisturbances
movingin a generalsouthwestto northeastdirection
throughthe Ohio valleysouthof the FMPC area.
may reach40 degreesCelsiusor
Summersare warm and humid. The temperature
more one year out of three. However,the temperature
usuallyreaches25
degreesCelsiusor higherabout 26 days eachyear. Wintersare moderately
coldwith frequentperiodsof extensivecloudiness.The lengthof the freezefree periodis 190 days on the average. Freezingtemperatures
occur between
lateOctoberand mid-April.
At the GreaterCincinnatiInternational
Airport,where climaticconditions
closelyapproximatethe FMPC site area, prevailingwindsare from the southsouthwest(towardthe north-northeast)
for all twelvemonthsof the year.
Averagemonthlywind speedsrangefrom 10.8kilometersper hour in Augustto
18.okilometersper hour in March. Channelingand surfacefrictionin the
valleysreducethe wind speedand directthe airflowalong the river valleys,
,suchas along the GreatMiamiRiver. A wind rose showingthe wind direction
frequencies
and the averagewind speedsfor each directionis presentedin
Figure3-1 (IT Corporation,1986). [Meteorological
data (DOC, 1985)used for
dispersionmodelingwere providedby Oak RidgeNationalLaboratoryand are
summarizedin AppendixA].
MIS:6402-3C
3-6
.
SCALE
FIGURE 3-1
o
M.tor8
WINDROSE FOR GREATER
CINCINNATI INTERNATIONAL
AIRPORT
1
(1958-1962,1970-1974)
I
\-
LEGEND
2-6
——
7-11
12-19
SUPERIMPOSED
20-30
1
WIND
SPEED CLASSES
Km/Hr
rp
31-39
>39
ON FMPC SITE
PREPARED FOR
FERNALD ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
..——_
The maximumwind velocityrecordedat the airportwas 64.4 kilometersper hour
from the south-southwest.I/indrecordsavailablefor the FMPC show that there
have been wind gusts in excessof 80.5 kilometersper hour on elevenoccasions
between1960and 1976;therehave been gustsof up to 96.6 kilometersper hour
on two occasions.
Ohio lieson the easternedge of the area of the U.S. with the maximumtornado
frequency,the centerline of whichextendsfrom northernTexas to southwestern Iowa. Duringthe 23-yearperiodfrom 1953 to 1975,Ohio averagedabout
13 tornadosannually. Duringthe 1900-1978period,15 tornadoswere observed
in HamiltonCountyand elevenwere seen in ButlerCounty. Tornadosmay
approacha locationfrom any directionalthoughabout 90 percentcome from the
west throughthe southwest. Seventypercentof the tornadosoccurduring
AprilthroughJuly. The only tornadoknownto have touchedthe FMPC site
occurredon May 10, 1969. Therewas no damageto the FMPC property,nor was
theredaage fromanothertornadowhichpassednear the facility’snortheast
boundaryon May 13, 1973.
3.6
AIR QUALITY
Air qualityat and near the FMPC can be assessedfor two regimes: (1) ambient
air qualityfor the six criteriapollutants[sulfurdioxide(S02),nitrogen
oxide (NOX),carbonmonoxide(CO),lead (Pb),particulate,and ozone],and
(2) ambientair qualityfor radionuclides
and radongas.
The Hailton County-B~tler
Countyarea is an attainmentarea for all criteria
status
pollutantsexceptozoneand carbonmonoxide. The ozonenonattainment
is due in largepart to automobileemissionsand, to a lesserextent,industry
hydrocarbon
emissions. An inspectionand maintenanceprogramis to begin in
the near future. FMPC:emissions
do not contributesignificantly
to ozone
ambientconcentrations.The CO nonattainment
statusmay be changedto attainment statusin the near futurefollowingreviewof additionaldata by the Ohio
EPA.
Of the criteriapollutants,atmosphericemissionsof concernat the FMPC are
particulate,S02, CO, and NOX. The OEPA establishesthe limitsfor particulate emittedby the steam-generation
plantat the FMPC. Electrostatic
MIS:6402-3C
3-8
-.
..
.
[-,
,’
precipitators
maintaintheseemissionsat the FMPC belowthe limitof 0.09 kg
(0.19lb) per millionBritishThermalUnits (BTU)input.
The OEPA also sets the limitsfor S02 emissionfor stationaryfacilities.
plantare limited
Undertheserules!S02 emissionsfrom the steam-generation
to 1 kg (2.2lb) of S02 Per millionBTU inPutfrom eachOf the two boilers.
This limitcouldbe reachedif the FMPC used coal containing1.3 percentor
greatersulfur. TO ensurethat the S02 emissionlimitsare not exceededat
the FMPC stem-generation
.plant,coal containingless thanone percentsulfur
is used.
Calculations
developedat the FMPC conservatively
estimatethata NOX emission
rateof less thanor equalto 100 ppm will satisfythe Stateof Ohio regulationcoveringNOX releases(e.g.“no visiblepl~e”). The FMpC developed
limitshave been provento meet the “visiblepl~e” criteriafor typical
atmospheric
conditions.
Monitoringdata for criteriapollutantswhichwould establishthe ambient
conditions
downwindof the FMPC area are extremelysparse. Reviewof Hamilton
County-Southwest
Ohio Air PollutionControlArea (APCA)data indicatesthere
are no monitoringstationsnear Fernaldin the generaldownwinddirection
(northeast
of the plant). The closestmonitoringstationis at Miamisburg
whichis over 48 kilometersnortheastof the site.
Conversion
of impureuraniumand thoriumcompoundsto reactor-grade
feed
materialsat the FMPC involvesoperationswhichgenerateradioactiveparticulate and reactionproductsin an air stream. Beforereleaseto the
atmosphere,
thisair is filteredor scrubbed.
..
“Radiological
air qualitymonitoringresultingfrom dischargesat the FMPC is
conductedby sevenFMPC boundaryAir MonitoringStations. The locationsof
theseAir MonitoringStations(AMS)are shownin Figure1-2. Particulate
samplesare collectedweeklyfor a 168-hoursamplingperiodat an air flow
rateof aboutone cubicmeterper minuteon 20- by 25-centimeter
glass fiber
particulateloading,gross
filters. The filtersare analyzedfor gravimetric
radioactivity,
and specificradionuclides.
..-
MIS:6402-3C
3-9
T~~
3-2
RADIONUCLIDE
ANNUALAVERAGECONC~TRATIONS,lg87(1)
microcllries
p=r milliliter
{hecquerelper milliliter)
SAMPLING
LOCATION
. AIR PARTICULATE
(microgramsper
URANIUM-234 URANIUM-235 URANIUM-238 THoRIuM-232 PLUTONIUM-239/240 cubicmeter)
.,
(3.6x10-~)
8.0X10-16
4.5xlo-i7
(1.7X1(1-6) (3.OX1O-5)
1.6x10-17
(5.9xio-7)
4.6xio-18
(i.7xlo-7)
MS-2
9.5xlQ-16
(3.5XI0-5)
4.3xlo-i7
(1.5X1O-6)
8.7x10-16
(3.2x10-5)
7.9X1O-I8
(2.9X1O-7)
2.8x10-18
(i.oxio-7)
3“1.9
MS-3
2.2xi0-;5
(8.1x10-5)
1.lxlo-~5
(4.ixlo-6)
3.lxio-j8
(i.2xio-/)
3i.g
MS-!
6.iXIO-16
(2.3x10-5)
-17
(::~~:~-6)
2.4x10.”15 i.4xlo-17
(8.gxlo-5)
(5.2x10-7)
-18
5.5xlo-i6
(2.OX1O-5) (:::;::-~)
<i.2xlo-’8
(<4.4xio-~)
34.7
MS-5
-17
5.6XIO-.i6
(2.1X1O-5) (;:::::-7)
5.6x10-16
2.lXIO-5)
6.8xlo-~8
2.5x10-7)
<i.8x10--i8
(<6.7X-IO-8)
30.7
AMS-5
7.5X1O-I6
(2.8x10-3)
3.~xlo-17
(1.3XI0-6)
-16
(::;:4:-5)
1.3xlo-f7
(4.8x10
-7)
-18
(:J:i:i:-8)
33.5
MS-7
4.8XIO-j6
(1.8x?0-3)
2.2X1O-17
(8.1X10-7)
4.1X1O-16
(1.5xio-5)
9.9xio-:8
(3.7xlo-~)
-i8
<i.4xlo
(<5.2xi0-8)
34.8
AMS-8
2.1xio-~5
(7.8x10
-5)
-1’7
(3:~:]:-6j
-15
(;:~:j:5)
2.5xi0-17
9.3X1O-7)
5.oxlo-i8
(i.9xi0-7)
34.5
K4s-g
4.lXIO-?5
(1.5X?0-4)
2.oxlo-i~
(7.4xlo-6~
4.1X1O-15
(1.5X1O-4)
1.3xlo-f7
(4.8x10-7)
6.1xlo-~8
2.3x10-7)
37.8
StandardLimit
9.0x10-~4(2) 1.0x10-13(2)
(3.3xlo-~) (3.7X1O-9]
(3.7X1O-9)
MS- i
g.7xi0-!6
1.0X10-13(2)
~=oxlo-14(2)
(3.7X1O-’O)
‘
4.0x~O-14(2)
(1.5XI0-9)
2g.o
75.0(3)
(1)WMCO,lg88.
\~~Allowable
off-siteconcentration
for insolubleforms (Vaughan,1985).
‘5JAnnualgeometricmean, State of Ohio AmbientAir @ality Standard,Administrative
Code Number3745-17-02.
MIS:6402-T3-2C
.— .-
.
-----
.—
--— ..-.
—— .—-.
-
The most recentlypublishedaverageconcentrations
in environmental
samples
(WMCO,1988)Of Particulateuranium!thorium,and plutoniumisotopesare
summarizedin Table3-2. These resultsindicatethat releasesat the FMPC
siteboundaryare well withinthe “safe”levelsestablishedby U.S. EPA’s,
NationalEmissionStandardsfor HazardousAir Pollutants(NESHAP)
requirements
~ and DOE criteriafor off-siteconcentrations.
3.7 VEGETATION,
WILDLIFE,AND AQUATICECOSYSTEMS
This sectionprovidesa description
of vegetation,wildlife,and aquatic
ecosystemsin the generalvicinityof the FMPC. A discussionof rare,
threatened,
or endangeredspeciesis also provided. Detailedinformationon
FMPCsite ecologyis availablein a three-volmereport,“Biological
and
EcologicalSite Characterization
of the Feed MaterialsProductionCenter,”
preparedby MiamiUniversityof Ohio (Osborneet al., 1987).
3.7.1 Vegetation
The FMPC is part of a largerlandscapemosaiccomprisedof severalhabitat
agricultural
land in pastureor
and coniferous);
types: woodlands(deciduous
crops;and developedland. Thesehabitattypesare typicalof southwestOhio
and the FMPC vicinity. The vegetationtypesoccurringwith the FMPC site
boundaryare illustrated
in Figure3-2.
Woodlandsin the vicinityof the FMPC are typicallylocatedalong streamsand
riversand on steepslopes,or theyare woodlotsset in a matrixof agriculturalland. Woodlandsin thisportionof Ohio are dominatedby deciduoustree
species.
Agricultural
land in the vicinityof the FMPC is in pastureor crops. Crops
grownin thisarea includesoybeans,corn,wheat,vegetables,and hay. pastureland vegetationis dominatedby grassesand earlysuccessional
and
ruderalforbs..Fence rows separabemany agricultural
fields.
Developedland in the vicinityof the FMPC is primarilyresidentialand
and ornamental
typicallyconsistsof maintainedlawn and plantedhorticultural
species. Other thanthe FMPC,littleland in the immediatevicinityis in
industrial
use.
MIS:6402-3C
3-11
———
.
\
~AMT
SITE
LEGENO
m
.....
AA
PLANTED
CONIFER
......
...
Q
WOODLANDS
,
m
OLD FIELD
TREES
VEGETA~ON
TYPES
OCCURRING AT FMPC PLANT SITE
PREPARED FOR
FEaNA~
ENVIRONMENTAL
U.S. DEPARTMENT
ASSESSMEN.
OF ENERGY
—.
.
,-
1
-,
-
. . . . ,.
.,-.
~.,.,
.,
-
I
----
. - . ...
s!! .,,...
.
The 425-hectare$FMPC
sitfa,h;s
severalhabitatsoccurringwithin its
“’$e%?dh>fi%:w~dal%~ds,
con’if~rous
“woodlands,
riparianWOodlands?
boundari~s:
‘,
‘and,
$eve’l~ped,,
iand (Figure3-2). Totalwoodlands‘occupy162
pasture,scr~b?:
hectareson the:~ibe~,an~
are “i!varioussuccessional
stagesand subjectto
occasional
distu~pa:n~~~~n~.the
form’ofCattlegrazingand “bush-hogging”
to
~hesuccessionalage of the woodlandsand the
clearunderstorY~~i?~~a!~~n~-..
.
.. severityand frequencyof disturbancein thesea~eas..have
influencedtheir
The
youngest
deciduous
wdodlands
are dominatedby
composition
and structure.
shellbarkhickory>(Caryalacinosa)and whiteash (Fraxinustiericana).Other
commonspeciesare hackber’ry.
(C61tisaccidentalis)~
blackcherry (Prunus
serotina),
boxelder(Acernegundo),and ~erican e@ ’(Ulmus
americanus).The
canopyof these-woodlands
does not exceed.20me~e,g:.
in’height-.
....
,,.,
..
,..
.-./
Morematurewoodlandsalso existon the site. These areasmos~ closely
resemblea matureforestin termsof
cornpositiop;
~an,opy
cover>:
,.
..and
. . species.
.... .../“,
24 metershigh
canopyheight. The canopyof t~esewoodiamdsisapproximate~y
.,
s~eciesar’esu$ar’
with over 80 percentcover. The’do~~nant
. . maple (~~
I
-b~ackwalnut(Jug~ans
and boxelder. Othercommonspecie:i”’-are
saccharinum)
is
The shrublayer
nigra),Ohio buckeye(Acsculusglabra?,and American;~elm.
,
“..
dominatedby saplingsugarmapleand Ohio.buckeje:
: ..
..,
*.
<
~
‘.
-.
,.
...
,,
Coniferous
woodlands(pine.~,lamtations)”,:
plan.t~d::in.1972Y
existon site in two
..
locations.Both areasconsist:o~pla~tid:-:~hite
. .., pine (Pinusstrobus)and
,.
Austrianpine (Pinusnigra).
RiparianwoodlandsborderPaddy’sRun. The dominantspeciesof this habitat
typeare easterncottonwood,
hackberry,Americanelm, and boxelder. Other
commonspeciesare blackwalnut,Ohio buckeye,and American‘sycamore(Platanus
..
..
accidenta’lis)’I’:S
hrub layerspeciesincludeboxelder
’’hacktiekry,
poison~ivy,
and trumpetcreeper. Commonherbaceousspeciesare red fescueand goldenrod.
Land currentlyor recentlyused as pastureto grazedairycattleoccupies
approximately
200 hectaresof the FMPC. The vegetationof this habitatis
,1,
,,
‘
dominatedby red fescue.’Othergrassessuch as timothyand Kentuckybluegrass
are also present.
,,
.,~..~,.,
”,..
-
.-.-.,,.,,.
.
MIS:6402-3C
...=.-
.s
+..
3-13
-.
.
.
. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
---
.
...... .
.
.
.
. .-
.
—.
t
,7,
----
—-
.
63 hectares. Little
Developedland at the FMPC occupiesapproximately
vegetationexistsin this portionof the site.
3.7.2
Wildlife
tJildlife
populations
at the FMPC and surroundingarea are typicalof those is
southwestern
Ohio wherethe land is a mixtureof agricultural
lands,woodlands,and developedland. This type of landscapecreateslargeMounts of
IIedgell
and IIcorridorlt
habitatwhichsupportthe higheSt diversityOf wildlife.
Theseareasprovidecoverand denningareas for specieswhichoften range into
otherhabitatsduringforagingactivities. Two specieso’fowls have been
the great
observedwinteringon site: the easternscreechowl (Otusasio)and
——
hornedowl (Bubovirginianus).
,,,
Tne most’commonSpeciesof nativemammalsat the FMPC site and vicinityare
white-tailed
deer,easterncottontail,fox squirrel,white-footed
mouse,
easternchipmunk,woodchuck,and raccoon. The most abundantsmallmanmal in
the woodlandareason site is the white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus
noveboracensis
). The housemouse (~musculus), is foundthroughoutthe
deer population,which is corlcenentir~region. The on-sitewhite-tailed
trated”inthe on-~itepine plantations,
has an estimatedherd size of 16 to 18
individuals:This concentration
of deer is typicalof this regionof Ohio.
Avianpopulations
also had the highestdiversitiesin the woodlandareas. The
most commonsummerspeciesthathave been observedare yellow-billed
cuckoo
(Coccyzustifiericanus),
blu~ jay (Cyano&itta
cr~stata),Carolinachickadee
(Parus’
carolirtensis),
and’fieritian
robin (Turdus’”migratorius)’i
The most
cotnmon”winter
species’include
’~arolina
chickadee,dark-eyedjuncb (Junco“
hyemalis);kericar~g61~finch-(Carduelis
tristis),northerncardinal ‘
(Cdidi~al~s’eardinaliS)”;
an~:songsparrow’
(Ke~ospiza
melodia)~
,..
‘“
The most cor~on.avian
speciesto utilizeagricultural
land at the FMPC during
the summermonthsare easternmeadowlark(Sternella
magna),red-winged
blackbird(AgelaiuSphoeniceus),
‘andEuropein-starling
(Sturnusvulgaris).In
addition,the Savannahsparrow’
(PassePculus
sandwichensis)
has been observed
utilizingthe’site for br~eding. T~is is’unusual
becausethe Savannahsparrow
does n6~ normallybreed-insouthwes~ern’~hio::’
j
J “’ ““’”
MIS:6402-3C
‘3:,4
.
_,. .... . .
——.
—...
—-
.——
.
. .
Certainmammalianspeciesrely on agricultural
land as a ma~or..fo~d
source.,.
, and white-tailed
deer range into these
Such animalsas raccoon,woodchuck
areasof the FMPC.
.
.
\
. .
.,.
.,
,.
., .
,!0,
Wildlifeutjli~~sdevelopedlafldtO a limitedextentwithinthe FMPC,andthe.
..
~. .,
surrounding
?re?~:‘C~rtain,m~alianspec~es,such as oposs~ ~d.rac,coon,,
. .
,havehabitats,yp~c~
encr??q~int?.de~eloped
areas..Numerousbird spe,cies,
,.
a,nd
@qrica.n
common
,grackleJ
mourningdove,
,,includiqg
st:arling?”:hous~
sparrow) .
robin,utilizede,veloped.sites
in the area as feedingand nestingarea?. ,.
.,,.
3..7.3
. .
t...-..”.
.. .
AquaticEcosyste~s
.
.
‘.
.- ‘1
,.,,
. .
..
..
. .
The aquaticenvironment
of the FMPC is dominatedby one intermittent,
third
orderstream-~Paddy’s
:Run..
GO southal~ng.the,FMPC~s
.. Paddy’sRun,floys.north
.,
The
northern
sect$onis
steeply,graded
and
characterized.
by
westernboundary:,
relatively
high,streamv
elocit.ies
;andaqock/cobble..suFstrate*.,
The southern.
.
.. .
stretch,a depo.sitional~area
que.toits,.lowstr.e=
gradient,,is.peri~d~cally,
.,
..-...
Paddy~sRun,eventually~.flows
~intothe.G~ea~.Miam$.,
dry fromJuly to..
October.
. .
..
Riverapproximately
three,kilometers”south
of the FMPCsite:, Water-~in~t~~s:~~:
.,
,..
stretchof the..GreatMiami
Ri~er.has.,high,nutri.~,~,and
-.onia,coqc~ntrat.ions.
.-.
.,..
and low,dissolved.
oxygen.due..to
.wastewater.d~s~ha~ges
.and. industrial
...-,.muni.cip.~
. . .
intothe river.
,
to be dominant.
,’
i
t,
MIS:6402-3C
:*3~15
.,
~
,..’:
....;;,’;
———-.
differencesin samplingintensitybetween-the,
two...
studies.’
species
. .. Other
..
..
.
commonly:fotind
in”Paddy’s.
Run reportedlyincludethe stonerollerminnow ~ ‘
rosefinshiner(Notropisardens),Johnnydarter
(Campostoma
afiiomalum),
(Etheostorna
fiigrum),’and
fantaildarter(Etheostoma
spectabile)::.,
.,,
.,,
,.
,...
...
.... .
.’
...-. .... .
,..
Dis~ribukion
of’fish.speciesin the strea is.dependent
upQn thephysical ,
microhabitats;:available,
e.g.,rifflesor pools,.Whitesuckers,(Catostoma
cotie’rsoni):s
ilve~jaw minnows,
.~Ericymba
commersoni)
.rosefinshiners,,
and
Johnny.
darters~weref
ound-to be-rareorabsent.from riffleareasbut.commoniq
poolsi‘Conversely,
fantaildan.ters
were foundto be commonqnly in riffles.
‘.:...”,’’:..
-.. .
,. :.:,,’.-;.’.
-. ..-:.. .-......
,.
.. .
Benthici’Znvertebr~tes
’ ~ ‘!~ .‘ “
.’
~
:. .
:
‘: ‘ ~ ‘“ ‘“
A totalof~44taxa’.of
.benthic
’invertebrates
have been identifiedas existing.
in the”Stretch,o
f. Paddy),s’-iRun
that flowsthrough”..the
FMPC site, immediately
upstream{!00meters)i’and
”immediately
.downstrem’(
100meters). .Four”
taxawere
identified
as beingdominantin the Fall/Wintersurvey’conducted
duringthe
riffle
MiamiUniversitystudy (Osborneet al., 1987): midges (Chironimidae),
beetle(Stenelmis
~.), mayfly(Caenis~.), and stonefl~(
Al}ocapniaSP.).
Sevenother tax~:were’-also
commonly-found
thtioughoutt
he-.stream:bhe.mayfly
the..isopod
(Lir.ceuS
-fontinalis
);<the caddisfly~
(Stendherna~.boptinctat~)
j”
(CheumatopSych&
~:, “HydropsycheL~~),t
he’segmentedtworm (Oligochaeta),=
the
..
stonefly(Medourtdae);.
and the blackfly(Simuliumt~:)....
.“’s
‘: .,.
:‘.
;..,i.
.:,...’:.,..,”
.-”,.”.,,::“,
: ,“’.
> p+, ... .~...,
1
.!
-,
Caddisfliess(Trichoptera)were
the dom’inmt!.taxa..during
the Summer.(Battalle,
1981-)’:-ChetiatiopSyche-~i
-tias:the
.mostdominant
=pecies. ‘.Hydropsyche
~. and
ChimaePa”~.:wece:also-comonly
found.“Diftereneesbetweenthe two studies:
are believedto be attributable
to seasonalvatiiations
and:differences’in
: :!~.
Paddy’sRun
Th~ abtindance;
types:of’species
present;and speciesdiversity.in
appeatsto be typicalof-streams--in,
southwestern’
Ohio.:Similarbenthicinvertebrate’
assemblageshave been @~cumented.in
otherstudies:(Osborne
et al.:,
in.both’the
numben>oftaxaand.~the
mean macroinvertebrate
1987).J.Differefices
densities:
found’aldngl.~add~’s
Runappear~tobe attributable
to natural
..
.. .
,),”.,
:,r;
::” J.
“;
variationsin streamflow. , ‘
MIS:6402-3C
~~
,..,
. i“’
.—.
.—--...—. ..— — -— —-----
.
3.7.4‘Th’reatened.
~nd Endangered
-Species
--.:Jz.
..
NO
.~ ;
.
knotin:to(~existra?:
o~!!i:Pi7~..
federaT1y}’enti~~&~YQd’:plafib”or
adiMal.~species’arec
the vicinityo
fthe
FMPC~:;HoweVel.;:three‘speciesof birds.~hat appear,
o.
.....’.
-n-~,he.,
---..
list.
(Qbio’Department-:of
Natura4,.-Y
“RareSpeciesOf.~.at$V-~1.QQiO~:.W-ild.T.$ni.Mals’~
....... :----...:,
hawk (Buteo
Resources,1982)have been observedon site. A red-shouldered
lineatus,).wass
e~ri flying.over-the~si~~during
the WintermOnths-0f~19@sT87<’.
!
This..Spec~i~si
s.list@d-~as~an’~unco~an
breederin the.~egio~<~nd”’as
-a.$b~??;~.
:
eyaneus)was sighted
r$~y~mg
ened bFeeder”lfi:Ohio;
!CNnor~hSC~;~~rier-(CinCus
.-.
...—
.—----.,S.’
.::
ovar-ttie.”site~ih
June.’l9867
a’Jthou@”’the
.bi~dMaS.obServe@~OV~Y..OQc~+
.~~t.iwa%.
.
pre~~editbbe eithe~.~a~late’migrabing
individual.or.
an.:i-~diy<dual~.n~$ting:
of:fsite. Cooper’shawks (Accipiter
cooperii)were sightedon numerousoccasions
duringthe Summerand Winterof 1986-1987.Thus, the Coope~’~<~aw~a~qay!,hawe.,
-..:___
—._-_u.
: .:
been’”
breedingron:site’
ufi,at~least;utikting-habitahs:.within
:thebou~@a~~.9s.
Of tbe’FMPCi-i~The’ffQGpen~.S
hawk’~:.~fited.as
a~:~nc~~~n~bvt~regu~ar~br~edef
..
,aud~~:unewq~-l~o:cowon~a?l?~l~
in;therregidn~~a
th~eatened.,bneede~:+im,~io+
.-
The Miai PurchaseAssociation
for HistoricPreservation
conducteda
reconnaissance
level.survey
of the New HavenTrougharea in,the-Spr~ng:of
1985’
:Thislinwestigation$
whichcovere~,ale,000SQOO....
(Genheimer
andGatus;
t 1986).;
.-......
squaremeterarea.south~and~west
of theiEMPC~did n~t.-identi~y:.any~.si~esi,:
eligible.for.;
iiclusionsmsbhe
LNatio.nal”~Reg
lSte~. HoweveryCEWby’3~Wnehip’Ms:
240 surveyed.historie
~pnoperties
hludi%~~>~i~ewater~shaker~viliagea{
J03L;c+L
New Haven (27);Fernald(11);and New Baltimore(11). iifi-~
MIS:6402-3C
~sst~r-
:.
z~IciYE1-s.
.2—.
.-.
———
-—
..
3.9 DEMOGRAPHYAND LAND USE
The:FMPC‘iSqdctiedYn a rural-area:of n.op.thyestern
fiamil$on.
$ounty~d
,..-
southwestern
ButlerCounty?approximately
32 kilometers.,northweqt,
of downtown
the.northern
30 pe~c?ntof the. . ~
Cincinnati(Figure-l-l).-Approximately
‘propertyis/in.ButlerCoun.by’
(Figure1-1).., - ‘ “.~ ~ ~ ‘
<
-,
..,,,,
.
.
, ,-,‘ --,,
..
:.
. . ..
.,,
The 1984estimatedpopulationfor H~ilton Countywas 863,989;the estimated
d,ec~-eeas,ed
population:”forButler.County
was.265,458.~H@:iltonCo.unty.]opu+ation
.byl;,l-.pwcent~~frorn
1980.
to:3g84while-Butler’County
popqla~ioni~creasedby
‘:2.6,permnti;durtig
the sme period..Fernaldand Ne,w+9al.timore
:i,n
Hamilhon i
Countyand Shandonand ROSS in ButlerCo.untY
a?~:thecommunities.
c.loses.t.to
the FMPC site.
r..~.,
, ‘! ‘l.::.
,,:...
--------.-.
The papulablom:ofkhesevens~allco~~niti.es-nearest
..
‘ ;.-
.
:.’,.
.
‘
“,
. .
‘
,.:.
..
approximate
’distancesf.rem:
the’.site;
are+as...follows:
,’,
.
. :, 1 .,-:-:
.’.
,
~-.-,.’-
,.’.
\..,.
.,,
APPROXIMATEDISTANCE
FROM FMPC (kilometers)
Fernald
1980
ESTIMATED
POPULATION
50*
Shandon
200*
4
COMMUNITY
Ross
2,767
New Baltimore
710
New Haven
300*
,,,
2.5
3.5
4
Harrison
5,855
5
10.6
Miamitown
1,559
8.1
*Theseare roughestimatesonly becausepopulationdata are availableon a
“neighborhood”
basis. Fernaldand New Havenare part of the West Crosby
Townshipneighborhood
with a lg80populationof 1,760.
The land surroundingthe FMPC is primarilyused for pastureland and cultivatedcrops (Section3.8.1). Thereare severalsmall,scatteredsubdivisions
north.andnortheastof the site.
MIS:6402-3C
—.. . .....-— —.——.-
.-
Miami~ite.water
The nearestpublicparkor resourcearea is the 823-he.qta~e
,.
.,...
.,
Forest~1dcated.~ap~rb-~~ti&%el~"~e~@&`kilornet@rs
$southwe~‘of‘the-,
”FMPC..slYe’
-:in
;-areas near..
the ,
nbrthwestHamiltonCounty(Figure-1-1).Other’recreational
‘3.2~i10meterssoutheastof Lhe-FMPC,.
plantsite ~ncltide:
~ Font scott’crops,
Ownedby the Archdiocese
of Cincinnati;
and<CtipRoss.Trails,
a .GinlScoutsQf
America,
cmp locatedabout 1.8 kilometersto the northeast.
.
..
,, .
. . :,
-,
-:..;
:..,:
:-:-,:’
!,,>.
. ‘. !.,.
.. ., .. $-~.
.... . ... :”&-..
,,
‘Obher’’thah
theChesapeakean&-OhioRailrbadwhichruns..alongth
e-west . :,-.;>:,
boundary,ttiere’
ar&ne,majoPt~
ansporVatibn~’artieries
in ’the-:
i~ediat~.vtcini:by
of the’FMP~ site’;:
:’Ink&rsta~es~275~
anti74traversekhe area;east:io:.wes&.
atiout
8.8 kilometers~’30ut~:o-P%he’;FMPc’(F~g~r~
l-i).’- ‘
. I.. ;“~<~~~
‘:,- ““11.~s
~e:: ...
.:,:.$
,.<
.,.:2,
..:,
3.10 OTHERENVIRONMENTAL
PARAMETERS
Due to the’na’turk~bf%he
proposedaction?~,description
‘ofthe entironmen~d->~!
emplo~ent; and:visuahre.sou~ces.rw~renati:;
,.;:;
parametersof noise,traffic),
considerednecessaryfor the impactassessment.
-...,
--.”/.
:’::
.’.’:-,-’
..
..’::.,.,..7
.):
“:.’,
-,.
‘c,
.
,:
:-’
;.
,.. ....
~)
.......-. .....------......--... ... ........
. . ...
.....
........
.. .
.
:}.;,..
.
?r
*.
k..
t
,..
r.,
.,-.
.:,
:
!,”
.:.
.-,
.
....:
:..
.-*
.
.
.
!,
...-. ~
.,
:.
.;
... . .. . . . . .. .. . . . ..
..
~-..
., ..-,:
.
.,
.=,
.,.
.
... .
.>,
. .,
..
.
MIS:6402-3C
;, 3:20
.
. .
. .
-.
.!,’,.-:i:~
..f’-~’j.:.,
4.0 EWIRO~NTW
CONSEQUENCES
This sectionexaines the potentialenvironmental
consequences
associatedwith
the proposedactionfor and the alternativesto the construction
and operation
by defining
of a new D&D facilityat the FMPC. The assessmentis accomplished
the releasesand releasepathways,calculatingthe resultingexposureor
contaminant
levels,and assessingthe resultingenvironmental,
safety,and
health-related
impacts. Both routineoperationsand potentialaccidentswere
consideredin the assessment. Section4.1 definesthe basisand methodsfor
the assessment,Sections4.2 through4.4 addressthe proposedaction,Section
4.5 examinesthe environmental
impactsof the alternatives
and Section4.6
providesa comparative,smaryof theenvironmentalconsequences
of each.
4.1 ASSESSMENTBASISAND METHODOLOGY
In addition.tothe physicaland operationaldescriptions
previouslyprovided,
thisassessmentrequiresthat the radiological
characteristics
of the contami.releases
nationto be encountered
be estimated. Using this information,
I
duringroutineoperationsand underpostulatedaccidentconditionscan be
safety,and health-related
impactsof such
approximated.The environmental,
releasescan thenbe calculatedby use of appropriatemodelingmethods.
4.1.1 Characterization
of PotentialContaminants
Most scrapmaterialand FMPC processitemsthat would be processedat the proposedD&D facilitycouldbe contaminated
with uraniummetaland/orvirtually
any uraniumcompoundthat has ever been presenton the FMPC site. Uranium
compoundspresentin the greatestabundanceare U02, U03, U308~U02F2?and
UF4. U02F2is quitesolubleand, if inhaled,may be readilyabsorbedfrom the
respiratory
and gastrointestinal
tractsto the blood from which it may be
takenup by otherorgans. Other compoundsof uraniumare only slightlysolubleand tend to remaini.nthe lung followinginhalation.Approximately
ten
percentof the uraniumcontaminants
will take the solubleform (Click,1987).
In additionto uranium,thoriumprocessingoperationshave takenplaceat the
FMPC. Insolubleoxidesof thorium-232are-expectedto be presentin about ten
percentof the materialto be processedthroughthe facility. Traceamounts
of plutonium-239
oxides,up to ten partsper billionby weightof total
residue,may also be presentas surfacecontamination
on itemsto be
MIS:6402-4
4-1
—.
are considered
decontaminated.Oxidesof this traceplutoniumcontamination
,.
.. .,
.,.
,.,
to be insolublein form.
Uraniumcontaminants
would be of varyingisotopiccompositiondependentupon
prothe levelofU-235 enricfient. Basedon assays of production-material
cessedat the FMPC’,the vast majorityof the urani~ contamination
wouldbe
uranium“depleted”to levelsof 0.2 percentU-235and ’eight’parts
per million
U-234. Slightlyenricheduranim may also be presentin the contamination
’enri~hment
level is
foundon’FMPCprocessequipment. The maximumanticipat~d
two percentU-23~. Uraniumproducts.witheni~cm~nts as ~igh aS 19.99Percent
U-235.canbe.
haridled’at’
the FMPC”plant (Click,1987). Incomingitemswill be
screenedto assti$e’’that”’
surfaiecont~ination.
in excessof two.perbentU-235
enrichmentis not presentprior to transportto the D&”Dfacility. Any items
whichrequiredecontamination
and whoseuranim contamination
exceedstwo
percentU-235will be speciallyhandledin accordance
.withrecommendedcriticality safetyproceduresan.d’batch
processedthroughthe D&D facility. Strict
administrative
criticality
“procedures
and con:trols
will be developedand
enforcedbasedon specificsourcetermsand risk assessmentswhen materialsare kown to contain’
uranifienrichedto leve’ls
greaterthan two percen’t.
.. ...”
.. .
. . . .,
‘An estimateof-theisotopiccompositionof cont%inationwhichwould be
expe’cted
on”an’annua’l’
average:basis
was made Using FMPC safetyevaluation ‘
data. Annualreleases,bakedupon the-radioactive
contamination
to be
processedthroughthe D&D facility,were formulatedusing the following
assumptions:
.,.,,
-.
;,.,
..
.
.90percenturani~
compounds,
of
which
ten.
percentis.soluble
and,
90
.
-.
. .
. .percentis insoluble
> - ’85 percentdepleteduranium“ “
. .
.
... ,., .‘,.. :U238:= 99.799..perCent
’235 = 0.2 percent
U234 = 8X10-4percent
- ten percentnaturaluranium
’238 = 99:275percent
’235 = 0.72 percent
U234 = 5.34x10-3percent
.. . . .
- five percentenrictied
Uranim
.. .
U238 = 9.7.985.
percent : .: ‘.. . .
,,
,
* .;.’
. .’. ’235 = 2 percent..-:. ..;. , - ..- -..,
U234 = 1.48x10-2percent
.,,,.
●
.
MIS:6402-4
:4-2
.
o ten percentthorium-232
lXIO-6percentplutonium-239.
●
For the purposesof evaluatingthe radiological
impactsof routineoperations,
all particul.ates
releasedfrom the buildingstackafterHEPA filtrationare
assumedto be in the respirablerange,representedby a particlesize of 0.3
micronsin aerodynamicequivalentdiameter(AED).
The radiological
consequences
of postulatedaccidentalreleasesfrom the D&D
facilityare evaluatedusing conservative
assumptionsto ensurean overestiand compounds
mate of the potentialimpacts. The specificradioisotopes
involvedare selectedto estimatethe maximumresultingconsequence
as
discussedin Section4.4.
4.1.2 Dose AssessmentMethodology
Potentialreleasesof radioactive
materialassociatedwith the pro?osedaction
and alternatives
duringroutineoperationsand credibleaccidentswere evaluare basedon conated. Releasesourcetermsand pathwaysto the environment
data. Evaluationsof .
servativeassumptions
or, where available,site-specific
hazardsto workersare basedon designcriteriathathave been establishedfor
the proposedactionand on best industrypractice. Accidentassessmentsare
case”conditionsin the absenceof knownparameters.The
basedupon Ilworst
dose assessmentmethodologyand assumptionsare detailed.
in AppendixA and are
summarizedbelow.
From the descriptionof the proposedactionand alternatives
presentedin
section2.0, airbornereleasesare identifiedas the principle
. environmental
pathwayof concern. As discussedin Sections4.2.3and 4.2.4,solidand
,.
liquideffluentsfrom the proposedD&D facilityare small involme and are to
be packagedor pretreatedprior to releaseto the environment.Managementof
suchwasteswill be performedin compliancewith requirements
thatare protecmaterial(solid
tiveof publichealthand safety. Any spillsof radioactive
or liquid)will be managedaccordingto the SpillPrevention,
Controland
Countermeasure
(SPCC)Plan adoptedfor the FMPC. In the absenseof any direct
or uncontrolled
solidor liquideffluentsresultingfrom the proposedaction,
surfacewaterand soil are concludedto be
releasepathwaysto groundwater,
,inconsequential.
MIS:6402-4
4-3
.
-——,-.—
—.. :.. —
.— ..—
,..
.
.. .
The computermodel AIRDOS.EPA,recommendedby both the U.S. Environmental
protectionAgency (EPA)and the DOE, was employedto calculatedosesand evaluate resultingenvironmental
consequences.This model utilizesmeteorological
data (collected
at the GreaterCincinnatiInternational
Airportweatherstause data to
tion),demographicdata, releasegeometry,and localagricultural
project’radiation
doses to the humanpopulationresidingwithin80 kilometers
by
of the site. Dose assessmentfor routineoperationswas accomplished
applyingannualaveragemeteorological
conditionsto the postulatedreleases
and calculatingthe resultingair concentrations
and surfacecontamination
levelsin all directionsand at variousdistancesfrom the FMPC. The radiologicalexposureis then calculatedby summingthe exposuresfrom all potential
pathways. The modes of exposurefrom airbornereleasesthat are consideredin
the dose-to-mancalculationsincludethe followingpathways; (1) directradiationdue to immersionin air, (2) exposureto contaminated
groundsurfaces,
(3)
inhalationof contaminated
air, (4) immersionin watersuch as by swim-
ming,and (5) ingestionof contaminated
drinkingwaterand food grownon contaminatedland. To assessthe maximumexposureto a memberof the public,a
hypothetical
individualis assumedto resideat the FMPC site boundaryat the
pointwhere the highestannualaverageconcentration
of contaminants
would
occur.
Accidentassessmentsare accomplishedin a similarmanner,but assumedstable
meteorological
conditionswhich allow littledispersionof a releasein order
to estimatea maximumresultinghypothetical
dose to man. The receptorfor
accidentassessmentsis assmed to be a hypothetical
memberof the publicwho
remainsat the site boundaryand at the centerline of the releaseplumefor
the durationof each postulatedaccident.
4.2 PROPOSEDACTIONROUTINEOPERATIONALCHARACTERISTICS
The proposedactioninvolvesboth construction
and operationof the proposed
decontamination
facility(Section2.0). Releasesmay resultfrom airborne
particulate,liquideffluents,or the generationof solidwaste. Expected
quantitiesfor:each’ofthesepathwaysare-discussed
below.
MIS:6402-4
4-4
-..
,,
—...—---
4.2.1 Nonradiological
Releasesto Air
SmallquantitiesOf criteriaPollutants(CO,N02, S02? and particulate)may
be emittedto the atmospherefrom the use of diesel-powered
equipmentduring
facilityconstruction.Dust controlmeasuressuch as sprayingwaterwill be
employedto minimizefugitiveemissionsfrom earth-moving
equipment.
Estimatedtotaiconstruction
equipmentusage.inciudes(Shrimper?lg8~):
Grader
Dozer
Roller
~ Off-highwaytrucks
Miscellaneous
(e.g.,backhoe)
●
●
●
●
160 hours
346 hours
100 hours
778 hours
368 hours
No nonradiological
airborneemissionsare anticipatedduringthe proposedD&D
powered.
facilityoperation. All motorizedequipmentwill be electrically
Estimatesof off-siteconcentrations
of criteriapollutantsduringfacility
construction
were made treatingthe releaseconfiguration
as a point sourceat
the D&D site location. The totalreleasewas averagedover the construction
periodto give an averagedaily release. This dailyreleasewas assmed to
occurthroughoutthe year underannualaveragemeteorological
conditions.
Projectedannualaverageconcentrations
were calculated.From these,24-hour,
8-hour,3-hourand l-houraverageconcentrations
were estimatedusing
publishedconversionfactors(DaMassa,1985). Off-siteairborneconcentrationsresultingfrom emissionsare shown in Table4-1. As explainedin
Section3.6, ambientair qualitydata on concentrations
of criteriapollutants
in the vicinityof the FMPC are not availablefor comparison.
The combinedcriteriapollutantemissionscalculatedusingstandardemission
factorsfor this type of equipment(EpA, 1985)over the expecteduse duration
are: 684 kilogramsof CO; 3,980kilogramsof N02; 248 kilogr~s of S02; and
147 kilogramsof particulate (leademissionsfrom dieselmotorsare
negligible).
.’
MIS:6402-4
4-5
,.
—
T~LE 4-1
AI~ORNE CONCENTRATIONS
- NONRADIOLOGICAL
EMISSIONS
AVERAGING
PERIOD
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATION
(micrograms
per
cubicmeter)
Annual ~
24-hour
3-hour
0.14
0.54
1.22
NitrogenDioxide(N02)
Annual
1.37
CarbonMonoxide(CO)
8-hour
1-hour
4.05
5.78
Annual
24-hour
0.08
0.32
SulphurDioxide(S02)
Particulate
Matter(PM-10)(2)
NAAQSLIMIT(’)
(micrograms
per
cubicmeter)
3:;
--
100
10,000
40,000
50
150
‘1)40CFR part 50, NationalAmbientAir QualityStandards(Primary).
(2)Particulates
are conservatively
assumedto fall in the PM-10range;i.e.,
are smallerthan 10 micronsin diaeter.
4.2.2 Radiological
Releasesto Air
The D&D facilityoperationsare likelyto releasesmallquantitiesof uranim,
thorium,and traceimpuritiesto the atmosphereeven with all environmental
controlsystemsin placeand operatingproperly. Releasesduringroutine
operationhave been estimatedfrom FMPC D&D facilitydesignbasisfor each
processarea (Yuan,1987),
assumingoperationfor two shiftsa day, five days
a week throughoutthe year.
The averagereleasesof radioactivecontaminants
from each D&D processprior
to MEPA/HEPAfiltrationhave been estimatedto be:
●
●
●
High pressurewash areas - 2,900grins/day
Freondecont~ination- 29.3 grams/day
Abrasivegrit-blast- 58.0 grins/day.
Using the projectedisotopiccompositionof contamination
identifiedin
Section4.1.1,and takingcreditfor 99.9 percentremovalby the buildingHEPA
filters(Elderet al., 1986),the calculatedannualaveragereleaseof each
radionuclide
to the atmosphereis shown in Table4-2.
MIS:6402-4
4-6
TABLE 4-2
D&D FACILITYANNUALAVERAGERELEASESDURINGROUTINEOPERATIONS
SOLUBILITY(l)
RELEASE
(curiesper year)
(becquerels
per year)
CLASS
ISOTOPE
s
s
s
I
I
I
I
1’
u-234
U-235 .
u-238
u-234
U-235
U-238
Th-232
PU-239
8.47x10-6
(3.13X105)
5.ilx10-7
(1.89x104)
2.32x10-5
7.62x10-5
4.60X10-6
2.O9X1O-4
8.54x10-6
4.76x10-7
(8.58x105)
(2.82x106)
(1.7OX1O5)
(7.73
x106j
(3.16x105)
(1.76x104)
(1) s = soluble;I = insoluble.
Basedon the releasesourcetermsin Table 4-2 and-annualaveragemeteorologicalconditions,
maximumoff-siteair concentrations
for each isotopewere
calculatedand are presentedin Table 4-3. The maximumoff site air concentrationis predictedto occurapproximately
700 metersdue northof the
the maximumoff-sitesurface
proposedD&D facility. Correspondingly,
depositionis predictedto occurdue northat the site boundary.
TABLE 4-3
ANNUALAVERAGEAIR CONCENTRATION
OF RADIONUCLIDES
OFF SITE
mI~
DUE TO ROUTINE0PERAT19NOF TM PROPOSEDD&D FACILITY
ISOTOPE
MAXIMUMOFF SITE
AIR CONCENTRATION
Pcuries(becquerels)
per milliliter
DOE LIMIT(’)
ucuries(becquerels)
per milliliter
-17
(;:::;:-13)
9.OX1O-’4
(3.3X1O-9)
U-235
2.5x10-18
(9.1X1O-14)
1.OX1O-13
(3.7XI0-9)
U-238
7.8x10-’7
-12)
(2.gxlo
-18
(;:::;
:-13)
1.OX1O-14
(3.7X1 O-1O)
I.5X1O-’9
-15)
(5.7X1O
4.OX1O-’4
(1.5XI0-9)
U-234
..
Th-232
PU-239 :
(1)Allowable
off-siteconcentration
for insolubleforms (Vaughan,1985).
,
MIS:6402-4
4-7
.
~_
4.2.3
<____
. —.-,
‘---
.
. .
. .. :.’.
--
.
Radiological
and Nonradiological
Releasesto Land
Decontamination
processesare anticipatedto generatelow-levelradioactive
solidwastesuch as contaminated
metal flakes,paintchipsand grit collected
from vacuums,sump filtrate,and abrasivegrit air separatorwastestream. In
addition,spent filterswill be disposedas low-levelradioactivewaste. A
maximumof fifty55-gallondrumsof low-levelwasteper year is anticipated.
All low-levelradioactivewaste will be disposed-ofin compliancewith
applicableDOE requirements(DOE, 1984a).
A portionof the low-levelradioactivewaste couldpotentiallycontain
chemicalconstituents
regulatedunder the ResourceConservation
and Recovery
Act or the ToxicSubstancesControlAct. Wastegeneratedin the D&D facility
will be sampledand analyzedas requiredto determinewhetherhazardousconstituentsare present. Waste containinghazardouschemicalcomponentswill be
drwed
and storedin accordancewith applicableFMPC procedures.
Materialwhichhas been decontaminated
to meet unrestricted
use criteriawill
be sold or disposedof in conventional
landfilldisposalareas. The quantity
of thismaterialcannotbe estimatedat this time becausethe quantitywill
dependon the successachievedin decontamination.Uncontrolled
releasesof
solidwastecontaminated
with radiological
or chemicallyhazardoussubstances
will be unlikely.
4.2.4
Releasesto SurfaceWater
Potentialpathwaysby which D&D facilityoperationscouldimpactsurfacewater
qualityincludesurfacedepositionof airborneparticulateand dischargeof
D&D facilityliquidwastes. Surfacewatercontamination
by runofffrom the
facilityis not anticipatedbecauseitemsrequiringdecontamination
will be
storedunder cover.
Possiblemaximumsurfacewater concentrations
resultingfrom surfacedepositionof airbornereleasesof uranium,plutoniumand thoriumisotopesare not
expectedto be significant.Maximumannualsurfacedepositionfrom airborne
releasesoccursto the north of the facilityand is shown in Table 4-4. A
maximumsurfacewater concentration
in nonflowingwaterwas calculatedbased
MIS:6402-4
4-8
on theseannualdepositionratesand assumingbuildupoccursover the lifetime
are basedon the assumptionsthat the
of the facility. The calculations
radioactive
compoundsremainin suspension,thatmixingdepthaveragesone
meter,that no cont~inationexitsthe water body and that the D&D facilitY
shownin Table4-4 are
operatesfor 25 years. The resultingconcentrations
in flowing
well belowDOE health-based
limits(Vaughan,1985). Concentrations
waterwill be lower than thosereportedbelowfor nonflowingwater.
TABLE4-4
MMIMUM SURFACEDEPOSITIONAND SURFACEWATERCONCENTRATIONS
FROM
25 WARS OF ROUTINEOPERATIONS
RADIOISOTOPE
MAXIMUMSURFACE
MAXIMUMSURFACE
WATERCONCENTRATION L~~T( 1)
DEPOSITION
microcuries(becquerels)
microcuries(becquerels)
per milliliter
per squaremeter
-lo
’234
6.5x10-6
(2.4x10-1)
5.4X1O-7
(::::;:-6)” (2.OX1O-2)
’235
3.9X1O-7
(1.5X1O-2)
(3.6x10-7)
5.4X1O-7
(2.OX1O-2)
’238
1.8x10-5
(6.5x10-1)
4.4X1O-10
(1.6x10-5)
5.4X1O-7
(2.OX1O-2)
Th232
6.5x10-7
(2.4x10-2)
~;:::::-7,
PU239
3.5X1O-8
(1.3X1O-3)
(3.4X1O-8)
g.8xlo-’2
-11
9.1X1O-’3
5.4X1O-8
(2.OX1O-3)
2.7x10-7
(1.OX1O-2)
(l)(Vaughan,
1985)
Liquidsgeneratedin the D&D processmay be contaminated
with radioactive
or
hazardouschemicalmaterials. Theseliquidswill be collected,filtered,and
temporarily
storedin the D&D facility,as describedin Section2.1.4. The
liquidwasteswould then be managed(as also describedin Section2.1.4)in a
mannerto ensurecompliancewith NPDESpermitlimitsfor waterborne
discharges.
4.3
ROUTINEOPERATIONALEXPOSURERESULTINGFROM PROPOSEDACTION
Thissectiondescribesradiological
and nonradiological
exposuresto workers
and the publicand evaluatespossiblepublichealthand ecologicalconseconsequences
of radiological
exposuresare also
quences. The environmental
summarizedin Section4.6.
MIS:6402-4
4-g
4.3.1 Radiological
Exposureto \lorkers
Radiationexposureto workersmay resultfrom direct(external)radiationand
from inhalationof contaminated
particles. The D&D facilitydesignincludes
radiationcontamination
controlsto assurethat the DOE designgoal limiting
occupational
exposureto 20 percentof allowablelimitswill be met (DOE,
lg86b)
. For example,the facilitydesignprovidesfor adequateventilation
air flow rates in processareas,exhausthoods for disassemblyof contaminated
articles,air flow from areasof low contamination
potentialto thoseof
, maintenanceof a negativeair pressurewithin
greatercontamination
potential
the building,and use of shielding,radiationmonitoringequipmentand alarms
controlsfor occupational
expoas describedin Section2.0. Administrative
sure includepersonaldosimetry,healthphysicssurveysand radiationprotecprotectionwill be used
tion procedures.Protectiveclothingand respiratory
as required. These controlswill limitradiationexposureto workersto as
low as reasonableachievablewithinthe DOE limitof five rem (0.05sieverts)
per year (DOE, 1986b).
4.3.2
Radiological
Exposureto the Public
Radiological
exposureto the publicduringroutineoperationsof the D&D
facilitywas calculatedusing AIRDOS.EPA.Approximately
90 percentof the
potentialradiationexposureto humanswouldresultfrom the inhalationpathway and ten percentfrom the ingestionpathway.Thereare two radiationdose
limitsof interestin evaluatingexposuresto membersof the public: the DOE
guidelineof 100 millirem(1.0millisieverts)
per year effectivecommitted
dose equivalentto any memberof the publicfrom all routineoperationsand
pathwaysat the FMPC (Vaughan,1985)and EpA regulations
for airborneemissionsfrom DOE facilitieswhich specifya limitof 75 millirem(0.75millisieverts)per year committeddose equivalentto the criticalorganof any member
of the public(40 CFR 61, SubpartH). Exposuresrelatingto each of these
facilitylimitsare addressedbelow. An additionalcalculation
of interestis
the projectedcollectiveradiationexposureto the entirepopulationresulting
from routinereleases.
From the maximumanticipatedreleaseof each isotope,totaling3.4x10-4curies
(1.2x10-7becquerels)per year, an effectivecommitteddose equivalentto the
MIS:6402-4
4-1o
combinedpopulationwithin80 kilometersof the site was calculatedto be 0.42
person-rem(4.2x10-3person-sieverts).
Basedupon a totalpopulationof
2,597,913,the averageeffectiveco~itted dose equivalentPer Personwouldbe
‘4 millirem(1.6x10-6millisieverts).Thus, the averageindiviabout I.6X1O
dual exposureis a smallfractionof the effectivecommitteddose equivalent
limitof 100millirem(1.0millisieverts)
per year for the FMPC (Table4-5).
individual
who
The samemodelwas used to calculatethe dose to a hypothetical
residesat the site boundaryat the pointof maximumannualair concentration
resultingfrom routinereleasesfrom the DAD facility. Routineannual
releasesgive thismaximumindividualan effectivecommitteddose equivalent
of 0.22millirem(2.2x10-5millisieverts)
duringeach year of operation. This
exposureis a smallfractionof the DOE prescribedmaximm individuallimitof
100millirem(1.0millisieverts)
per year applicableto the FMpC (Table4-5).
The EPA limitof 75 millirem(0.75millisieverts)
Per Year co~itted dose
equivalentto the criticalorganappliesto a memberof the publicat the
pointof maximumannualair concentration
in an unrestricted
area whereany
memberof the publicresides. For the FMPC,this point is at the site boundary approximately
700 metersnorthof the proposedD&D facilityat an existing residence(U.S.G.S.,1981). An individualat this locationis estimated
to receivea committeddose equivalentto the criticalorganof 1.5millirem
(I.5X1O-2millisieverts).The criticalorgan (i.e.,most exposedhumanorgan)
for exposureto the assumedmixtureof uranium,thorium,and plutoniumoxide
from routineairborneemissionsis the lung. Table4-5 summarizesroutine
radiationexposureto membersof the publicfrom D&D facilityoperationsand
comparesthemwith applicabledose limits.
MIS:6402-4
4-11
——.
.-
...
.-
TABLE 4-5
RADIATIONEXPOSURESFROM ROUTINEOPERATIONS
CALCULATED
DOSE
none
EffectiveCommittedDose Equivalentto Total
population/person-rem
.(person-sieverts
)
(4.:;::-3)
EffectiveCommittedDose Equivalentto Average
Individual/millirem
(millisieverts)
1.6x10-4
(1.6x10-6)
EffectiveCommittedDose Equivalentto Maximum
Individual/millirem
(millisieverts)
CommittedDose Equivalentto CriticalOrgan/
millirem(millisieverts)
ANNUALDOSE
LIMITFOR ALL
FMPC OPERATIONS
none
100(1)
(2.:;::
-3)
1.5(2)
(1.5X1O-2)
(1.0)
75(3)
(0.75)
(l)Vaughan,1985.
(2)Inthis case,the criticalorgan is the lUng.
Dose Equivalentfor the CriticalOrgan.
(3)40CFR 61, subpart H, co~itted
4.3.3 HealthImpactsResultingfrom RoutineExposure
Potentialrisk to publichealthresultingfrom radiationexposureis
principallyin the form of an increasein cancersarisingin a varietyof
organsand tissues. The cancerrisk for the exposurescalculatedaboveare
addressedin Section4.6. No pathwayfor publicexposureto potentially
hazardouschemicals(suchas Freon)resultingfrom routineD&D operationshas
been identified.
4.3.4 EcologicalImpacts
Uranim and thorim compoundsoccurnaturallyin soilsthroughoutthe United
States;they contributeto the “background”
radioactivity
levelsin soils.
Plutoniumis presentin soils in traceamountsdue to falloutfrom atmospheric,weaponstesting. Naturallyoccurringuraniumconcentrations
in soils
are about 1X10-’2 curies(0.037becquerels)per gram,and thoriumconcentrationsare about2X10-12curies(0.074becquerels)per gram (NCRP45, 1975).
Estimatedaveragethorium-232activityin the uppersoil horizonnationwideis
about2.7x10-7curies(1x104becquerels)per squaremeter (~icker, 1987);
uranim activityis estimatedat 1.35x10-7curies(5x103becquerels)
per
squaremeter. Plutonim depositiondue to fallouthas been estimatedto be
MIS:6402-4
4-12
1.4x10-’2
curies
(0.052
becquerels)
per squaremeter (Eisenbud,1987). Thus,
as can be seen from Table 4-4, projectedreleasesfrom routineoperationsat
the D&D facilitywouldcontributeonly an extremelysmallportionto existing
naturalbackgroundlevels.
Maximumannualaverageoff-siteair concentrations
duringroutineoperations
(Table4-3) are estimatedto be one thousandtO one milliontimeslowerthan
the DOE recommended
limitsfor the radioisotopes
released. Surfacecontaminationwouldbe at one thousandto one hundredthousandtimeslowerthannatural
background.These levelswouldhave to be increasedmany ordersof magnitude
to causeadverseenvironmental
impacts.
4.3.5
Impacts
fromNonradiological
Releases
As Table4-1 indicates,the projectedpossibleconcentrations
of nonradiologicalair pollutantsassociatedwith construction
activitiesare minuscule
when comparedto the allowableNationalAmbientAir QualityStandards(NAAQS)
concentration
limits. Becausethesestandardsare basedon achieving
no deleterious
consequences
protectionof publichealthand the environment,
are foreseenfor eitherhumanhealthor ecologicalsystems. No criteria
pollutantor hazardouschemicalemissionsare anticipated
duringoperations.
4.3.6
Nonradiological
Occupational
Healthand Safety
Nonradiological
healthand safetyconcernssuch as industrial
safetywill be
controlledthroughthe application
of the routineproceduresdescribedin
Section2.1.5. Work procedureswould complywith DOE and OSHA requirements.
4.3.7
Impactson OtherEnvironmental
Parameters
Ambientnoiselevelsat the FMPC are not expectedto be impactedby constructionactivitiesfir the D&D facility. Noisewouldbe generatedby the
operationof the D&D facilityhigh-pressure
wash and grit-blastsystems. The
high-pressure
wash systemswouldoperateat levelsabove90 decibels. The
grit-blastsystemwouldnormallyoperatewith a noise levelof about95
“decibelsand occasionally
up-to 125 decibels(Miller,1987). No significant
environmental
impactwouldbe expectedbecausethe equipmentwouldbe operated
withinthe D&D buildingprocessenclosureswhichwouldserveto attenuatethis
noise. Wash and blastsystemoperatorswouldwear hearingprotectionin
MIS:6402-4
4-13
conformance
with Occupational
Safetyand HealthAdministration
(OSHA)
standards.
The proposedactionwill not generatesignificant
additionalvehicletraffic
or additionalemploymentat the FMPC. Disturbedareas not occupiedby the
afterconstruction.No
facilityand adjacentpavedareaswouldbe revegetated
significantimpactsupon culturalresources,land use, biologicalresources,
visualresourcesor Socioeconomicare anticipated.
4.4
POTENTIALACCIDENTALEXPOSUREAND IMPACTSRESULTINGFROM THE PROPOSED
ACTION
This sectionassessesthe environmental
and healthconsequences
of postulated
accidentsassociatedwith the proposedaction. A smallprobabilityexists
thatunplannedreleasesmay occurduringthe courseof decontamination
process
activities.For the purposeof evaluatingthe potentialrangeof such events,
credibleaccidentscenarioswere formulatedand the resultingimpactsevaluand healthconsequences
from accidentsare summarizedin
ated. Environmental
Section4.6.
Most of the accidentscenarioswhich couldbe consideredas reasonably
probableduringD&D facilityconstruction
and its 25 year assumedoperating
lifetimeare primarilyof an industrialnatureand not uniqueto a facility
thesehazardsare
handlingradioactive
material. Duringconstruction
associatedwith the use of heavy equipmentand handlingof largestructural
components.Operationalhazardsincludeuse of rotatingequipment,high
pressuresystems,cranesand the decontamination
processequipmentitself.
Becauseof the natureof this operation,therewouldnot be large inventories
of radioactive
materia~,or any significant
amountsof highlyradiotoxicmaterialspresentin the D&D facility. Accidentswhich resultin the releaseof
radioactive
materialwouldmost likelyoccurwithinthe processareas,where
engineereddesigncontrolswouldminimizethe environmental
consequences.The
accidentscenariospostulatedbelowdo not assumeany multiplefailures,so
any environmental
releasefrom the buildingwouldbe reducedby at leasta
factorof 1,000by the HEPA filtrationsystem. Failureof the building
filtrationsystemis among the accidentsanalyzed.
MIS:6402-4
4-14
—-. .—-..
.
Criticalityaccidentshave not been consideredin thisanalysisdue to the
smallquantitiesand low levelof U-235enrichmentanticipatedto be present
materialwith
at the D&D facility. As statedin Section2.1.2,contaminated
U-235enrichmentlevelspotentially
higherthan two percentwill be prescreenedprior to transportto the D&D facility. This materialwill be batch
processedthroughthe D&D facilityusingappropriatecriticality
controlsto
requirecriticality
monitoring
maintaincriticalitysafety. DOE regulations
of any facilitywheremore than 700 gramsof U-235couldbe present(DOE,
1986a). Since this possibility
couldnot be excluded,the D&D buildingwould
safetyanalysiswill be
be equippedwith criticality
alarms. A criticality
performedby the FMPC safetyevaluationgroupto addressspecificprocedures
and controlsnecessaryfor processingof contaminated
materialhavingU-235
enrichmentlevelsabove two percent.
The D&D facilitywill be equippedwith a fire protectionsystemdesignedto
effectively
suppressany fire in the building.
Material
to be decontaminated
is not anticipatedto have any finelydividedpyrophoriccontaminants
and no
fire relatedaccidenthas been postulated.Accidentsinitiatedby natural
events,such as a tornadoor earthquakewere not considereda significant
sourceof radioactivity
releasedue to the DOE designrequirements
for the
facilityand the natureof the materialto be processed.DOE facilitiesare
designedto withstandnaturaleventswith any credibleprobability
of occurringwithinthe plantlifetime. The facilitydesignis basedon DOE criteria
requirements
with a designgoal to limitmaximumcredibleaccidentalreleases
to 25 rem effectivecommitteddose equivalentto any individual
off-site(DOE,
lg83).
4.4.1
ReleaseScenarios
Threeaccidentswere postulatedto providea basisfor assessingthe potential
magnitudeof impactsthat couldconceivably
occurover the lifetimeof proposedD&D facilityoperation.The accidentscenarioswere formulatedfrom an
examination
of D&D processoperationsand designbasis inventories
and controls
of radiological/hazardous
materials.The two accidentswith the greatest
potentialfor radiological
consequences
both involvethe releaseof radioactiveparticulateto the atmosphere.A thirdaccidentwas also considered
MIS:6402-4
4-15
.—
resultingin the releaseof Freon 113 to the atmosphere. No pathwayswere
identifiedwherebyaccidentalreleasesof liquidsto the environment
mightbe
expectedto occur. Airbornereleasesare the most likelypathwayof accidental exposureto the public. Accidentalreleasesof both solubleand insoluble
formsof uraniumwere assessed. The highestdose occursfrom accidentsinvolvinga re,lease
of solubleuranium. Exposurefrom releasesare dominatedby
foodand water. The threeaccidentscenarios
the ingestionof contaminated
are discussedbelow.
(1) Failureof Filteron PortableVacuum
The firstpostulatedaccidentinvolvesthe postulatedbreachof the filteron
one of the portableD&D facilityvacuumunits. Althoughroughingfilters
wouldbe in use throughoutthe facility,the vacuumcleanerfilterfailurewas
judgedto be the most-severeaccidentbecauseof the largerinventoryof collectedradioactive
contamination
associatedwith this particularequipment.
The vacuumunit has a 75 liter (20 gallon)tankcapacity. For the purposeof
it was assumedthat the entirecontentsof the tank
sourcetermdevelopment,
couldbe releasedto the buildingprocessarea with an assumedfive percent
and
respirablefraction. [Thisassumptionaccountsfor probableagglomeration
, and is consistentwith recommended
plateoutinsidethe vacum canister
releasefractionsfor nonvolatiletransuranic
solids(Elderet al., 1986)].
In suchan event,99.9 percentof the airbornematerialwouldbe removedby
the facilityfiltrationsystempriorto releaseto the environment.
The consequences
of thisaccidentwouldvary dependingon the type of contathe
minationpresentin the vacuumat the timeof failure. in establishing
limitingaccident,the volubilityclassof the uraniumcompoundsand the U-235
enrichmentlevelwere varied. Criticalityconsiderations
wouldlimitthe
allowableU-235contentto 700 gramsregardlessof the enrichmentof the uranium. An assumptionof 19.99percentenrichmentin U-235 resultsin a smaller
totalquantityof materialavailablefor releaseand thus does not producethe
maximumpotentialoff-siteexposure. An assumptionthat the uraniumis
depletedin U-235producesthe highestoff:siteexposureas a resultof the
large-quantity
of materialavailablefor release. However,thisassumption
yieldsan unrealistically
high mass of uranim in the vacuumcanister. For
the purposeof analysis,two sourcetermswere assessed: one assuminguranium
MIS:6402-4
4-I6
compoundsenrichedto 2 percentU-235and one assumingenrichmentat 19.99
percent. In both casesthe compoundswere assmed to be of a solubleform to
releasewas
maximizethe resultingdose to man. The resultingenvironmental
-6
of uraniumenrichedto
calculatedto be 2.23xlO curies(8.24x104becquerels)
of uraniumenrichedto
2 percentand 1.78x10-6curies(6.57x104becquerels)
19.99percent. The resultingexposureto an off-siteindividualis dominated
by ingestionof food and watercontaminatedby depositionof airborne
particulate.
(2)
Breachof a D&D FacilityProcessExhaustHEPA.Filter
The secondpostulatedaccidentinvolvesa breachof the buildingfiltration
systemsuch that contaminated
exhaustis releasedwithoutthe benefitof HEPA
filtermitigation.The buildingexhaustventilationsystemis designedso
thatonly one-halfof the totalprocessexhaustair streamwoulddischarge
througheach HEPA filter. It is unlikelythat both HEPA filterswould fail
simultaneously;
however,thisscenariois consideredto providea bounding
estimatefor the worstpossibleairbornerelease.
Eighty-five
percentof the materialto be processedat the D&D facilityis
expectedto be contaminated
with depleteduranium. However,it is not possibleto rule out the unlikelyscenariowhere the postulatedaccidentwould
occurduringa timewhen materialhavingenricheduraniumcontaminants
was in
all threeD&D processareassimultaneously.Therefore,two sourcetermswere
considered:one assuminguranim at 2 percentenrichmentand one assming
19.99percentenrichment.The accidentreleaseconsideredassumesthat only
solubleuraniumcompoundsare presentin the buildingat the timeof the
of contaminants
priorto the postulatedaccirelease. Airborneconcentration
exhaustfans for
dent was assumedto be at the dailyaverage. The ventilation
the processexhaustar~ assmed to operateat theirmaximm rateof 354 cubic
metersper minutefor a 30 minute
period
before
being
secured.
The resulting
releasesare calculatedto be 1.2x10-4curies(4.4x106becquerels)
of uranium
of uranium
enrichedat 2 percentand 9.5x10-4curies(3.5x107becquerels)
enrichedat 19.99percent.
(3) Releaseof Freon
A thirdaccidentscenariowas developedin consideration
of the potential
adversehealtheffectsof an accidentalreleaseof the Freon 113 solventused.
MIS:6402-4
4-17
-,._. _ _
in the Freoncleaningprocess,
area. As describedin Chapter2, the solvent
tank has a totalcapacityof about 150 liters. It is extremelyunlikelythat
the totalvolumeof Freon 113 couldbe releasedto the facilityprocess
exhaustsystemdue to safetycontrolsand freonleak alarmmonitorsin the
accident,the entirecontents
processarea. However,as a worst conceivable
of,thistankwas assmed to be vaporizedand releasedfrom the buildingstack
over a 30 minuteperiod. The totalinventoryof Freon 113 releasedwould be
234 kilograms[assuminga densityof 1.56 gramsper milliliterat room temperature (25°C)].
Decomposition
of the Freon is consideredunlikelyat this
temperature.Any spillsof Freon,eitherinsideor outsideof the facility,
will be containedand cleanedup in accordancewith the FMPC Spill Prevention,
Controland Countermeasure
(SPCC)Plan.
4.4.2 Radiological
ExposuresResultingfrom Accidents
The radiological
exposuresresultingfrom the accidentspostulatedabovewould
be a functionof the immediateconditionsprevailingat the time of each event.
In all cases,releaseswouldbe of shortduration,measuredin minutes,and
the cloudof particulateor freongas wouldbe subjectto the existingmeteorologicalconditions(windspeed,wind direction,and atmosphericstability).
Occupational
workersat the sceneof the accidentwouldbe trainedto move
upwindof the release,put on theirrespiratory
equipment,and then respondto
mitigatethe magnitudeof the accident.
Radiological
exposureof the publicas a resultof the accidentsdescribed
abovewas conservatively
estimatedby assumingthat very stablemeteorological
conditionsexistfor the durationof the cloudpassage. t~indspeedwas fixed
at two metersper secondand Pasquillatmospheric
stabilitycategoryF conditionswere assumed(Elderet al., 1986). Theseconditionswould resultin a
cloudof particulateor gas off site.
slow movingand concentrated
For the purposeof dose assessment,it was assmed thata memberof the public
(maximm individual)
was locatedat the FMPC facilitysite boundaryin the
downwinddirectionduringcloudpassage. This maximumindividualwas assumed
to be exposedto the highestresultingair concentration
of contamination,
thatbeingat the centerline of the plume. Table4-6 swarizes the exposure
to thishypothetical
individualfor each of the postulatedaccidents. Because
MIS:6402-4
4-18
of the assessmentassumptions,
theseexposuresshouldbe
of the conservatism
consideredto be at the upperrangeof the possibleexposuresthat wouldoccur
from the postulatedevents.
T~LE 4-6
CONSEQUENCES
OF POSTULATEDACCIDENTS
RELEASE
CONSEQUENCE
.
VacuumUnit Failure
2% EnrichedUranium
2.2xlo-b “
(8.2x104b~~~~~els)
1.2x10-5
rem
(1.2x10-7sieverts)
19.99%EnrichedUranium
1.8x10-6curies
(6.6x104becquerels)
1.0x10-5rem
(1.0x10-7sieverts)
BuildingHEPA FilterFailure
. 2% EnrichedUranium
1.2X1O-4 .
(4.4x106b~~~~~~els)
6.6x10-4rem
(6.6x10-6sieverts)
19.99%EnrichedUranium
g.5x10-4curies
(3.5x107becquerels)
5.4x10-3rem
(5.4x10-5sieverts)
FreonRelease
234 kilograms
0.27 ppm(2)
(l)Maximum
dose to any memberof the generalpublicexpressedas the effective
committeddose equivalent.
(2)Forcomparison,
the recommended
thresholdlimitvalue (TLV)for safe daily
exposureto occupational
workersis 1,000ppm (Sax,1984).
4.4.3
HealthImpactsResultingfrom AccidentalExposures
The healthconsequence
of the radiationexposureto the hypothetical
individual resultingfrom postulatedaccidentsis principally
an increasein the
riskof cancer. This risk is discussedin Section4.6.
4.4.4 EcologicalEffectsof Accidents
The effectsof postulatedaccidentscenarioson ecologicalsystemswere also
and surfacedepositions
considered.The maximumpotentialair concentrations
of releasescalculated..under
accidentconditionsare shownin Table 4-7.
Theselevelsof radioactivity
are well belowany knownthresholdof detection
for ecologicaleffects(Nhicker,1987). Freonlevelsare severalordersof
magnitudebelowthe levelsknownto causediscernible
effectsin laboratory
animals(Sax,1984).
MIS:6402-4
4-19
-,_
— ..
--,.,.
~.,
TABLE4-7
PEM AIR CONCENTRATION
AND TOTALGRO~D DEPOSITIONFOR ACCIDENTS
ACCIDENT
MAXIMUMOFF-SITE
AIR CONCENTRATION(l)
MAXIMUMOFF-SITE
SURFACEDEPOSITION(2)
VacuumUnit Failure
2% EnrichedUranium
2.0x10-14PCi/ml
(7.4x10-loBq/ml)
9.3x10-7pCi/~2
(3.4x10-2Bq/m )
19.99%EnrichedUranium
1.6x10-’4pCi/ml
(5.9x10-loBq/ml)
7.4x10-7pCi/~2
(2.7x1O
‘2 Bq/m )
“2 vCi/ml
1.1X1O
BuildingHEPA FilterFailure
(4.O7X1O
‘8 Bq/ml)
25 EnrichedUranium
8.5x10-12vCi/ml
Ig.gg%EnrichedUranium
(3.2x10-7Bq/ml)
0.07 grams/m3
FreonRelease
5.0x10-5uCi/m2
(1.9Bq/m2)
4.0x10-4~Ci/m2
(14.8Bq/m2)
None
‘l)Peakair concentration
occursduringcloudpassageat nearestboundary
approximately
450 metersto the east.
(2)Atnearestsite boundary.
4.5
EVALUATIONOF ALTERNATIVES
A briefevaluationof the alternatives
to the proposedactionsconsideredby
this environmental
assessmentis providedin thissection. mere possible,
quantitative
estimateshave been made of the routineoperational
and potential
accident-related
impactsfor each.
4.5.1
Upgrade
the PresentD&D Facility
As discussedin Section2.0, this alternativeinvolvesa major renovationof
the existingD&D facilityat the FMPC. Environmental
impactsof this alternativewouldbe associatedwith: 1) cessationof currentdecontamination
of
processequipmentand temporarystorageof such equipmenton site; 2) decontaminationof the existingstructurein preparation
for a major retrofitof
decontamination
processtechnology;
and 3) retrofitand operationof the
upgradedfacility. The firstphasesof thisprojectwouldresultin additional accumulation
of processequipmentand scraprequiringradioactive
decontamination.Processequipmentwouldeventuallybe decontaminated
in the
upgradedfacility;however,facilitydecontamination
and renovationactivities
wouldadd to the existinginventoryof contaminated
scrapand rubbleat the
MIS:6402-4
4-20
materialwouldrepresenta potentialsourceof release
FMPC. This accumulated
to the environment
primarilyas a resultof weatheringprocesses.
Retrofitand operationof the upgradedfacilitywould resultin impacts
activitieswould
similarto but less than the proposedaction. Construction
includeutilityupgrade,paving,and handlingand installation
of new decontamination
processtechnologies
similarto thoseplannedfor the proposed
action. Operationimpactswouldbe less than thoseanticipatedfor the proto the size differenceof the two strucposedaction,roughlyproportional
processwithinthe existing
tures. The area availablefor decontamination
facilityis approximately
one thirdthatof the proposednew D&D facility.
Assumingthroughputcapacitywouldbe similarlyreduced,the environmental
impactsof the operational
phaseof the renovatedD&D facilitywouldbe
approximately
one thirdof thoseestimatedfor the proposedaction. No
accidentsuniqueto thisalternative
have been identified.
The most significant
environmental
impactof this alternativeis that
associatedwith the limitedthroughputcapacityof the existingD&D facility.
It is anticipatedthatFMPC productionequipmentdecontamination
will be a
priorityand that the inventoryof accumulated
contaminated
scrapand recyclable equipmentwouldnot be workedoff but wouldcontinueto grow. As such,
untilthe facilitywas expandedin capacityor a decisionwas made to dispose
of the on-siteinventoryof scrapas low-levelradioactive
waste,the growing
inventorywouldpresentan increasing
riskof radioactive
and chemical
contaminant
releaseto the environment.
4.5.2 TransportContaminated
MaterialOff Site for Disposal
As an alternativeto the proposedaction,the sevenmillionkilogras of
contaminated
scrapprojectedto be processedby the proposedfacilitycouldbe
transported
to an off-site,low-levelradioactive
wastedisposalfacility. A
decisionto disposeof thismaterialas low-levelwaste ratherthan decontam, or sanitarylandfilldisposalwould
inatethe materialfor resale,recycle
requirea significantincreasein off-site~low-levelwasteshipments. An
environmental
assessmentof such a low-levelwasteshipmentcmpaign has previouslybeen prepared(DOE,1985). It is estimatedthat a decisionto dispose
wouldrequireat leasta 14-foldincreaseover plannedwasteshipments. The
MIS:6402-4
4-21
waste volumereductionbenefitsassociatedwith on-sitedecontamination
of
this scrapwouldalso be lost.
This alternativedoes not addressthe need for increasedefficiencyand size
capabilityfor the decontamination
of FMPC processequipmentand vehicles.
Use of the existingD&D facilityfor decontamination
of FMPC processequipment
wouldcontinue. Thereare currentlyno controlson emissionsfrom this
facility.
4.5.3
No Action
The no actionalternative
wouldonly postponethe consequences
of the proposed
actionor alternative
becausecontaminated
scrapwill eventuallyhave to be
dealtwith. The accwulatedscrapwould continueto contributeto ambient
radiationlevelson and off siteand would remaina potentialsourceof environmentalcontamination
due to weatheringprocesses. The no actionalternativewouldoffsetsome of the benefitsderivedfrom environmental,
healthand
safetyimprovement
projectson-goingor plannedat the FMPC sincefinaldispositionof the resultinglow-levelwastewouldnot be resolved. The existing
D&D facilitywouldcontinueto be used for decontamination
of FMPC process
equipment.Thereare currentlyno controlson emissionsfrom this facility.
4.6
COMPARISONOF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSEQUENCES
Potentialrisksto humanhealthfrom routineoperationsrelatedto D&D
facilityconstruction
and operationand postulatedaccidentsare comparedin
Table 4-8.
Becauseof its smallersize and throughputcapacity,the risk
associatedwith Alternative1, renovationof the existingD&D facility,are
represented
as beingone thirdof the risk of the proposedaction.
of radiationexposureis
With respectto humanhealthrisks,the consequence
reportedas a riskof contracting
a fatalcancerat any time in the futureas
a resultof the estimatedradiationexposureand a risk of seriousgenetic
disordersper 30-yeargeneration.In the healthrisk assessment,the
followingacceptedprincipleshave been employed:
●
A carcinogenic
risk due to radiationexposureis definedas the
probability
that a specifieddose will causefatalcancerin some
fractionof the peopleexposed
MIS:6402-4
4-22
c A geneticriskdue to radiationexposureis definedas the probabilitythata seriousgeneticdisorderwill resultper 30-year
generation
●
.
Dose-response
relationship
is chosento be linearwith no threshold,
i.e.,it is assumedthat the probability
of late stochasticeffects
(somaticand genetic)is proportional
to radiationexposurereceived
no matterhow smallthatexposure
responseis consideredto be independent
of dose rate (BEIR,
lg80).
Dose
The absoluteriskmodelas set forthby the Committeeon the Biological
Effectsof IonizingRadiations(BEIR,1980)was used in additionto reportsof
the UnitedNationsScientificCommitteeon the Effectsof AtomicRadiation
(UNSCEAR,lg77)and the ICRP (ICRP,1977). A comparisonof the proposed
action and alternatives
in termsof the riskof contracting
a fatalcancer
over the lifetimeof exposedindividuals
or geneticdisorderper 30-yeargenerationis presentedin Table 4-8.
These risksconsideronly the exposures
associatedwith releasesof particulate
contamination
and do not includethe
riskof canceror geneticdisordersfrom otherenvironmental
causes. For
comparison,
the riskof contracting
a fatalcancerduringthe lifetimeof an
individual
from all naturaland man-madecauseshas been estimatedat 22 percent (2.2E-1)(DOCBC,1987). The currentincidenceof hman geneticdisorders
is approximately
107,000casesper millionliveborn(BEIR,1980)or approximately11 percent. As shownin Table4-8, the increasedrisk representedby
the proposedactionor alternatives
is negligibleby comparison.
MIS:6402-4
4-23
TABLE 4-8
COWARISON OF CARCINOGENIC
AND GENETICRISK FRW RADIOLOGICAL
EXPOSURE(1)(2)
ROUTINEOPERATIONS
OCCUPATIONAL
WORKER
AVERAGE
Alternative2:
Off-SiteDisposal
(4)
IXIO-4
(IX1O-3)
(4)
IX1O-4
(lXIO-3)
(4)
IX1O-4
(1X1O-3)
Alternative3:
No Action
1X1O-:
(lxlo-~)
CurrentRisk of Fatal
Cancer (GeneticEffects)
2.2XI0-’
(1.1X1O-’)
ProposedAction:
New D&D Facility
,,
Alternative1:
RenovateOld Facility
(4)
POSTULATEDWORST ACCIDENT(3)
PUBLIC
AVERAGE
INDIVIDUAL
PUBLIC
MAXIMUM
INDIVIDUAL
PUBLIC
MAXIMUM
INDIVIDUAL
1.6x10-11
(1.6x10-lo)
-8
(::2:1:-7)
5.4X1O-7
(5.4XI0-6)
5.3X1O-’2
(5.3X1O-”)
7.3XI0-9
(7.3X1O-8)
I.8x10-7
(1.8x10-6)
0(5)
(o)
0(5)
(o)
NE(6)
0(5)
0(5)
NE(6)
(o)
(0)
2.2X1O-’
(1.1X1O-’)
2.2XI0-’
(1.lXIO-’)
2.2XI0-1
(1.lxlo-’)
‘l)Healthrisksare expressedas the probabilityof an individualcontractinga fatal cancerduringtheir
lifetimefrom each year of D&D operations. Risk of seriousgeneticeffectsper 30-yeargenerationare
shown in parentheses.Risksare expressedin exponentialform, i.e., 1X10-4is equivalentto one chance
(*)~~s~~~”~ontracing fatal cancer: lxIO-4fatalities/rem
for each year of operation. Risk of genetic
-5 geneticeffects/remfor each year of operation(BEIR,1980).
(3)~~~c~~~ r~~~”associated
with the worst accidentis reported. The probabilityof the accidentis not
includedin this risk.
(4)Riskbasedupon assumptionthat involvedworkerexposurewill be maintainedbelow 10 millisieverts.
(5)Noincreasedroutineexposureto the publicshouldreSult. Transportation
impactsfor Alternative2
addressedby DOE, 1985.
(6)N0
accidentwas evaluated.
MIS:6402-T4-9
,,,
-.
5.0 MITIGATION~ASUMS
Health,safety?and environmental
controlprogrms and measuresare described
throughoutthis Environmental
Assessment,particularlyin Section2.1.5. Most
of thesereflectDOE and/orEPA objectivesand requirements.Becausegovernment programswith radiologicalimplications
are rigorouslycontrolled,
pertinentadditionalmitigationmeasureshave not been identified.
..
. .
MIS:6402-5
5-1
-.
,-. .
6.o PERSONSAND ORGANIZATIONS
CONSUTED
The followingindividuals
and organizations
were consultedduringthe
preparationof this EA:
●
b
●
RichardBoisvert,Stateof Ohio HistoricPreservation
Office,
Colwbus, Ohio
Rita Wynn,Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana
RegionalCouncilof Governments,
Cincinnati,Ohio
Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory,Oak Ridge,Tennessee
. F. Ward Whicker,Departmentof Radiologyand RadiationBiology,
ColoradoStateUniversity,Fort Collins,Colorado
●
Mary Ann Brown,ExecutiveDirector,Mimi PurchaseAssociationfor
HistoricPreservation,
Cincinnati,Ohio.
MIS:6402-5
6-1
GLOSSARY
AccidentScenario:
Descriptionof unforeseeneventsor circumstances
which
have a finitebut low probability
of occurringduring
the durationof the project.
spherethatwould
Aerodynamic
EquivalentThe diameterof a uniform-density
have
the
same
terminal
velocity
due
to gravityin air
Dimeter:
as the particleunderconsideration.
ALARA:
DOE objectiveto maintainradiationexposurelevelsto
as low as reasonablyachievable.
BEIR:
BiologicalEffectsof IonizingRadiations(National
Academyof SciencesCommittee).
Becquerel(Bq):
A unit measuringthe radioactivity
of an element. One
becquerelis definedas one nucleardisintegration
per
second.
CEQ:
U.S. Councilon Environmental
Quality;
co:
Carbonmonoxide.
CommittedDose:
The radiationdose accumulated
over a periodof years
(in this case 50 years)of exposureresultingfrom
radionuclides
depositedwithinthe body duringthe
exposureperiod.
Coniferous:
Pertainingto cone-bearing
speciessuch as pines.
CriticalOrgan:
The humanbody organreceivinga radiationdose which
resultsin the greatestoverallrisk to the body.
DOE:
U.S. Departmentof Energy.
DOT:
U.S. Departmentof Transportation.
Deciduous:
Pertainingto a treeor shrubthat shedsits leaves
~seasonally.
Diatomaceous
Earth:
Earthmaterialaboundingin fossilizedplankton.
Dispersion:
The processof naturalmixingin the atmosphere.
Dose:
A generaltermdenotingthe quantityof ionizing
radiationreceived. Exposuredose is oftenused as the
totalamountof ionizationthata givenquantitycould
producein air. The unitsare then roentgens.This
shouldbe distinguished
from the absorbeddose,which
is the energyabsorbedin one gram of any materialdue
to exposureto radiation.The unit for absorbeddose
MIS:6402-gloss
1
is rads (gray). Finally,the biologicaldose or energy
absorbedin biologicaltissueis givenin rem and
accountsfor relativebiologicaldmage potentialfor
the typeof radiationabsorbed. The unitsfor the
biologically
absorbeddose are rem (sieverts).
Dose Equivalent:
Dose
Response:
The productof absorbeddose and appropriatefactorsto
accountfor differencesin biologicaleffectiveness
due
to the qualityof the radiationand its distributionin
the humanbody. The unit of dose equivalentis the rem
(sievert).
The immediateand long-termresults(effects)of
exposureto a radiationdose.
EPA:
U.S. Environmental
ProtectionAgency.
Edge Habitat:.
The transitionzone betweentwo plantcommunities.
EffectiveDose
Equivalent:
The sum of the productsof the dose equivalentsto
individualorgansand tissuesand appropriate
weighting
factorsrepresenting
the risk relativeto that of an
equaldose to the wholebody. The unit is the rem
(sievert).
Environment:
The physicaland biologicalsurroundings
(habitat)
existingfor humans,plants,and animals. Includes
atmosphere,water,and landas well as the environment
“built”or developedby man.
Environmental:
Pertainingto biosphere,the complexphysical,
chemical,and bioticfactorswhichact upon an
organism.
effects,or outcomesresultingfrom
Environmental
Impact: The consequences,
changesin the humanor naturalenvironment.In this
EA, impactsare generallyconfinedto humanhealth
effectsor adverseeffectson naturalecosystems.
Exposure:
Subjectto effectsof ionizingradiationor risk of
ingestion/inhalation
of a radionuclide.The productof
dose rate and time.
FMPC:
Feed MaterialsProductionCenter,Fernald,Ohio.
Forb:
Broad-leaved
herbaceousplantas distinguished
from the
grasses.
Greensalt:
Uranititetrafluoride.
HEPA:
High efficiencyparticulate
air filtercapableof
removingat least99.97percentof airborneparticulate greaterthan0.3 micronsin diameter.
MIS:6402-gloss
2
Habitat:
. The physicalenvironment
wherean organismlives.
HerbaceoUS:
Non-woodyplants.
Millisievert:
One thousandth(0.001)sievert,equalto 100 millirem.
NEPA:
NationalEnvironmental
PolicyAct.
NFPA
~
NationFire ProtectionAssociation.
NOX:
Nitrogenoxide.
NPDES:
NationalPollutantDischargeElimination
System.
Refersto a typeof StateofOhio or federalpermitfor
discharging
wastewaterto a surfacewaterbody.
DerivesfromSection402 of the federalCleanWater
Act.
NationalRegisterof
HistoricPlaces:
A listingand designation
of nationallysignificant
historicalor archeological
sitesgivenspecial
protectionunderthe federalHistoricPreservation
Act. The nationalRegisteris managedby the National
Park Service.
OSHA:
U.S. Occupational
Safetyand HealthAdministration.
Off Site:
Any locationbeyondthe site boundarywherea memberof
the publiccan be legallysituatedbeyondthe control
of the ownerand operatorof a nuclearfacility.
Paddy’sRun:
An intermittent
stream(flowingonly part of the year)
runningfrom northto southalongthe westernboundary
of the FMPC.
PopulationDose:
An estimateof totalradiationdose receivedby members
of a populationgroup. Unitsare person-rem(personsieverts).
Rare,Threatened,
or
EndangeredSpecies:
A classification
of a terrestrial
or aquaticplantor
animalspeciesgivenspecialprotectionunder the
federalEndangeredSpeciesAct.
Riparian:
Alongthe bank of a riveror lake.
Ruderal:
A typeof disturbedhabitat.
so~:
Sulfurdioxide.
Sievert:
A unit of radiation.
energydepositedin tissue
equivalentto one jouleper kilogrm.
Site Boundary:
The boundaryof a propertyoverwhich the owneror
operatorcan exercisestrictcontrolwithoutthe aid of
outsideauthorities.The site boundarydoes not have
to be a fenceor otherphysicalbarrier.
MIS:6402-gloss
3
Site SpecificData:
Data collectedfor use in radiological
assessment
modelsapplicableto the particularlocationfor which
assessmentis performed.
Somatic:
Radiationeffectsmanifestedin the exposedindividual.
SourceTerm:
The amountof radioactive
materialreleasedfrom
primaryconfinementto the biospherein dispersible
form (unitsare becquerels).
SpeciesDiversity:
A measureof varietyof differentspeciesof a
community:describesthe numberof specieswithinthat
communityand theirrelativeabundances.
Stochastic:
Effectswhoseprobabilityof occurrencein an exposed
populationis a directfunctionof dose.
Third-Order
Strem:
Classification
of streambasedon size;third-order
strews are formedby the joiningof two second-order
strems whichhave loweryearlyflow.
Unrestricted
Use:
Meetingregulatorycriteriaestablishedto protect
publicsafetyin any type of futureuse.
WMco:
Westinghouse
MaterialsCorporation
of Ohio.
WorstCase:
Calculation
made basedon assumptionsintendedto bias
resultstowardoverestimation
of impacts.
MIS:6402-gloss
4
,.,
..
REFERENCES
A. M. Kinney,Inc., 1988,EngineeringCalculationby W. D. Beersdated June 2,
1g88.
for Construction
A. M. Kinney,Inc., 1988,“1OO PercentReviewSpecifications
of D&D Facility,Feed MaterialsProductionCenter,Fernald,Ohio,”for U.S.
Departmentof Energy.
Baes,C. F., R. D. Sharp,A. L. Sjoreen,and R. W. Shor, 1984,“A Reviewand
Analysisof Parametersfor AssessingTransportof Environmentally
Released
“ ORNL-5786,Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory,
Radionuclides
ThroughAgriculture,
Oak Ridge,TN.
of Agricultural
Cropsand
Baes,C. F., and T. H. Orton, 1979,“Productivity
Forage,in Hoffman,F. O., and Baes,C. F. (eds.),1979,A StatisticalAnalysis of SelectedAnalysisof SelectedParametersfor PredictingFood Chain
Transportation
and InternalDose of Radionuclides,”
OwL-/NUREG/TM-282.
BEIR 1980,“The Effectson Populationsof Exposureto Low Levelsof Ionizing
Radi~tion,”
NationalAcademyof Sciences,Committeeon the BiologicalEffects
of IonizingRadiations,
WashingtonD.C.
Report- Feed MaterialsProductionCenter,”
Battelle,1981,“Environmental
U.S. Departmentof Energy.
Briggs,G. A., lg69,“PlumeRise,”AEC CriticalReviewSeries,TID-25075.
and Retentionof RadioactiveAerosols
Chamberlain,
A. C., 1970,“Interception
l!AtmosphericEnvironment,V. 4, p. 57-78.
by Vegetables,
MaterialsComPanYof Ohio,SafetYEvaluation
Click,J., lg87,Westinghouse
Engineer,recordof telephoneconversation,
J. Click to p. Bradshaw(IT
Corporation).
Code of FederalRegulations,
Title 40 Part 61, SubpartH, 1985,“National
EmissionStandardsfor Radionuclide
Emissionsfrom Departmentof Energy(DOE)
Facilities,”
U.S. Environmental
ProtectionAgency.
‘ DaMassa,J., 1985,PTPLU-2UsersManual,CaliforniaAir ResourcesBoard.
Daes and Moore,1981,.“Reportof Findings,PopulationStudiesfor DOE Feed
MaterialsProductionCenterNear Fernald,Ohio,”for NLO, Inc.,May 18, 1981.
Damesand Moore,1985a,“Departmentof EnergyFeed MaterialsProductionCenter
“ Damesand Moore,White Plai,ns,
NY.
Groundwater
StudyTask C Report,
Damesand Moore,1985b,“Departmentof Energy,Feed MaterialsProduction
CenterGroundwater
StudyTask A Report,”Damesand Moore,PearlRiver,NY.
Departmentof Commerce,1985,“WindRose for the GreaterCincinnatiAirport,
lg48- 1978,”NationalClimaticCenter,Ashville,NorthCarolina.
.
MIS:6402-REFSC
R-1
,-.
_-L_.
. .
.
.
.
Departmentof Commerce,Bureauof the Census(DOCBC),1987,Statistical
Abstractof the UnitedStates,Table 114,p. 75.
Departmentof Energy,1983,DOE Order 6430.lA,“GeneralDesignCriteria
Manual,”U.S. Departmentof Energy.
WasteManagement,”
Departmentof Energy,1984a,DOE Order 5820.2,“Radioactive
U.S. Departmentof Energy.
Protection,
Departmentof Energy,1984b,DOE Order 5480.4,“Environmental
Safetyand HealthProtectionStandards,”U.S. Departmentof Energy.
Departmentof Energy,1985,DoE/EA-0260“Environmental
Assessmentof the
ProposedLow-LevelWaste Processingand ShipmentSystem,Feed Materials
ProductionCenter,Fernald,Ohio,”U.S. Departmentof Energy,Washington,DC.
Departmentof Energy,1986a,DOE Order 5480.5,“Safetyof NuclearFacilities,”
U.S.Departmentof Energy.
Departmentof Energy,1986b,DOE Order 5480.lB,“Environment,
Safetyand
HealthProgramfor Departmental
Operations,”
Washington,D.C.
Departmentof Energy,1986c,“FeedMaterialsProductionCenterRCRA
Groundwater
MonitoringReport”,Volumes1 and 2, 1986.
Departmentof Energy,1987,DOE Order 5481.lB,“SafetyAnalysisand Review
System,”U.S. Departmentof Energy,Washington,D.C.
Dunning,D. E., no date, “Estimatesof InternalDose EquivalentFrom
Inhalationand Ingestionof SelectedRadionuclides,”
WIPP-DOE-176,
Rev. 1,
Westinghouse
ElectricCorporation- AdvancedEnergySystemsDivision,
Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
Eisenbud,M., 1987,Environmental
Radioactivity,
AcademicPress,Inc.
Elder,J. C., J. M. Graf, J. M. Dewart,T. E. Buhl,W. J. Wenzel,L. J.
AccidentConsideraWalker,and A. K. Stoker,1986,“A Guide to Radiological
tionsfor Sitingand Designof DOE NonreactorNuclearFacilities,”
LA-10294MS, Los Almos NationalLaboratory,Los Almos, NM.
Environmental
ProtectionAgency,1985,“Compilation
of Air PollutionEmission
Factors,”Volume2, MobileSources,EPA-AP-42,U.S. EPA, Ann Arbor,MI.
Samplingin the New
Genheimer,R. A., and T. W. Gatus, 1986,“Archaeological
HavenTroughHamiltonCounty,Ohio,”submittedto The Ohio Historic
Preservation
Office.
Observations
for
Gifford,F. A., Jr., 1961, “Use of RoutineMeteorological
EstimatingAtmosphericDispersion,”NuclearSafety2 (4):47-57.
Heinmann,K., and
- K. J. Vogt, no date, “Messungenzur Ablarerungund Biologis
1’Proceedingsof the 12thAnnual
ChenHalbwertSzeitVon Jon auf Vegetation,
Symposiumof the Fachverbandfuer Strahlenscheitz,
Oct. 2-6, 1978,NorderneyL
FederalRepublicof Germany.
MIS:6402-REFSC
R-2
IT Corporation,1986,“InterimReport,Air, Soil,Water,and HealthRisk
Assessmentin the Vicinityof the FMPC,FernaldOhio,”International
TechnologyCorporation,
Knoxville,TN.
International
CommissiononRadiological
Protection(ICRP),1977,“Recommendationsof the International
Commissionon Radiological
Protection,”
ICRP
Publication
26 (ICRp77), perg-on Press,Elmsford,NY.
International
Commissionon Radiological
protection(ICRp),1979,“Limitsfor
Intakesof Radionuclides
by Workers,”ICRP Publication30 (ICRP79a),
PergammonPress,Elmsford,NY.
Kocher,D. C., 1981,“DoseRate ConversionFactorsfor ExternalExposureto
photonsand Electrons,”NUREG/CR-lg18,
ORNL/NUREG-79.
Fraction,”In Hof~an, F. O., and Baes,
Miller,C. W., 1979,“The Interception
C. F. (eds.),A StatisticalAnalysisof SelectedParametersfor Predicting
FoodChainTransportand InternalDose of Radionuclides,
FinalReport,
ORNL/NUREG/TM-282
.
Miller,M., 1987,Noise Engineer,BangbornCorporation,
Hagerstown,
MD,
PersonalCommunication.
A. P. Watson,F. O.
Moore,R. E., C. F. Baes III, L. M. McDowell-Boyer,
Hoffman,J. C. Pleasant,and C. W. Miller,1979,“AIRDOS.EPA:A Computerized
Methodologyfor EstimatingEnvironmental
Concentrations
and Dose to Man from
Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory,
Oak Ridge,
AirborneReleaseof Radionuclides,”
TN.
NationalCouncilon RadiationProtection,1975,“NaturalBackgroundRadiation
“ NCRP Publication45, WashingtonD.C.
in the UnitedStates,
NuclearRegulatoryCommission,1977,RegulatoryGuide 1.109,“Calculation
of
AnnualDoses to Man from RoutineReleasesof ReactorEffluentsfor the Purpose
of EvaluatingCompliancewith 10 CFR Part 50, AppendixI (Revision1),” Office
of StandardsDevelopment.
ProgramReviewof the
Oak RidgeAssociatedUniversities,1985,“Environmental
FeedMaterialsProductionCenter,Fernald,Ohio,”preparedfor Safetyand
Environmental
ControlDivision: Oak RidgeOperationsOffice,U.S. Department
of Energy.
..
Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory(ORNL),1987,Transmittalof RMPC AIRDOS.EPA
InputData from D. Hunsaker,Oak RidgeNationalLaboratory,to J. McDowell,IT
Corporation,
4/1987.
,.
OhioDepartmentof NaturalResources,1982,Rare Speciesof NativeOhio Wild
Animals,Divisionof NaturalAreasand Preserves(DNAP-ODNR),
Columbus,Ohio.
Osborne,D. R., S. I. Guttman,C. F. Facemireand R. H. Sperger,1987,“Biological-and
EcologicalSite Characterization
of the Feed MaterialsProduction
Center,” Westinghouse
MaterialsCompanyof Ohio.
MIS:6402-REFSC
R-3
Pasquill,F., 1961,“The Estimationof the Dispersionof WindborneMaterial,”
Meteorological
Msg. 90:33.
Rupp,A. F., lg48, “Dilutionof StackGassesin CrossWinds,”USAEC Report
AECD-1811(cE-1620) ClintonLaboratories.
Sax, N. I., lg84, DangerousPropertiesof IndustrialMaterials,SixthEdition,
Van NostrandReinholdCo., New York.
Shrimper,F. W., 1987,WestinghouseMaterialsCompanyof Ohio,Safety
EvaluationEngineer,PersonalCommunication.
Slade,D. H. (cd.),lg67, Meteorologyand AtomicEnergy- lg68,
AEC/Division
of TechnicalInformation.
U.S.
Tope,W. G., 1987,Westinghouse
Memorandumof December4, 1987,“RevisedEHSI
DesignCriteriafor the Decontamination
and Decommissioning
Facility
(FY-1987).”
U.S. AtomicEnergyCommission,1974,RegulatoryGuide 1.86, Terminationof
OperatingLicensesfor NuclearReactors.
U.S. GeologicalSurvey,1981,7.5 MinuteSeriesTopographicMap “Shandon
QuadrangleOhio,” lg65,Photo revised1981,DMA 4062 ISW SeriesV852.
UnitedNationsScientificCommitteeon the Effectsof AtomicRadiation
(UNSCEAR),1977,“Sourcesand Effectsof IonizingRadiation,”
UnitedNations,
New York,NY.
Vaughan,W. A., 1985,Departmentof EnergyMemorandum,August5, 1985,
‘tRadiation
Standardsfor Protectionof the Publicin the Vicinityof DOE
Facilities,”
U.S. Departmentof Energy.
Westinghouse
MaterialsCompanyof Ohio (WMCO),1988,“FeedMaterialsProductionCenterEnvironmental
MonitoringAnnualReportfor 1987,”FMPC 2135,
Fernald,Ohio.
Whicker,F. Ward, 1987,Departmentof Radiologyand RadiationBiology,
ColoradoStateUniversity,recordof telephoneconversation,
W.F. Whickerto
R. P. Hansen(IT Corporation),
June 5, 1987.
Yuan,J. H. K., 1987,A. M. Kinney,Inc.,“Preliminary
Data - Radionuclide
Emissions,D&D Facility,Fernald,Ohio,”letterto C. L. Fredrickson,
IT
Corporation,
November23, 1987.
MIS:6402-REFSC
R-4
APPENDIXA
DOSE MSESSmNT ~THODOLOGY
This appendixprovidesan overviewof the methodology
and assumptionsused to
assessthe radiological
consequences
to membersof the publicfrom airborne
radioactivity
releasesfrom the FMPC facility.
A.1 DOSECALCULATION
MODELING
The AIRDOS-EpA
computercodewas used to estimatethe radiationdose to man
resultingfromthe atmospheric
releaseof radionuclides
from thoriw material
The
version
of
the
code
used is the one
removalactivities
at the FMPC.
codified in 40 CFR 61 SubpartH. The code,which is a modifiedversionof
AIRDOS-11,is describedin Mooreet al. (lg7g)and was used for both routine
and accidentalreleaseassessments.Most inputparametersrequiredby the
codecharacterize
the area surrounding
the site or are specificto the radionuclidesreleased. As such,theseinputdatawere identicalfor both release
assessments.Other input,suchas the sourcetermsand the meteorological
assumptions
used,were specificto the releaseassessment.The following
discussion
differentiates
betweenroutinereleasemodelingand accident
releasemodelingwheredifferences
exist.
A.2 OVERVIEWOF AIRDOS-EPA
In general,AIRDOS-EPAestimatesthe radiationdose to eithera maximum
individual
or to a collectivepopulationresultingfrom the airbornerelease
of radionuclides
specifiedas inputto the code. Basedupon a characterizationof the area surrounding
the site and the meteorological
conditionsspecified,the codeestimates: (1) concentrations
of radioactivity
in air, (2)
, and (3) groundsurfaceconcentrations.
ratesof deposition
on groundsurfaces
Theseresultsare then-coupled
with intakeratesfor man to estimatethe radiationdose to an adultreceptorassociatedwith all possibleexposurepathdosesare calculatedalongthe releaseplme
ways. For a maximumindividual,
centerline.For a collectivepopulationdose,the modelcalculatesan average
concentration
of the releaseplumefor each sector(distanceand direction
pair)and uses thiscalculationto computea dose.
MIS:6402-AppA
A-1
. .. ——-— .———. . .
—..
. -.,
,.
...>
A.3 METEOROLOGICAL
MODELING
The area surroundingthe FMPC site was modeledas a 80-kilometer
radius
circulargrid systemwith the site locatedat the center. For the assessment
meteorological
data typicalof
of routineannualreleases,site-specific
annualaverageconditionswere specified. First,the annualfrequencyof wind
directionwas determinedfor each of the 16 compassdirectionsstartingat
direction1 for winds towardthe northand thenproceedingcounterclockwise
throughdirection16. Next, the frequencyof each Pasquillstabilitycategory
for eachof the 16 compassdirectionswas determinedfor the six stability
classesrangingfrom A (veryunstable)to F (extremelystable). The average
windspeedwas enteredfor eachwind directionand Pasquillcategory. The
averagedepthof the atmospheric
mixinglayer (lid)for the area was specified
to limitthe verticaldispersionof the plumeafter it travelssome distance
“downwind
of the source. The valueused for the lid heightwas 700 meters for
meteororeleasesdue to routineoperationsand accidents. The site-specific
logicaldata used in the assessmentof routinereleaseswere takenfrom
GreaterCincinnatiInternational
Airportand are summarizedin TablesA-1
throughA-4.
For the assessmentof accidentalreleases,meteorological
assumptionswere
specifiedto intentionally
maximize”the
calculateddose consequences
to a
hypothetical
off-siteindividual.The releasewas confinedto a single22,5°
sectorand, asswing a constanttwo-meter-per-second
wind speed,a comparison
was made of the groundlevelair concentrations
at all distancesdownwindfor
each Pasquillstabilityclass. The stabilityclassand distanceresultingin
the highestoff-siteair concentration
of releasedradionuclides
was assumed
for the durationof the accident. The meteorological
assumptionsdetermined
in thismannerfor the assessmentof accidentalreleasesas derivedabove are
summarizedin TableA-5.
A.4 EFFLUENTMODELING
AIRDOS-EPArequiresinputdescribingthe area or pointof release. Releases
due to routineD&D operationsand accidentswere assmed to occuras a point
sourceat abient temperature(20°C),16.2 metersabove the ground,with an
effectivestackvelocityof 8.99 metersper seconddue to ventilationexhaust
MIS:6402-AppA
A-2
velocity. Stackdata inputis given in TableA-6. Effectivestackheights
were estimatedusingRupp’sequationfor momentumdominatedplumes(Rupp,
1948).
A.5 DISPERSIONMODELING
The basicequationused to estimateplumedispersionin the downwinddirection
is the Gaussianplumemodelof Pasquill,1961,as modifiedby Gifford,1961.
The valuesof the horizontaland verticaldispersioncoefficients(OY and uz)
used for dispersion
and depletioncalculations
are thoserecommendedby
on groundsurfaces,
Briggs,1969. With respectto depositionof radionuclides
the codepermitsconsidering
both dry depositionand scavenging. Dry deposition is the processby whichparticlesdepositon grass,leaves,and other
, electrostatic
deposition,
chemicalreactions,or
surfacesby impingement
chemicalreactionswith surfacecomponents.The rate of depositionon earth
surfacesis proportional
to the ground-level
concentrations
of the
radionuclides
in air (Slade,1987):
Rd = Vdx
where:
Surfacedepositionrate,pCi/cm2-see,
Groundlevelconcentration
in air, pCi/cm3,and
Deposition
velocity,cm/sec.
It shouldbe notedthat even thoughVd has unitsof velocity,it is a constant
determinedfrom field
of proportionality
and as suchmust be experimentally
studiesin whichthe ratioRd/X can be reliablydetermined.For particles
lessthan4 micronsin-diameter,
Vd is set at 0.1 cm/sec(Heinemannet al., no
date). This valueis; however,basedon vegetationcut at a specificheight
and failsto measuretotaldepositionon a unitarea basis. The valuemust
thereforebe dividedby the fractionof atmospherically
depositingnuclides
intercepted
by the above-ground
edibleportionof the vegetationto arriveat
a totalvalueof Vd. Usinga mean foragegrassinterception
fractionof 0.57
producesa deposition
velocity(Vd)of 0.18 cm/sec for smallparticulate.
Sincespecificvaluesfor Vd (total)have not been publishedfor vegetable
crops,it is assumedthat the valueis the sameas thatused for forage.
MIS:6402-AppA
A-3
——
———.—.—.—.
:
-
The rateof depositionby scavengingis a functionof the Precipitation
rate
sinceit is principally
a mechanismof washoutof particlesfroma plumeby
rainor snow. The scavengingcoefficientis averagedover an entireyear
whichincludesall periodsduringwhich rain or snow
. does not fall. The
treatmentof scavengingcan thusbe describedas a continuousremovalof a
fractionof the plumeper secondover the entireyear. The scavengingcoeffi-1
cientthushas unitsof sec . The rate of scavenging(Rs) in PCi/cm2-secis:
Rs = xave’
where:
=
Xave
=
L=
Scavengingcoefficient,
sec “,
Averageconcentration
of nucl.dein a columnof
3 , and
air to the lid height,pCi/cm
Heightof the lid, cm.
The valuefor the totalgrounddepositionrate used in assessingroutine
releaseswas the SUM of the dry depositionand the scavengingrates. For
accidentreleaseassessment,the scavengingrate due to precipitation
was
conservatively
ignored,thusmaximizingthe plumeconcentration.The code
maintainsa mass balancealong the plumeto reducethe concentration
of the
plumeby accountingfor removalof the depositedfraction.
A.6 TERRESTRIAL
MODELING
As previouslydescribed,the area surroundingthe FMPC site was modeledas a
80-kilometer
radiuscirculargrid systemwith the site locatedat the center.
For the circulargrid, 15 distanceswere specifiedin each of the 16 compass
directions,
each distancerepresenting
the midpointof a sector. The distanceswere specified-as
250, 450, 675, 750, 1,500,2,500,3,500,4,500,
7,500,15,000,25,000,35,000,45,000,$5,000,and 70,000metersfrom the
centerof the site. Withineach sectorformedby the grid system,FMPC data
used for population,
agricultural
and waterarea,and beef and dairy cattle
wereoverlayedin arrays. Thesedata are summarizedin Table A-7.
MIS:6402-AppA
A-4
Otherfactorsused in modelingterrestrial
and food crop transportare essentiallythoserecommendedby the U.S. NuclearRegulatoryCommission(NRC)OJRC,
1977),
with
a few modifications
as indicatedon TablesA-8 and A-9 to update
on
data. The periodof timeallowedfor long-termbuildupof radioactivity
surfacesoilswas 25 years, the anticipateddurationof the operationallifetimeof the proposedD&D facility.,The depthof the plow layerwas assumedto
be 15 cm with an arealdensityof 215 kg/m2 (Baeset al., 1979). The fallout
interception
fractionwas set at 0.57 to be consistentwith a depositionvelofractionfor food crops is the
cityof 0.18 cm/sec. The falloutinterception
NRC recommended
valueof 0.20. The weatheringremovalrate constantused was
2.1x10-3hr-l and it was asswed that pasturegrasswas exposedfor 720 hours
duringthe growingseasonwhilecropswere exposedfor 1,440hours. Agriculturalproductivity
for the grass-cow-milk
pathwaywas set at 0.28kg/m2and for
produceand leafyvegetables0.716kg/m2. Foraginganimalswere assumedto be
on pastureduringthe 25-yeardurationof operationsand receivedan additionalfood supplyfractionof 0.47. Foragewas assumedto-beconsumedat a
rateof 15.6kg/daydry weight(Baeset al., 1984).
The musclemass of the steersat slaughterwas 200 kg withmilk productionset
each day is
at 11 liters/day.The fractionof the beef herd slaughtered
2.7x10-3,whichallowsfor slaughterof the entireherd duringeach year of
factorswere takenfrom Baes et al. (lg84). All
operation.Bioaccumulation
of the leafyvegetablesand otherproducewere assumedto be grown in the
assessmentarea.
A.7 DOSEMODELING
Usingthe ground-level
concentrations
in air and grounddepositionrates
computedfrom the meteorological
input,the code estimatesintakeratesat
specifiedenvironmental.
locationsand calculatesthe resultantdosesthrough
variousmodesof exposure. For the purposeof assessingthe totaldose to the
population,
the air concentrations
and grounddepositionratesare average
valuesin the crosswind directionover each sector. The averageindividual
dose is thendeterminedby dividingthe populationdose by the numberof
individuals
in the exposedpopulation.
The dose to a maximumindividualis
determineddirectlyby the code and assumesthat the individualis locatedon
the centerlineof the dischargeplme at the pointof highestoff-site,
MIS:6402-AppA
A-5
—. . . L___
.
. . ..
,.
ground-level
concentration.Human inhalationrates,ingestionrates,and
other factorsutilizedin modelingthe dose receptorsare summarizedin Table
A-1o.
The modes of exposureconsideredin the dose includethe followingpathways:
groundsurfaces,(3) inha(1) immersionin air, (2) exposureto contaminated
lationof Contaminated
air, (4) immersion in water such as by swimmingin a
riveror lake,and (5)
ingestion
of
contaminated
water
and foodgrownon con-
taminatedland. The totaldose to each of the followingorganswas calculated: totalbody,lungs, red bone marrow,lowerlargeintestinewall,stomach
wall,kidneys,liver,endostealcells,thyroid,testesand ovaries. The doses
calculated
were 50-yeardose commitmentsresultingfrom a one-yearexposure
for routinereleasesor one-timeexposurefor accidentreleases. (Onlythe
most highlyexposedorgansare includedin the resultsreportedin the text.)
The internaldose conversionfactorsused in the calculation
are those
reportedin Dunning(no date). The inhalationfactorsare basedon the ICRP
matterin
Task Group Lung Model,which simulatesthe behaviorof particulate
the respiratorytract. The inhalationfactorsused correspondto a median
aerodynamic
diameterof 0.3 microns. The ingestionfactorsare basedon a
four-segment
catenarymodel with exponentialtransferof radioactivity
from
one segmentto the next. Retentionof nuclidesin otherorgansis represented
by linearcombinations
of decayingexponentialfunctions. In both the inhala(irradiation
of one organby
tionand ingestionmodels, cross-irradiation
nuclidescontainedin another)is included.
The Dunningdose factorsare basedon the same ICRPand NCRP modelsendorsed
by DOE (Vaughan,1985).
DOE draftdose conversionfactorsare calculatedfor
particleswith an activitymedianaerodynamicdiameter(AMAD)of 1 um. Using
DOE recommended
methods,Dunninghas calculateddose factorsfor 0.3 urnAMAD
particles,but uses the same organuptakefractionsfor daughterisotopesas
for the parent. Comparisonof the Dunningdose factorswith thoserecommended
by DOE indicatesthat Dunning’sapproachis slightlymore conservative.Both
Dunningand DOE recommendeddose factorsare includedin TableA-11. External
doserate conversionfactorsdevelopedby Kocher(1981),
recommended
by DOE.
MIS:6402-AppA
A-6
were used,as
Radionuclide-specific
inputpar~eters are s~arized in TableA-n. The
contaminants
releasedwere assumedto be in solubleand insolubleoxide forms
for uraniumand solublethoriumand plutoniumas describedin Table A-12. A
qualityfactorof 20 was used in the calculationin accordancewith the
recommendation
of ICRp publication
26 (ICRp,1977).
..
MIS:6402-AppA
A-7
TABLE A-1.
~TEOROLOGICALDATA - ASSESSMENTOF ROUTINERELEASES
VALUE (UNITS)
PARAMETER
BASIS.
Lid Height
700 (m)
ORNL, 1987
AverageTemperature
293.3 (°K)
ORNL, 1987
AverageRainfall
102 (cm/yr)
ORNL, 1987
Frequencyof Atmospheric
Stability
Classfor Each Direction
Table A-2
ORNL, 1987
Frequenciesof Wind Directions
and True-Average
Wind Speeds
Table A-4
ORNL, 1987
Frequencies
of Wind Directionsand
Reciprocal- AveragedWind Speeds
Table A-3
ORNL, 1987
PasquillCategoryTemperature
Gradients
E
0.0728(°K/m)
F
0.1090(°K/m)
MIS:6402-TA-1
ORNL, 1987
TABLE
A-2
.,
FREQUENCY
Of
ATMOSPHERIC
FRACTION
SECTOR
STA31LITY
OF
TIME
CLhSSES
IN
EACh
FOR
EACti
CLASS
STABILITY
A
:.
3
4
s
0.0031
0.0052
0.0094
0.0018
0:0044
0.0064
0.0084
0.0018
0.0079
0.0106
0.0067
:: 8 !;+
0.0031
0.0051
0.0048
OIRECIION
F
0.0517
0.0610
o.080g
0.0637
0.0606
0.0615
0.0654
.0680
8 .0509
0.0814
0.0607
0.04
3
0.05 ! 6
0.0691
0.0476
0.0331
;::;4;
::2;;;
0.1100
0.1005
0.1005
0.1156
0.1052
0.1012
0.1035
0.0707
0.0909
0.076
0.093
0.1201
0.1150
0.0918
o.2~54
i
0.2070
0.1932
0.20?1
0.2069
0.2244
0.2393
0.3293
0.2@23
0.3576
0.3757
0.3448
0.3252
0.2619
0.2550
0.2765
0.2725
0.2392
0.2805
:.:;:;
:2631
8 .3134
:.::;;
0:3406
0.3118
0.2358
0.2256
0.2320
0.3582
0.3155
0.2s19
o.3till
0.3608
0.3:70
0.31$7
0.3401
0.2051
o.la17
0.2096
0.1720
0.1466
0.2250
0.2815
0.3765
b
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
.0 00
8! .0 00
0.0000
0.0000
!:: 888
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
1
I
I
I
TABLE
A-3
I
FRECUEhCIES
OF
UINO
DIKECIICNS
AND
RECIPROCAL-AVERAGED
MIND
SPEEOS
,.
HIND
FREQUENCY
TOhARC
UINO
SPEEOS
FOR
EActt
(HETERS/SEC)
STA61LITI
LLASS
F
0.120
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.060
0.070
0.100
0.120
UINO
DIRECTIONS
ARE
NUPBEREQ
COUNTERCLCCKUISE
1.28
1.39
2.32
2.57
2.37
2.31
2.20
::5;
1.00
1.88
2.
2
1. $ 6
1.73
;.05
.37
f .17
1.56
1.49
::9;
1: !$
1.98
1.83
1.95
2.26
1.86
1.53
STARTING
2.62
2.41
2.83
2.99
2.86
.73
$ .54
3.13
2.64
3.42
3.51
3.02
;.:;
‘
AT
1
FOR
2:6t3
2.69
OUE
NORTN
3.69
3.43
3.40
3
l.sti
1.56
1.65
1.5U
1.11
::!
3.38
3.66
3.90
4.21
4.48
4.59
4.73
4.63
4.75
4.62
5.04
~.j;
3:79
3.11
3.)1
Ii :1
1.6’1
2.21
2.29
2.30
2.32
1.93
1.65
1.50
1.s0
TAUI.E
FREQUENCIES
OF
UINO
OIRECIIONS
A-4
ANO
TRUE-AVERAGE
MIND
SPEEOS
..
UINO
FREQUENCY
TOkARD
MIND
1.79
0.120
0.040
0.050
0.040
0.060
0.040
0.040
0.040
0.050
0.030
0.040
0.060
0.090
0.070
a.loa
a.120
HINO
DIRECTIONS
ARE
NUNBEREO
COLNTERCLOCKHISE
3.00
2.45
2.47
2.70
2.61
3.a5
2.55
2.55
2.81
2.77
2.7
2.6 I
2.16
2.93
3.1s
2.86
1.92
2.49
:.;;
2;51
2.47
2.51
1.90
2.51
.4
it .0
2.01
1.34
2.25
2.04
STARTING
AT
1
FOR
SPEEDS
3.61
3.11
3.54
3.65
3.66
3.69
3.24
3.95
3.60
4.18
~.~~
.
3.99
;.;;
3:17
DUE
NORTH
FOR
EACH
(HETERS/SEC)
4.81
4.22
4.18
4.27
4.23
4.33
:.;:
4:81
5.29
5.43
S.tis
5.85
5.75
S.6S
S.91
STABILITY
4.60
4.18
4.46
4.09
4.32
4.44
4.56
4.63
4.92
CLASS
2.29
2.19
2.30
2.19
;:;;
.
2.50
2.44
2.91
3.00
5.41
5.14
5.2d
5.01
3.01
3.02
2.15
2.44
2.L4
2.31
TABLE A-5
meteorological
DATA - ASSESS~NT OF ACCIDENTRELEASES
PARAMETER
VALUE (UIJITS)
BASIS
Lid Height
700 (m)
Baes et al., 1984
Temperature
293.2 (°K)
ORNL, 1987
Rainfall
0.01 (cm/y)
Smallestnon-zero
valueacceptedby
code
Frequencyof Stability
Classfor Each Direction
100%,ClassF,
any singlesector
Yieldsmaximum
off-sitedose
Frequencyof Wind Direction
for True AveragedWind Speed
100?,2 (m/see)
Yieldsmaximum
off-sitedose
Frequencyof Wind Direction
for ReciprocalAveraged
Wind Speed
100%,2 (m/see)
Yieldsmaximum
off-sitedose
PasquillCategoryTemperatureGradients
E
0.0728(°K/m)
F
0.1090(°K/m)
MIS:6402-TA-5
ORNL, 1987
..
TABLE A-6
STACK I~OWTION
RELEASEDURING
ROUTINEOPERATIONS
PARAMETER
StackHeight
StackDiameter
SourceDiameter
EffectiveVelocityof
StackGas
..
..
MIS:6402-TA-6
16.2(m)
16.2 (m)
0.914 (m)
--
0.914 (m)
--
8.99 (m/see)
8.99 (m/see)
o
Heat Release
ACCIDENT
RELEASES
0
TABLE A-7
POPULATION INPUT FOR FERNALD O -
80,000
m(l)
DISTANCE TO MIDPOINT OF SECTOR (m)
DIRECTION 250 450 675 750 1,500 2,500 3,500 4,500 7,500 15,000 25,000 35,000 45,000 55,000 70,000
N
o
0
10
13
102
51
51
0
2,830
NNW
o
0
00
13
2g
43
43
0
1,626
2,436
4,103
NW
o
0
00
0
22
147
147
12a
l,15a
WNw
o
0
0
10
o
o
0
00
10
9
8
10
w
3
0
749
2,756
8
0
Wsw
o
0
00
6
19
19
Sw
o
0
00
3
6
48
27
27
Ssw
o
0
00
16
42
67
s
o
0
00
10
38
SSE
o
0
00
0
13
SE
o
0
00
6
ESE
o
0
00
6
E
o
0
00
0
ENE
o
0
00
NE
o
0
00
3
6
323
NNE
o
0
00
3
10
“o
1 ,aao
1,270
5,351
4,916 16,336
3,294
17,174 51,’/16
712
23,040 11,815
2,374
3,233
1,616 13,471
6,756
2,348 18,109
3,217
4,01g
7,795
6,5go
2,316
2,767
4,625
0
1,676
6,413
6,oI4
2,6o8
5,ao7
1,442
67
0
a,163
3,401
3,645
91
0
4a
4,573 4,357
12,064 12,65a
5,317
1,159
10,176
179
8a
10,793
6,032
7,745
4g3
179
8a
23,775
9,115
11,851.
3
19
59
13
59
13
27,65a
10,275
14,907
a,ai}5
2,194
o
2,113
6,6a4
Beef cattle for each sector: 10,000(2)
Dairy cattle for each sector: 10,000(2)
Cultivated agricultural land for each sector:
63,5a5 139,295 76,739
7a,021 309,164 a8,939
64,5a6 142,725 66,o21
30,554
43 25,g6a
25,05a 20,795
10,244 11,556
10,523
a,633
21,606
a,339
2g
a05 62,936
11,543 58,alo
34,g6a
45
758
134 1,112 1,112
2g
45
lo,67g
o
(l)Damesand Moore, 1981.
(2)ORNL,19a7.
MIS:6402-TA-7
1,393
0
17,015 4,142
1A]020 ~2(2)
6,777
3,944
3,253
6,520
6,061
32,900
62,144519,911
12,140
70,312
TABLE A-8
TER~STRIW MODELINGASSWTIONS
PARAMETER
IJALUE(uNITS)
BASIS
(years)
FacilityLife/
Conservatism
Fractionof LocallyGrown Produce
1.0
Conservatism
Fractionof Radioactivity
Retained
on LeafyVegetablesAfterWashing
0.5
NRC, 1977
BuildupTime for SurfaceDeposition
25
Time Delayfor Ingestion:
PastureGrassby Animals
StoredFeed by Animals
LeafyVegetablesby Man
Produceby Man
RemovalRate Constantfor
PhysicalLoss by Weathering
0 (hrs)
2160 (hrs)
24 (hrs)
24 (hrs)
2.1x10-3(/hr) NRC, 1977
Periodof ExposureDuring
GrowingSeason:
PastureGrass
Cropsand LeafyVegetables
NRC, 1977
720 (hrs)
1440 (hrs)
Agricultural
Productivity
per Unit Area:
Grass-Cow-Milk
Pathway
Produceand LeafyVegetable
EffectiveSurfaceDensityof Soil
Conservatism
Baes et al., 1979
0.28 (kg/m2
d
0.716 (kg/m)
215 (kg/m2)
Baes et al., 1979
Fractionof YearlyFeed from Pasture
.4
NRC, 1977
DailyFeed from Pasture
.43
NRC, 1977
Consumption
Rate of Contaminated
Feed or Forageby Animals
15.6(kg/day) Baes et al., 1979
TransportTime from Animal
Feed-Milk-Man
2.0 (days)
NRC, 1977
AverageTime from’Slaughterof
Meat to Consumption
20.0 (days)
NRC, 1977
Fractionof Meat ProducingHerd
Slaughtered
Each Day
2.7x10-3
ORNL, 1987
MuscleMass of Meat ProducingAnimal
200 (kg)
ORNL, 1987
11 (l/day)
ORNL, 1987
Milk Productionof Cow
FalloutInterception
Fraction:
Pasture
Vegetables
0.57
0.20
Fractionof Food Grown in LocalGardens:
Produce
LeafyVegetables
MIS:6402-TA-8
Miller,1979
Chamberlain,1970
Conservatism
1.00
1.00
NRC, 1977
—
—- —-.
—.——.,
—... .
,.
.
,.
TABLE A-9
BIOACC~LATION FACTORS
UPTAKEFRACTIONS
MEAT
YILK
(OAYS/LITER) (DAYS/KG)
ELEMEIJT
CONCENTRATION
FACTORS
CROPS
PASTURE
6.0X10-4
2.0X10-4
8.5x10-3
1.6x10-3
Thorium
5.OX1O-6
6.0X10-6
8.5x10-4
3.3X1O-5
Plutonium
1.OX1O-7
5.OX1O-7
4.5X1O-4
1.8x10-5
Uranium
-
From Baes et al., 1984.
MIS:6402-TA-9
DOSE
PARAMETER
TABLE A-10
RECEPTORASSWPTIONS
VALUE (UNITS)
BASIS
BreathingRateof Man
9.17x105(cm3/hr)
NRC, 1977
Depthof Waterfor
ImmersionDose
244 (cm)
Conservatism
Fractionof Time Spent
Swimming
0.01
Conservatism
NRC, 1977
Rateof HumanIngestion:
AverageIndividual:
Produce
Milk
Meat
LeafyVegetables
190 (kg/yr)
(1/yr)
95 (kg/yr)
18 (kg/yr)
110
MaximumIndividual
Produce
Milk
Meat
LeafyVegetables
MIS:6402-TA-1O
520 (kg/yr)
310 (1/yr)
110 (kg/yr)
64 (kg/yr)
ORNL, 1987
TABLE A-1 1
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
SOLUBLE URANIUM-234
I
1
PHOTON DOSE
ISOTOPE
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAY)
IMMERS ON IN AIR
(Rem-cm4/)Ci-hr)
D’
7.763E-9
7.75E-2
’234
CONVERSION
FACTOR
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
RED
MARROW
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
RATE CONVERSION FACTORS(2)
IMMERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
(Rem-cm9/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm5 /)Ci-hr)
1.97E-4
LIVER
BONE
SURFACE THYROID
I
I
1.84E-4
STOMACll
WhLL
TESTES
OVARIES
1.OE-1
1.OE-1
1.OE-1
.1 .OE-2
Inhalation(1)
Dose reins/Cl-”’ 3.lEO
2.0
2.9E0
1.lE-1
1.8E1
1.OE-1
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-’
3.7E-2
1.OEO
1 .8E-1
6.6E0
3.7E-2 1.6E1
3.7E-2
3.7E-2
3.7E-2
~~
.lE-2
o.036g
0.0248
0.0286
0.0336
0.0310
0.0545
0.0731
0.0272
0.0303
1.OEO
Photon Organ(2)
0.0608
Dose Fraction
Inhalation(3)
2.7E0
1.2E0
2.6Eo
Ingestion(3)
2.6E-1
--
2.7E-1
1.8E-1
4.5E1
0.0601
1.7E1
4.lE1
1.7E0
4. lEO
(l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, 1981.
(W) class.
‘(3)From Vaughan, 1985, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.oE-2
comitted dose equivalent.
(4)Effective
MIS:6402-TA-11/l
.-. .
1
Tmm
A-11 (CONTINUED)
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
SOLUBLE URANIUM-235
I
f
1
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAY)
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
ISOTOPE
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS(l)
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IWERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
!/)Ci-hr)
2
(Rem-cm3 /)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm
(Rem-cm /)Ci-hr)
i
..
D
’235
CONVERSION
FACTOR
2.697E-12
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
7.82E1
RED
MARROW
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
1 .75E-1
LIVER
2.16E-2
BONE
SURFACE THYROID
TESTES
OVARIES
S~OMACH
WALL
Inhalation(~)
Dose rems/Ci-l
2.9E0
1.8E0
2.8E0
1.IE-1
1.7E1
9.9E-2 4.4E1
9.9E-2
9.9E-2
9.9E-2
g.gE-2
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
1.OEO
3.6E-2
1.OEO
1.9E-1
6.lEO
3.6E-2
3.6E-2
3.6 E-2
3.6 E-2
4.OE-2
o.3g77
0.4503
1.6E1
Photon Organ(2)
Dose Fraction
0.5409
0.5000
o.47g5
0.4415
0.04678
Inhalation(3)
2.5Eo
I.lEO
2.4Eo
--
1 .6E1
3.7E1
Ingestion(3)
2.5E-1
--
2.5E-1
2.OE-1
1.6E0
3.7E0
~
I
0.4561
0.7222
0.6725
‘l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, 1981.
(3)From Vaughan, 1985, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.OE-2 (W) class.
(4)Effe~tive co~itted dose equivalent.
M1s:6402-TA-11/lA
:,
o.6ogol
‘
Tmm
A-n
(CONTIWED)
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
WLUBLE URANIUM-238
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAY)
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
ISOTOPE
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS(l)
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IMERSI N IN WATER
SURFACE
(Rem-cm~3/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm$/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm2/)Ci-t~r)
. .
D
’238
CONVERSION
FACTOR
4.25E-13
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
1 .33 E-4
5.20E-2
RED
MARROW
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
LIVER
1.26E-4
BONE
SURFACE TI{YROID TESTES
OVARIES
Y~OMACH
WA[.L
Inhalation 1)
Dose rems/Ci-’
2.8E0
1. 7E0
2. 7E0
9.9 E-2
1.6E1
9.3E-*
4.OE1
9.lE-2
9.lE-2
9.IE-2
9.lE-2
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
9.4E-1
3.3E-2
9.8E-1
1.7E-1
5. 9E0
3.4E-2
1.5E1
3.3E-2
3.3E-2
3.3E-2
3.6E-2
Photon Organ(2)
0.0504
Dose Fraction
0.0275
0.0155
0.0202
0.0241
0.0227
0.0468
0.0415
o.058g
o.olg8
0.0218
2.4E0
1. OEO
2.4E0
--
1.5E1
3.6E1
2.3E-1
--
2.5E-1
--
1. 5E0
3. 7E0
Inhalation(3)
Ingestion(3)
‘l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1
(D)
class.
(2)From Kocher, 1981.
(3)From Vaughan, 1985, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.oE-2 (W) class.
(4)Effe~tive comitted dose equivalent.
MTR:64@7_TA_lIfIR
I
I
-
c
E
:
c
<
[
-.
.
c
w
y
.
m
.
.-
N
m.
T
.
.
m
w
y
0
.
0
0.
m
m
3
0
0.
0.
0
m
0
0.
0.
0.
0
0
.
--
TABLE A-n
(CONTIWED)
RADIONUCLIDE
SPECIFIC PARA~TERS
INSOLUBLE URANIW-235
t
1
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
ISOTOPE
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAY)
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS~
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IMMERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
(Rem-cm3/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm?/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm5/)Ci-hr)
I
. .
Y
’235
CONVERSION
FACTOR
2.70E-12
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
RED
MARROW
7.82E+1
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
1.75E-I
LIVER
BONE
SURFACE THYROID
2.16E-2
TESTES
OVARIES
S~OMA(:tl
WALL
Inhalation(1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
2.IE+2
1.8E+3 4.3E-1
1.2E-I
2.50
1.6E-2 6.30
2.5E-2
1.5E-2
1.6E-2
l!.~~_~
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-’
2.7E-2
3.7E-3
2.OE-1
6.lE-2
4.2E-4
3.6E-4
4.2E-4
1 .2E-3
4 .5E-3
0.4415
0.4678
0.4561 0.7222
0.6725
o.6gOl
0.3977
~.45~3
Photon Organ(2)
Dose Fraction
0.5409
1.OE-2
0.5000 0.4795
Inhalation(3)
1.2E2
1.0E3
--
Ingestion(3)
2 .5E-2
--
1.OE-2
‘-2.OE-1
1.6E-1
--
--
6.3E-2
1.6E-1
‘l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, 1981.
(3)From Vaughan, lg85, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.oE-2
(W) class.
(4)Effe~tive committed dose equivalent.
MTs;64m-TA-llllD
—
TABLE A-n
(CONTINUED)
..
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAWTERS
INSOL~LE
URANIW-238
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
ISOTOPE
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAY)
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS~
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IMMERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
(Rem-cm3/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cmB/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm8/)Ci-hr)
,.
Y
’238
CONVERSION
FACTOR
4.25E-13
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
RED
MARROW
1.3E-4
5.2E-2
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
LIVER
1.3E-4
BONE
SURFACE TtlYROID TESTES
OVARIES
STOMACH
WALL
Inhalation 1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
2.0E+2
1.7E+3 4.OE-1
1.3E-1
2.40
1.8E-2 5.go
1.6E-2
1.4E-2
1 .4E-2
2.IE-2
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
2.3E-2
3.3E-3 9.8E-3
1.7E-1
5.9E-2
3.4E-4
1.4E-1
3.3E-4
3.4E-4
3.9E-4
4 .OE-3
Photon Organ(2)
Dose Fraction
0.0504
0.0275 0.0155
0.0202
0.0241
0.0227 0.0468
0.0415
o.058g
o.olg8
0.0218
Inhalation(3)
1.2E2
1.0E3
--
--
--
--
Ingestion(3)
2.3E-2
--
1.OE-2
1.7E-1
6.3E-2
1.5E-1
‘l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, 1981.
Vaughan, 1985, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.oE-2 (W) class.
(3)FrOm
(4)Effective committed dose equivalent.
MIS:6402-TA-11/lE
i
TMLE A-n
(CONTINUED)
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
moRIuM-232
/
ISOTOPE
y
Th-232
CONVERSION
FACTOR
ion
Inha
Dose[?!
rems/Ci
DECAY CONSTANT
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
(/DAY)
‘.
9.42E-2
1.35E-13
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
RED
MARROW
~
I
/.
,
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS~
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IMMERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
(Rem-cm3/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm9/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm3 /)Ci-hr)
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
2.38E-4
LIVER
BONE
SURFACE THYROID
2.15E-4
TESTES
OVARIES
S~OMACll
WALL
1.gE+3
2.4E+3
6.0E+3
3.0E+4
3.8E+O
3.8E+0
3.8E+0 3.IE+l
3.gE+o
3.7E+0
3.’/E+o
2 .7E+0
5.5E+0
4.7E-3
6.8E+1
8.oE-3
4.6E-1
4.5E-3 3.8E+2
4.8E-3
4.6E-3
11.6~_3
0.1110
0.0551
0.0510
0.0984 0.0580
0.0620
0.1139
~,~l~g~
i
:::~fjon
rems/Ci
Photon Organ
Dose Fraction(2)0.0g06 0.0433 0.0657
Inhalation(3)
1.1E3
3.5E3
1.5E3
1.9E4
Ingestion(3)
2.8Eo
---
5.6E0
7.OE1
‘l)From Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, lg81.
(3)From Vaughan, 1985, particle size 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.OE-2 (W) class.
(4)Effective committed dose equivalent.
1.“-
;
I
640-
--.-II”--
,
—
—.- ._
._ —._
--. —
—.
TABLE A-n
(CONTIwED)
RADIONUCLIDE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS
INSOLUBLE PLUTONIUM-239
DECAY CONSTANT
(/DAy)
VOLUBILITY
CLASS
ISOTOPE
PHOTON DOSE RATE CONVERSION FACTORS~
IMMERS ON IN AIR
IMMERSI N IN WATER
SU FACE
(Rem-cm5/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm9/)Ci-hr)
(Rem-cm~ /)Ci-hr)
‘.
Y
PU239
CONVERSION
FACTOR
7.86E-8
EFFECTIVE(4) LUNGS
RED
MARROW
4. 19E-2
LLI WALL
KIDNEYS
1.06E-4
LIVER
9.40E-5
BONE
SURFACE THYROID
TESTES
OVARIES
STOMACH
WALL
Inhalation(l)
Dose rems/Ci-l
5.7E+2
2.1E+3 4,6E+2
1.OE-1
2.3E-3
1.3E+3
5.7E+3
2.3E-3
7.2E+I
7.2E+1
4 .6E-3
Ingestion(1)
Dose rems/Ci-l
5.9E-2
2.gE-7
6.lE-2
2.OE-1
3.3E-7
1.6E-1
7.6E-1
2.8E-7
9.7E-3
9.7E-3
4.4E-3
0.0490 0.0393
0.0435
0.0420
0.0413 0.076g
0.0683
0.0873
0.0370
0.0418
--
--
9.6E-3
g.6E-3
Photon Organ(2)
0.0735
Dose Fraction
Inhalation(3)
3 ;3E2
1.2E3
2.8E2
--
8; 1E2
Ingestion(3)
5.8E-2
--
5.9E-2
2.OE-1
1.6E-1 7.8E-1
3.5E3
(l)Fr~m Dunning, no date, particle size 0.3 microns, ingestion fraction 2.OE-1 (D) class.
(2)From Kocher, lg81.
(3)From Vaughan, lg85, particle SiZe 1 micron, ingestion fraction 5.oE-2 (W) class.
(4)Effective committed dose equivalent.
MIS:6402-TA-11/lG
TABLE A-12
ROUTINE AND ACCIDENT RELEASE SOURCE TEWS
I
VACUUM
ACCIDENT
ROUTINE
ISOTOPE
VOLUBILITY
curies
RELEASE
2% ENRICHED
(becquerels)
curies
HEPA FILTER
RELEASE
FAILURE
19.99%
ENRICHED
2% ENRICHED
(becquerels)
curies
RELEASE
19.99X
ENRICHED
(becauerels)
‘.
’234
’235
’238
’234
’235
’238
.
Th232
PU239
D=
D
8.47x10-6
(3.13x105)
1 .58x10-6
(5.85x104)
I.66x10-6
(6.12x104)
8.45x10-~
(3.13x106)
8.85x10-4
(3.27x107)
D
5.llXIO-7
(1.89x104)
7.51x10-8
(2.78x103)
7.50x10-8
(2.78x103)
3.99X1O-6
(1 .48x105)
3.99XI0-5
(1.48x106)
D
2.32x10-5
(8.58x105)
5.75x10-7
(2.13x104)
4.63x10-8
(I.71X103)
3.O4X1O-5
(1.12XI06)
2.48x10-5
(9.18x105)
Y
7.62x10-5
(2.82x106)
--
--
Y
4.60x10-6
(1.70x105)
--
--
Y
2.O9X1O -4
(7.73XI06)
--
--
Y
8.54x10-6
(3.16x105)
--
Y
4.76x10-7
(I .76x104)
--
Volubility
class
for
highly
Y = Volubility
class
for
insoluble
soluble
uranium
isotopes
compounds
as defined
in
as defined
IH30
in
(ICRP,
ICRP 30
1979).
(ICRP,
1979).