ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL

EXXON NUCLEAR COMPANY

NUCLEAR FUEL FABRICATION PLANT

RICHLAND, WASHINGTON

RELATED TO LICENISE RENEWAL OF SPECIAL

NUCLEAR MATERIALS LICENSE NO. SNM-1227

DOCKET NO. 70-1257

PREPARED BY

DIVISION OF FUEL CYCLE

AND MATERIAL SAFETY

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

August 1981

yl I - -"c

SUMMARY

The objective of this report is to assess the environmental impact of theproposed renewal of Exxon Nuclear Company's (ENG) license number SNM-1227. Theassessment has been prepared in accordance with the CEQ Guidelines presented int~he Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter 1500 (40 CFR 1500) and the NRCRegulations presented in 10 CFR 51.

Historically the effluents of ENC's plant have, resulted in small impacts to thequality of the local environment. Furthermo ,re,.the effects associated with thecontinued operation are projected to result in small impacts to the environment.

The findings of our assessment are summarized in the following four points:

o The radiological releases during normal operations of the ENGplant result in doses to the nearest resident that are asmall percentage of the 25 mrem/year limit specified in 40CFR 190. The future, projected doses from normal operationsare expected to be small.

o Radiological assessments for a hypothetical accidentalcriticality and a larger UF6 release were performed usingconservative assumptions. The resulting dose levels at thenearest industrial site and the nearest residence show thatthere would be no significant consequences to humans or theenvironment.

o The environmental monitoring program of test wells detectedleakage from the lagoons. -The investigative action limitspecified in ENC's license was exceeded and action was taken.Investigation of the leakage found several possible causes ofthe leaks; and the containment system has been redesignedincorporating double liners for the lagoons as well as a leakdetection system below and between the two liners.Continued monitoring of the test wells indicates that thecorrective action has had a positive effect on theconcentrations of various contaminants in the groundwater.

o Releases of fluorides under normal operations and for a large

acidnal U release have been assessed. Theconcentration fluoride in vegetation is inconsistent with

-Iasueme nt.s -0 fluoride in the stack releases if the ENCplant is the source of the fluoride found in vegetation (seeSection 3.3.2). The measurement of fluorides in the stacksis significantly different from the EPA recommendedprocedure. The staff requires-. that EMC modify their methodfor measuring total fluoride releases from the stacks (seeSection 3.3.4).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Secti on Pg

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION .. .. .......... ...................1

2.0 INTRODUCTION AND ORGANIZATION. .. ........... .. .......... 2

2.1 SCOPE. .. ...........................*. ..............22.2 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES. .. ............ ..................22.3 ORGANIZATION. .. .. .................. ..................2

3.0 CHANGES IN SITE AND FACILITY DESCRIPTIONSý ENVIRONMENTALMONITORING PROGRAM OPERATIONAL DATA; AND \LTERNATIVE. ... 3

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION. .. .. .................. .. ............3

3.1.1 Demography. ....................... 33.1.2 Meteorology 'and Climatology ... .. ........ ......... .. 33.1.3- Hydrology. .. ..... ..... ............................15

3.2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION. .. .. ...........................153.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND OPERATIONAL DATA. .. ........ 17

3.1.1 Liquid Effluents. .. .. .................. ............17

3.3.1.1 Process Cooling Water .. .... ...................173.3.1.2 Chemical Wastes .. .... .........................223.3.1.3 Sanitary Wastes .. .... ................ ............32

3.3.2 Gaseous Effluents .. .... ................ ............353.3.3 Solid Wastes .. .. .......................... ........443.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations Environmental

Monitoring Programs. .. ......... .......... ..........44

3:4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION .. .. .......... ................ ....45

3.4.1 No Action. .. .......... ................ ............45

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .. .... ......46

4.1.1 Air Quality. .. .......... ...................... 464.1.2 Water Quality. .. .......... ................ ........464.1.3 Terrestrial Quality .. .. ................ ............47

4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF ALTERNATIVES. .. .......... ....47

4.2.1 No Action, i.e., Denial of any License Renewal.,. .. ....47

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS-(Continued)

Section

5.0

5.15.2

5.2.15.2.2

6,0

6.1

APPENDIX A

REFERENCES

Page

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .. .. .......... ....... .. ....

EFFECTS OF OPERATIONS....... ... . . ... .. ... .. .. .. ..ACCIDENTS AND EFFECTS..... ..... ......... .. .. ..

Analysis of Large UF 6 'Rel ease .. .... ................Criticality Report....... ..... .. . .. .. .. .. .. ....

MATERIALS AND PLANT PROTECTION!..... .... .. . .. .. .. .. ..

PHYSICAL PROTECTION AND MATERIAL ACCOUNTING... .. ......

48

4851

5152

55

55

A.1

ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

3.10

3.11

3.12

3.13

3.14

3.15

Exxon Nuclear Company Site Location..

Exxon Nuclear Company Site .. .. ........ ..

Surrounding Development. .. ......... .. ...

Wind Characteristics .. .. ... .......... ..

Isopiestic Lines.... .. .. .. .. .. .. ....Offsite Environmental Station Locations

Liquid Efflue nt Discharge Routes... .. .. ..

Test Well Locations (Relative to ENC Lagoons)

Average Monthly Fluoride Concentrations (PPM)Well No. 1 .. .. ... ..... ........... .. ..

Average Monthly Fluoride Concentrations (PPM)Well No. 2 .. .. ... .............. .. ....

Average Monthly Fluoride Concentrations (PPM)Well No. 3....... . .. .. .. ....... .. .. ..

Average Monthly Fluoride Concentrations (PPM)Well No. 4...... .... .... .. .. .. .. .. ..Sampling Head, Lagoon-Leakage Monitor.

Paqe

4

5

8

. .. . . . 16

18

21

. .. . . . 24

in Test

in Test

in Test

in Test

28

29

30

31

33

37

40

Uranium Released from U0 2 Building Exhaust Stacks PerTon of Throughput...... .. . . .... .. .. .. .. .. ....

Fluoride Released from U0 2 Exhaust Stacks Per Ton ofUranium Throughput...... .... .... .. .. .. .. .. ....

iii~1' -~

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

3.1 Estimated Population Distribution (1980) Within 50Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site .. .. .... ... ..... .........

3.2 Projected Population Distribution (1985) Within 50Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site .. .. .... ... ..... ........ 7

3.3 Industrial Population Distribution (1980) Within 5Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site. .. ......... .. .. ........ 9

3.4 Comparison of 1980 Population Projections With 1980 Census 10

3.5 Joint Frequency Distribution (5) of Wind Speed, WindDirection and Atmospheric Stability Applicable to theExxon Nuclear Plant Site. .. .. .. ..... ..... ... .........12

3.6 Annual Average Atmospheric Dilution Factors. .. .. .... .....14

3.7 Environmental Surveillance Program. .. .. .. ... ..... ......19

3.8 Quantity of Chemicals Discharged to the Lagoon. .. .. ......23

3.9 Evaporation Lagoon System Test Well Results. .. .... .. .... 25

3.10 Liquid Effluent Monitoring Program. .. .. .. ... ..... ......34

3.11 Public Sewage Treatment Plant Liquid Sample. .. .. ........36

3.12 Semiannual Radiological Liquid Effluent Releases to thePublic Sewer. .. .. .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... ......36

3.13 Semiannual Radiological Air Effluent Releases .. .. .. ......38_

3.14 Micrograms Fluoride Per Gram Vegetation. .. ... ... ....... .41

3.15 Summary of Fluoride Content of Environmental VegetationSamples. .. ... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ... .........43

5.1 Dose Commit~ments Based Upon Normal Operating GaseousRadiological Releases .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... 49

5.2 Estimated Doses (REM) From Postulated Accidents .. .. ......53

iv

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The action proposed is renewal *of the Exxon Nuclear Company's (ENG) license foracquisition, storage, processing, and disposition of special nuclear materials(SNM) . The action proposed would authorize the continued possession and use ofup to 10,000 kg of U-235 (<5% enrichment) and possession of 100 kg of plutoniumof which at least 90 kg is in encapsulated form.

The purpose of the action proposed is to provide the enabling mech 'anism to permitthe continuance of the manufacture, by ENC, of low-enriched uranium fuel forlight water reactors (LWR) to provide continuing 'contribution to the maintenanceof an ample supply of fuel for ENG's customers.

1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

On September 14, 1971 ENC was granted an interim operating license for nuclearfuel manufacturing at their Richland, Washington, site. In March 1974 the Fina1Environmental Statement related to the operation of the uranium oxide fuel plantwas Published and in June of .the same year the Final Environmental Statementrelated to the operation of the mixed oxide fabrication plantý was published. Afull term license was issued April 22, 1974. The operations at ENC nuclear fuelmanufacturing site have been in accord with the processing described in the twoenvironmental statements. As the production capacity was increased, ENC twicerequested (references 3,4), and was granted, license amendments to authorize theoperation of expanded uranium fuel manufacturing capacity. At the present time,the operation involving the use of plutonium has ceased. If the licensee plansto resume such operation in the future, a license amendment will be required andan environmental impact assessment will be prepared by NRC.

2.0 INTRODUCTION-AND ORGANIZATION

2.1 SCOPE

This Environmental Assessment of a proposed operating license renewal for theExxon Nuclear Company has been prepared in accordance with the Code of FederalRegulations, Title 10, Part 51 (10 CFR 51), "Licensing and Regulatory Policy andProcedures for Environmental Protection," and Sections 51.5, 51.7, 51.20, 51.2.1,51.30, and 51.70 thereof.

This assessment was made by preparing estimates of the environmental consequencesof continuing manufacture of low enriched uranium nuclear fuel and comparingthese estimated consequences with applicable Federal standards. The specificFederal standards used were (1) 10 CFR 20.105, "Permissible Levels of Radiationin Unrestricted Areas" (2) 10 CFR 20.106, "Radioactivity in Effluents inUnrestricted Areas" (3) 40 CFR 190.10, "Environmental Standards for the UraniumFuel Cycle" and (4) 40 CFR 141.11, "Maximum Contaminant Levels For' InorganicChemicals (National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations)". In addition,the concentrations of fluoride r~leases and fluoride in vegetation were comparedto the Washington State Standards

Because the facility is an operating plant and actual plant effluent releaseshave been monitored and are documented, this evaluation has addressed the mostsignificant environmental indices. These relate to demography, site meteorologydata, hydrology, control of effluents, environmental monitoring, and accidentpotential.

2.2 ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES

During assessment preparation, applicable Federal and State legislation andFederal guidelines were reviewed.. Appropriate Federal and State agencies werecontacted in person ' by phone and/or mail. Conferences were held with facilitymanagement and staff. A site visit, including surrounding areas, was conducted.Data from the site visit and personnel contacts were collected, evaluated andanalyzed for incorporation into the final report.

2.3 ORGANIZATION

This assessment is organized according to the guidelines established by thePresident'-s Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 1506) and the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission .(10 CFR 51). Section 3.0 summarizes the principal change~sin the characteristics of the site and fac-ility since the previous environmentalstatements And environmental monitoring programs. The operational, data from theenvironmental monitoring are also presented in Section 3.0. In Section 4.0 theaffected environment. relative to the operation of the ENC plant is discussed.Section 5.0 addresses the environmental consequences of the Proposed Action.

2

3.0 CHANGES IN SITE AND'-FACILITY DESCRIPTION-S;-- ENVIRONMENTAL-MONITORING PROGRAM OPERATIONAL DATA; AND ALTERNATIVE

3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Exxon Nuclear Company site coordinates are at 1460 21' N and 1190 17' W, justinside the northern limit of the City of Richland, Washington, on a 6100-acreparcel of land known as the Horn Rapids Triangle (Figure 3.1). .The site issquare, consists of 160 acres and occupies the entire Southwest Quarter ofSection 15, Township 10 North, Range 28 East, Willamette Meridian in BentonCounty, Washington. The facility process and ancillary buildings, storagelagoons, offices and parking accommodations occupy an area of approximately 26.4acres in the northeast corner of the site. With exception of the, officebuildings and parking areas, the entire facility is fenced with an eight-footsecurity fence (Figure 3.2).

3.1.1 Demography

The City of Richland, in which the Exxon Nuclear Company is located, along withPasco and Kennewick comprise a metropolitan area known as the Tni-Cities. In1970 the Tni-Cities -population was, approximately 56,000. During the past tenyears, due mainly to the increased activities on the Hanford Reservation, thepopulation of the Tni-Cities area has increased to 84,750, i.e., a 51% increase.Table 3.1 shows the 1980 population distribution within a 50-mile radius of theNC by compass direction and radii interval. Projected population within 50miles of ENC for 1985 is presented in Table 3.2. The developments within a fivemile radius of the site are shown in Figure .3.3 and the industrial populationdistribution within five miles is shown in Table 3.3.

-The 1970 population within a 50-mile radius of the ENC was 184,294. Today'spopulation within that radius has increased by 36% to 25.0,220. Table 3.4compares the 1980 data to the projections made in 1974 (reference 2). It isevident from Table 3.4 that the area, particularly within 20 miles of the plant,has..exceeded the growth projections. The large growth is due primarily toincreased activities on the Hanford site, including the location of several newpower plants adjacent to the Hanford site.

3.1.2 Meteorology and Climatology

Measurements of the wind characteristics in the vicinity of the Exxon Nuclear,site are summarized by Figure 3.4 and Table 3.5. The annual average X/Q valuesfor the ENC site are tabulated on Table 3.6. The prevailing wind at the ExxonNuclear site is from the southwest along the Yakima River corridor, which entersthe Columbia Basin near the site. Secondary direction frequency maxima are fromthe northwest' and the southeast along the axis of the Columbia River Valley, andthe lowest frequencies are from the east and northeast. This pattern holds mostof the year, with the 'exception of a few months in the fall and early winter,when the wind direction is predominantly from the north and northwest.

3

SCALE INd MILES0 1 2 a 9

Figure 3.1 Exxon Nuclear Company Site Location

4

Figure 3.2 Exxon Nuclear Company Site

5

Table 3.1

Estimated Population Distribution (1980) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site

(By Compass Sector and Distance).

CompassSector

Miles______________

N

NNE

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

TOTAL

0-55

0

0

0'

50

100

120

2,730

13,750

13,710

960

1 ,1 20

170

250

0

0

0

32,960

-5-10-

0

20

130

150

200

2,700

3,780

13,030

5,680

320

240

1,750

430

0

0

0

28,430

-10-20

140

250

700

500

250

4,260

48,880

1 5, 160

4,550

450

880

1 ,360

1 ,020

0

0

0

20-30

520

530

1 ,500

180

250

420

2,600

410

4,670

260

510

6,200

1 ,650

1 ,280

110

10

30-40

1 ,350

4,450

1 ,220

270

150

650

1,160

1,920

11,680

2,600

320

10,240

15,450

1 ,300

590

300

40-50

1 ,050

1 ,420

550

250

550

900

690

1,900

3,030

1 ,200

410

810

17,510

2,670

1,160

1 ,580

TOTAL

3,060

6,670

4, 100

1 ,400

1 ,500

9,050

59,840

46,170

43,320

5,790

3,480

20,530

36,310

5,250

1 ,860

1 ,890

78,400 21,100 53,650 35,680 250,220

I i

N

Table 3.2

Projected Population Distribution (1985) Within 50 Miles of the Exxon Nuclear Site

.(By Compass Sector and Distance)

Compass Miles-

Sector 0-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 TOTAL

N 0 0 180 560 1,500 1,110 3,350

NNE 0. 30 320 570 4,750 1,530 7,200

NE 0 15.0 840 1,560 1,359 610 4,510

ENE 70 170 510 180 280 270 1,480

E 150 300 -390 300 150 570 - 1,860

ESE 280 2,950 4,400 430 670 930 9,660

SE 4,250 5,300 58,600 3,100 1,450 720 73,420

SSE 16,000 15,500 1820500 2,020 .2,000 54,220

S 16,500 6,600ý 5,300 5,850 13,300 3,400 50,950

SSW 1,750 340 540 350 2,750 1,280 7,010

Sw 1,200 250 950 600 330 430 3,760

WSW 170 2,000 1,500 7,"600 10,550 830 22,650

W 260 450 1,080 1,750 16,800 18,800 39,140

WNW 0 0 0 1,650 1,330 2,800 5,780

NW 0 0 0 110, 620 1,200 1,3

NNW 00 0 10 320 1,660 1,990

TOTAL 40,630 34,040 92,810 25,120 -58,170 38,140 288,910

SCALE IN MILES0 2 3 5

LEGENDINDUSTRIAL PLANT$

10ROCKWELL. INTERNATIONAL HANFORDOPRTNSVCT

ItT RCLAD4D VACANT3 J .JOES CONSTRUCTION COMPANYU5. LTESTING COMPANY L JAGRICULIMcDONALD-DOUGLAS

NORTC COPORAIONMAMUPAAUTOMATA CORPORATION MOLOSONICS.

LAND USEURSANI

URBAN-

IURIA"

TURAL-4UIURILAN

I'LRING AND INDUSTRLAL a SCHOOL

ONAND PUDLUC RESERVE & HOSPITAL

Figure 3.3 Surrounding Devel opmnent

8

Table 3.3

Industrial population Distribution (1980) Within 5 Miles of(By Compass Sector and Distance)

the Exxon Nuclear Site

CompassSector

N

NN E

NE

ENE

E

ESE

SE

SSE

S

SSW

SW

WSW

W

WNW

NW

NNW

TOTAL

Miles0-1 1-Z 2-3

0

100

2445

120

1620

1140

750

630

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6805

0

100

465.

0

0

0

20

325

40

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

950

3-4

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

60

30

5

5

00

0

0

0

100

TOTA~L

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

5

0

0

0

0

0

10

0200

2910

120

1620

1140

770

1015

70

.10

10

0

0

0

0

0

7865

I 1ý

Table 3.4 Comparison of 1980With 1980 Census

Population Projections

0-10Miles

37,920

61,390

10-20Miles

56,910

78,400

20-30Miles

18,120

61,390235168

30-40Miles

45,640

53,650

40-50Miles

44,900

35,680

Projection

Census

10

I OCALM .4

a4~ ,~ luu

RMTH

17.6

17.V4.1

Wt. Io.a.p..d 5.0% /0.6ORIM 0.6 %

Ver. low so.Od 8.4% /0.7m/eCami 6.7%

Figure -3,jf wind Characteristics

Table 3.5

Joint Frequency Distribution (5) of-Wi-nd Speed, WindDirection and Atmospheric Stability Applicable to the

Exxon Nuclear Plant Site

Wind Speed

Calm(presumed0-0.5 mph)

Pasquil11.Stabil1i ty

GFDC

Al I

Wind DirectionNE E SE S SW W NW N Total

.10

.10

.033

.10

.33

.031

.11

.035

.26

.26

.087

.26

.87

0. 5-3 mph

4-7 mph

3-12 mph

13-19 mph

19-24 mph

25-31 mph

32-38 mph

GFDC

Al 1

FDC

Al 1

FDC

Al I

FDC

Al I

FDC

Al 1

FDC

Al 1

FDC

All1

.66

.66

.22

.662.19

1.08.18.541 .80

.69

.69

.23

.692.30

1.17.19.58

1.95

.24

.04

.12

.40

1.711.71.57

1.715.71

3.49.58

1.755.82

.97.16.49

1.61

.19

.032.097.32

.14

.14

.046

.14

.46

.90

.90

.30

.902.99

2.36.39

1.183.94

.95

.16

.471.58

.52.087.26.87

.12

.12

.042

.12

.42

.38

.063

.19

.63

.16

.027

.082.27

.81

.81

.27

.812.72

3.26.54

1.635.43

2.76.46

1.384.60

2.09.351 .043.48

1.00.17.50

1.67

.42

.070

.21

.70

.058

.058

.019

.058

.19

*.38.38.13.38

1.26

2.12.35

1.063.53

2.18.36

1.093.63

.93.16.46

1.55

.26.043.13.43

.043

.007.021.072

.097

.097

.032

.097

.32

.20

.20

.065

.20.65,

.63

.63

.21

.632.11

2.84.47

1.424.73

2.96.49

1.484.93

1.47.25.74

2.45

.60

.10

.301.00

1.281.28.43

1.284.28

2.64.44

1.324.40

.94

.16

.471.57

.29

.048

.14

.48

23 .560/0

31.600%

18.95%

9.42%

3.590%

.24

.039

.12

.39

.095

.016

..047

.16

3.49%

.34.057.17.57 1 .5 0 %

.18

.031

.092

.31 .31%

12

Table 3.5 (Cont'd)

Wind SpeedPasquill Wind Direction

NE E SE Sý SW W MN N Total

Variable* G .13 .14 .35 .18 .16 ..076 .13 .260-3 mph F .13 .14 .35 .18 .16 .076 .13 .26

D .044 .046 .12 .060 .055 .025 .043 .086C .13 .14 .35 .18 .16 .076 .13 .26

All1 .44 .46 1. 15 .60 .55 .25 .43 .86

Variable#1 F ..067 .072 .22 .15 .20 .13 .18 .164-7 mph D .011 .012 .035 .024 .034 .022 .029 .027

C .033 .036 .11 .073 .10 .065 .088 .082All , .11 .12 .35 .24 .34 .22 .29 .27

*Direction frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 0-3 mph class.

#Di recti on frequency distributed proportional to distribution within 4-7 mph class.

4.74%

1- 94%

13

1 .1.3 hydrol-oqy

The local groundwater hydrology at the ENC site was investigated in late 197.7 andearly 1978 because of the leakage in the lagoons. As part of. this investigationthe elevation of groundwater in 15 test wells was determined. From thisinformation isopiestic lines were calculated and 'their positions shown on Figure3.5. Water elevation in-Formation is presented below for the respective testwelils.

Test Water Test WaterWell Elevation Well ElevationNo. MSL (ft)* No. MSL(ft)*

1 353.36 9 353.292 353.33 10 353.353 353.39 11 353.504 353.45 12 353.455 353.45 13 353.486 353.46 14 353..067 353.42 15 353.068 353.56

*Average of 10 measurements each for test wells 1through 13 between March 3, 1980 and January 21,1981.; average of 5 measurements each for test wells14 and 15 between September 15, 1980 And January 21,1981. (Test wells are about 25 ft cdeep,,)

Accord ing to the ENC staff, these data show that the groundwater elevation attest well no. 8 is higher than that at any of the other test wells, thussupporting the concept of generally easterly flow; also, the groundwaterelevations at the test wells west of the lagoon system are higher than those attest wells east of the lagoons. Further, these data support the concept oflocalized northwardly flow of the groundwater in the vicinity of the lagoonsystem.

ENC staff further state that, based on the chemical characteristics of water inthe test wells, groundwater flows in a direction which parallels lines betweentest wells 1 to 14 and 2 to 15.

3.2 FACILITY DESCRIPTION

The operations at the Exxon Company's facility consist of the development andfabrication of fuels for nuclear reactors. The particular operations have beenpreviously described in References 1 and 2. -The U02 fuel manufacturing processis unchanged from the process described in Reference 1, only the capacity haschanged. The ENC'requested and was granted NRC authorization to increase thecapacity from 1.4 to 2 tons per day. Included in the licensing actions wererequests to expand the storage lagoon system. Authorization was granted to

15

940

'0 0n"

iJ

FIGURE 3.5 Isopiestic Lines.

16

,xpand the storage lagoon system. Presently the lagoon system consists of four~lagoons (see Figure 3.5) measuring 228 x 201, 235 x 107, 346 x 208 and 244 x 202f eet.

3.3 ENVIiRONMENTAL MONITORING AND OPERATIONAL DATA

The effluents from the Exxon nuclear plant consist of -liquid, gaseous, and solidproducts, both radiological and non-radiological. The liquid effluents aresanitary wastes, process cooling water, and chemical wastes. Methods used tomonitor these liquid effluents are briefly discussed below and the operationaldata tabulated in Section 3.3.1. The gaseous effluent is discharged via thestacks. The monitoring methods and operational data are presented in Section3.3.2. In addition to stack monitoring samples a number of env'ironmentalmonitoring stations are used to collect additional air samples as well asvegetation samples for various analyses. Data from the vegetation samplings arealso presented in Section 3.3.2. Solid waste effluents are discussed in Section3.3.3. The locations of off-site environmental monitoring stations are shown onFigure 3.6. The environmental surveillance program characteristics, type ofsample, frequency of collection and analysis,. etc., for the various environmentalsampling stations are summuarized in Table 3.7.

3.3.1 Liquid Effluents

Liquid effluents from the plant consist primarily of process cooling water,chemical waste liquids, and sanitary wastewater. A schematic representation ofthe sources of and discharge routes for liquid effluents is shown in Figure 3.7.

3.3.1.1 Process Cooling Water

Process cooling water is the largest component of the liquid effluents. 'Thiseffluent is normally not contaminated, with radioactive material '. The thermalload of the cooling water system is generated by exothermic chemical reactionsand heated process equipment. The heat from all of the U fuel 7manufacturingoperations and ancillary systems is equivalent to abou~t 1i'ý x~ 10 Btu per day.The thermal load in cooling water is dissipated in storage. Cooling waterdischarges average about 178,000 gallons per day. During process chemicalmake-up which is about twice each week, the rate of cooling water discharge isincreased to the maximum projected daily volume of cooling water flow which isabout 688,000 gallons.

All flow into the liquid effluent retention tanks is through a single line fromwhich a sample stream is continuously withdrawn and composited. The plant designoffers alternatives to discharge of process cooling water to the sanitary sewer.The system provides three options for disposal of process cooling water: to thechemical process waste storage lagoon, to the Exxon Nuclear property irrigationsystem or to the Richland Municipal Sewage System.

The composite sample, which represents the composition of the full tank, issubmitted to a laboratory for analysis before the-contents of the tank are pumpedto the sewer line. The sample is analyzed for uranium, fluoride, nitrates,

17

E~on Nuclear Envirotmental statioun

Station No.

14, lB

2A, 2B

3A, 3B

4A, 4B

:12

13

Direction from Site

NE

NW

Sw

SE

NE

SE

E

SSE

Distance from Site

450. 2000 ft.

450, 2000 ft.

450, 2000 ft.

450, 2000 ft.

1 mile

3/4 mile

Y sues.

Figure 3.6. Offsite Environ~mental Station Locations

18

TABLE 3.7 TABLE 3.7 Environmental Surveillance Proqram

Sampl eStati on

I -A

I-B

2-B

3-B

4-B

5

12

13

ENC-Ci ty

STP (2 )

Yak ima

Ri ver (3)

Type ofSample

Air

Soil

Vegetation

Air

Soil

Vegetation

Ai r

Soil1

Ai r

Soil

Air

Soil

Air

Soil

Vegetation

Air

Soil

Vegetation

Air

Vegetation

Air

Soil

Vegetation

Lift Station4

Liquid

Sludge

Li quid

CollectionFrequency

Continuous

Quarterly(I)Monthly

Continuous

Quarterly

Monthly~l)

Continuous

Quarterly

Continuous

Quarterly

Continuous

Quarterly

Continuous

Quarterly

Quarterly~1 )

Continuous

Quarterly

Quarterly 0~

Continuous

Monthly~1 )

Continuous

Quarterly

Quarterly~l

see Table 3.10)

Daily

Quarterly

Monthly

AnalysisFrequency

Monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

Monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

Monthly

(Held)

Monthly

(Held)

Monthly

.(Held)

Monthly

(Held)

Quarterly

Monthly

(Held)

Quarterly

Monthly

Monthly

Monthly

(Held)

Quarterly

Monthly

Quarterly

Monthly

AnalyzedFor

Fluoride

Uranium

Uranium &Fl uori de

Fl1uori de

Uraniurn

Uranium&Fluori de

Fl uori de

Fluoride

Fl uori de

Fl uori de

Fluoride

Fl uori de

Fl uori de

Fl uori de

Fl uori de'

Fluoride

Fl uori de

Uraniurn

Uranium

Uran iurn,Fl uori de,Ni trat,Ammnoni a,Sulphates&pH

Min. DetectionLevel

0.02 ppb

0.01 ppm

0.01 ppmI PPM

0.02 ppb

0.01 ppm

0.01 ppm1 PPM

0.02 ppb

0.02 ppb

0.02 ppb

0.02 ppb

1 PPM

0. 02 ppb

1 ppm

0. 02 ppb

1 ppm

0.02 ppb

1 ppm

0.1

0.01PPMPPM

PPMppmPPMPPM

0.10.10.10.1I ppm0.1 unit

19

TABLE 3.-7 (continued)

Sample Type of C-ollection AnalyssAalzd0iHltetoStation Sample Frequency, Frequency For- Level

Plant~4

DrinkingWater Liquid Weekly Weekly Uranium, 0.1 ppm

Fluoride, 0.1 ppmNitrate, 0.1 ppmAimmonia, 0.1 ppmSulphates & 1 ppmpH 0.1 unit

Test (5)Welis(iS) Liquid Monthly Monthly Conductivity 0.1 ipmhos/cm

(1) Collected monthly during the normal growing season.(2) Richland Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant.(3) Washington State Department of Ecology requirement.(4) For purpose of background determinations.(5) See Section 3.4.4 of ENG's "Application for Renewal of Special Nuclear

'Material License No. SNM-1227", Document No. XN-2, for Lagoon LeakAction Guides based upon conductivity levels in Test Well water.. Itshould be noted that ENC previously collected weekly samples from eachTest Well and analyzed them for uranium, fl-uoride, nitrate, ammonia,sulphates and pH.

20

F-r ' z 4IUuE)

GOGaI2.!1

4 ;VoL;s

tooa

EitII N S r1. F

ILIANiENIIAW4

s 7 WhS1`1 STORtAGE~ac~egoLAGOON STSTIEM

R4 ADIOACTIVE

STORAGE OLDS

ST". WASTE

URANIUM~~j \ RECO VERYv- ___

IL

ver ------

Sanitary Se~

Cooling Watf r -- -. To Richland

Sewage PlantChemical Wastes

Figure 3.7 Liquid Effluent Discharge Routes

21

-aimoni a, suiph ate s, sodium, and -pH. -If" the .concentrati on s of any of -these-onstituents exceed criteria based on the range -of concentrat-ions for the sitewater supply, the contents of the retention tanks are quarantined and consignedto a licensed waste disposal contractor for buri al .

3.3.1.2 Chemical Wastes.

The Exxon Nuclear,'Company disposes of its process waters in four largeevaporation lagoons. These lagoons are provided with impervious liners toprevent the contents from leaking into the ground and impacting the areagroundwaters.

The estimated quantities of chemicals discharged to the lagoon in pounds per dayper ton uranium are listed in Table 3.8. The actual flow of chemical waste tothe lagoons has varied with production levels and been consistently lower thanthe predicted values. The minimum liquid level in the lagoon is a depth of onefoot and this is ma~intained by diverting process cooling water, as required, fromthe flow to the municipal sewer system.. The flow rate to the lagoon at maximumproduction levels is predicted to average 14,600 gallons of process chemicalwastes per day. This volume is made up of the collected and neutralized processwaste streams conveyed to the lagoon by the process sewer system. Measurementsof concentrations of uranium, fluorides, nitrates and sulfates in the evaporationlagoons, taken during 1978, 1979 and 1980, show the average concentrations to beas follows':

Uranium (U) 178 ppm

Fluoride (F-) 16,115 ppm

Nitrate. (NO3 and NH3) 19,735 ppm

Sulfate (SO4) 8,052 ppm.

Several test wells are used to monitor the groundwater near the lagoon. Thelocations of these wells are indicated on Figure 3.8. The test wells are sampledweekly. the samples are analyzed for following chemicals or ions: uranium,fluoride,' NO, NH3, and SO The annual average concentrations of thesechemicals anc[ion s for 1977 through 1980 are summarized in Table 3.9. During1977, test wells 1, 2 and 3 were sampled for uranium. In 1978 analysis foruranium was ceased, or no longer recorded as historically the uraniumconcentration had consistently been below the minimum detection level. New wells9, 10 and 11 were sampled twice for uranium at commencement of their use. Whenwells 12 and 13 were put into operation, in 1979 they too-were sampled, andanalysis for uranium was performed.

ENC staff prepare plots of the average monthly concentration of the fluoride,nitrates and sulfates for each of the test wells. Plots of the fluorideconcentration in test wells 1, 2, 3 and 4 are presented on Figures 3.9, 3.10,3.1.1 and 3.12 respectively. Plots of the nitrate and sulfate concentrations are)resented in Appendix A for all test wells. On each plot the action level used

22ý

23

~'AP,~5 /

- 'Tw Al Id

-Figure 3.8

Test Well Locations(Relative-to ENC Lagoons)

arw V.. /S

4 70- f4

rw .. /

4.

It,

rv/ ~ B

PROM 5I CWAS7( 5

LAGOON 5

rbV A. Z

I r-, 4. 1e.

TORAGEYTJT ~ 4

W .

.6ý e r,.eA( 6

j2rwAh. " r..

Table 3.-9

Evaporz ition Lagoon System Test Well

Element Ions in ppm

U. F- No-(as N)

ResulIts

NH 3 (as N)

Test Well #1

1977

1978

1979

1980

<.1I 5.39

5.6

4.8

6.3

40.55

72

33..79

50.9

24.68

0.88

0.13

8.7

60

597.4

214.7

69.8

Test Well #2

1977

1978

1979

1980

<.1 41.5

84.6

27.7

17.8

145

120

76

59.6

995

261.9

187

159

1636.9

1170

819.5

227.7

Test Well W3

1977

1978

1979

1980

<.1 4.8

0.53

1.05

0.8

14.4

62

35.7

36.9

39.4

3.49

0.12

0.12

479

253

67.9

109

Test Well #4

1977

1978

1979

1980

0.69

0.54

0.85

0.77

4.57

7.9

8.67

13.8

0.73

1.49

0.12

4.27

23.6

24.9

43.59

163

Test Well #5

1977

1978

1979

1980

1.09

3.8

0.48

0.36

6.67

1.9

2.06

1.95

0.ý67

5.2

1.47

0.58

25.5

56.6

44

38.2

25

I - Table 3. 9(Cont'd)~

Evaporation Lagoon System Test Well Results

Element Ions in ppm1f

U F NO- (as N) NH 3(as N) so 4

Test Well #6

1977

1978

1979

1980

Test Well #7

1977

1978

1979

1980

Test Well #8

1977

1978

1979

1980

0.67

0.43

0.67

0.37

1.74

2.17

10.5

1.32

1.8

0.18

3.29

1.73

0.95

1.97

0.19

2.69

3.24

0.60

0.15

27

21.69

58.75

.40

18.57

13.86

52.25

45.14

0.57

0.54

0.70

0.43

0.63

0.53

0.73

0.41

2.12

1.88

1.48

1.81

4.04

1.76

4.85

0.27

13.25

56.02

12.38

10.33

Test Well #9

1978

1979

1980

<.1* 14.9

18.7

18.

70.9

71.3

70.5

68.8

96.6

127.7

404.8

350.4

286.741

Test Well #10

1978

1979

1980

<.1* 0.409

0.69

0.47

3.7

4.2

9.1

0.87

0.19

0.19

32.3

42

51

*Two Samples at commencement of operation.

26

-T -- Tabi1e 3. 9 (Cont'dj

Evapo~ration Lagoon System Tes-t Well Results

Element Ions -in ppm

U F- NO- (as N) NH3 (as N) S 01

Test Well 7#11

1978 <1J* 0.43 3.98 2.98 143.86'

1979 0.53 4.5 0.12 19.66

1980 0.52 1.48 0.68 27.38

Test Well #12

1979 <.1** 0.83 1.92 6.8 68.4

1980 0.59 2.38 19.35 100.6

Test Well #13

1979 <.1** 0.68 1.19 3.5 23.4

1980 0.43 1.93 0.99 29.2

*Two samples at commencement of operation.

**One sample at commencement of operation.

27

.- r--r i -.------ V - r .. I rTI Yr 7 7 7 -r4----rI~l I

- J~4~..A..~4---.4-l-;.= .=L+4LL44..IiLA..4...L LL[ ILII iI LL -Aj..44L1

-I-ULt UT-,

1 I'l4-T, ii : I::! ii: ii ii; :1::Ti: :1: I ii

~i~r~7-7{:. H j~ IT4 l ,TTTT~A ITUYT.7I 4-2~..~4A .. 4.4 ~ 4..A....

H I:HH V H iIii~Ii i-*iIL A4.....

ii'.

iii 4 jli

mt F[7~th ii-~'H 14 iii

ii 1~ II ~Ii

II

-ill''F;m

7

-t

74 7

..... ....

."A L 'L I Li -I-'

i i-

-7;

",1-4--+-I4--4------- --- '-# ---- -

:1: I.1,44

* . II

LU:14

-I-. -*1 .4h FIRii

+11.

~ ith

.4 4

Ei7FVI 4

.4.,,

.1 4

.1

-,,ShTttdOWnI &'Correct Leve

2.

-I- ---- Ij mF I 4 I$I J -L-.TT, EL~

II IT-T -- A-I

4-3L

* 0

L 4-

-r4 . 1 t l 1I i

J. 01 !---4

InvestigateLevel

Alert Level~i~ XS. 7hi!. ~ IifiiX'73 in 76.... +1 i q7q 78 ___ 79 1 S

Figure 3.9 Average Monthly Flouride Concentrations (PPM) I nTest Well No. j

Note: "X"I signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

I IIII II! II T-

T--iiiý 41ý1 ##-il FI-4 ltftIiltH-ii-

4

Lt14I li

-V-H-H.ThL~

.1

'71

rF7it; . i W 1 . . ! 1 1 1

ir22i..HIM.L.

I HI-1~ WitT

I I II Iii I I I I it

!.4

IL

4 T

I IIi 1±11 £±[

LL I 7L *T -T - T

II: F iiLi~4

- . . . . - . .-

.1.7- * II.1 1IT

LL I

p 'V -*1--7rr

-I- o1Pi -I-ITI

-i--shlitowr &~C orrct Leye

0'

~~5I ~~1 1-1-1..L 'LL J ii l I I..-~~ -t~--

____ 1! 1 1114 111

4T Lt ii~

i H 6H

HH H1 IIIM 1-H'1--- .. AI i4 I.i 1i7- t. l 1l L! jLl

... i. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .I 44414... 4 jt[L~CXX.A.H- JI j___

14

Investiga~teLevel,

'71 iI7 7 ________ __77

'Alert Level.

Test Well No. -Z2.

Note: 'T" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

II I i -

T4'11111 TFVHI1II -I

II I I IIt~LL~I -! -1- 1i Ii-h-V-HI,"; HI

:1 ; ! I II I IIi!H1 H1111 I Mill:i...... -I I I II I! II 11111!

I I- fl J.d ~~4 I [I i IF I-- L ~ - - .4. 444 ~ ~J L~J ~L4L4 4J....~44-4 .~ 444 4-

1 i- L i I 1*lilt lI-iI ; ~..

[.1'Lii

!41+--A 1 i i lj-1

A.: I i

.iL.

'S hu t down &'Correct Love

zLL* I

:1 711ThII -t I

II* I.L

- - I . - I*..III... - . 'III,

* . I

* II:ilili-F I-I

II[.

i-si.--IL:it.-t- Li4

:11

I...

* II.

.............................................................................................................................................................I* I,..

I I I I I I * J~J L L 1 L L . - 4 ~ :_ _ _

I L j: 7:-'4~4.iIil [ I I _____

1 !1 !H I II !; I : I:

LII L Ii ... r

I I~ LIH II1-}ir ~__

_____ __ b

XkX '2(X.A

9

8

2

II

7.

Tnv~stIg~ite

Level

Al'ert Level71 73 ,,576 _ I7 7 __ 78_79

Figure 3~.11. .Average Monthly Flouride Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. 3

Note: 'T" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

II rm. i-mi--4-+4LL i4Vl

i+H11 -11-, 1 HL H+ H, UT~i L41 I .,. j!1t1 'i ý'Ii I L--

I I1-1 tj dOwn &

4Correct lieveZILJLJL~rT~i' H I ' ~Ij1E~jT~l~hTJL~h~B~II

:1 F Ii~ LI~-I1 1-I ~. I

Ii

* i--- a

r 7 Li 'I'

K LU* I,

.1:.:

-2 I

:-T 1± [WitJLU

'I-I- F

I..Ii

.LJ

{Ll -I.

.1

* I.

* 1,1

II

-7- ii,

Jjjjflg jj T1

_ _I L 4!'L

7 4 1 it-a1 14T---~ 4. _U

L I .L

L__ IM

... LH .. . .. .H l

.l: {.1. 't4I*i1 ii 4;tI.I' __ _

YYYY JU .' ....

4ii

'a

Level-

Al i-.i. Kilill 1 H1h ____'~' ~' III' liKHL~tKi L~X~.XY ~X~IŽ.AX~.44. III,___ i~77 t~78 ,~79"71 .j.~"'72 j i'i 73 -~ ~~74I&?5j~.. 7~..............-~-Alert Level

Figure 3.12. Average Monthly Flouride Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. 4

Note: "x"I signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

iy ONIC are indicated. ENC staff have u-sed these plots to identify -leakages fromche lagoons. For example, examination of Figure 3.10 shows a sharp rise in thefluoride concentration in test well 2 about mid-year 1973 and again late in 1977.

The leaks in the lagoon liners have been investigated by ENC and causes assigned.Generally the causes were due to either some foreign object (e.g., a survey stakeand rocks) or the failure of the Petromat liner. ENC staff's solution, since1977, has been to install a double-Hypalon liner system.

The double-Hypalon liner system consists of two layers of Hypalon material with a4 to 6 inch thick intermediate layer of sand. Lealk monitoring devices, like theone shown in Figure 3.13, are installed in the sand layer. There are presently21, 10, 35 and 26 leak monitoring devices installed in lagoons number 1, 2, 3,and 4 respectively. In addition to the between liner leak detection system ENChas installed a.total of 8 leak monitoring devices that are under both liners.ENC staff states ~that this leak monitoring system -works, as they have detected aleak in the upper Hypalon liner in lagoon number 2 during 1980.

Examination of the concentration of sulfates and. nitrates on test well 2indicates the possibility of a downward trend beginning after 1977 and to alesser extent in test well 9. ENC staff states that these apparent trendsindicate that the problem of leaking lagoon liners has been solved.

As part, of the ENC license renewal application, ENC staff proposes to change theanalyses performed on the test well water samples. ENC proposes a conductivitymeasurement, on a monthly basis, to replace the measurement for specific chemicalconcentrations. ENC proposes that the investigative action level be establishedwhen the conductivity of the samples reaches 2000 umhos/cm. ENC also proposesshutdown and corrective action levels be as follows: NO., + NH3 (as N), 4000 ppm; F,600 ppm; SO4, 100,000 ppm; and U, 2000 ppm. These proposed shutdown and correctaction levels as well as the corresponding present limits, generally exceed, orare comparable to, the average concentration of the corresponding chemicalspecies in the lagoon liquid stated above.

In practice the proposed measurement of conductivity would give less informationabout the composition of the groundwater since the lagoon liners have leaked andthe contaminants from the liquid waste have been detected in the water taken fromthe test wells. The staff believes that the method of analysis should not be changedat this time. The proposed change -of frequency of measurement, from weekly tomonthly, was also considered. The staff concluded that the present method ofanalysis~with a monthly frequency for those wells with concentrations below thepresent investigative action levels and bi-weekly frequency of those wells withconcentrations at or above the investigative action limits, is an adequatemeasuring program.

3.3.1.3 Sanitary Wastes.

Sanitary wastes are discharged to the City of Richland sewage system. Themunicipal system provides a sewage treatment process and ultimately dischargesinto the Yakima River at its confluence with the Columbia River. ENC's liquideffluent monitoring program for the ENC-city lift station is shown in Table 3.10.Composite samples are continuously collected from a sampling stream at the Exxon

32

N.

1<.

I

~IL-. ~rn

* -

0cm

K7 CL/P ~'19~~S

/2S

?ZY/G /,$ A

IA.)

CAJ

D,1-Z7r9o/v' CORO

PoLY-CFo~v//,Zo 5-

G )//~Z4~•7 A 7 SJ)(O~t7•)/?$,'v' g/$-0 0 L ~1<j~ /

~

2?

5~'k~P2 / /V6 A'L~OFigure 3.13

,A1

TABLE 31.0 Liquid Effluent Monitoring Program

Discharge Point: E N

Sampling Point: EN

Sample Type: Li

Sample Collection Frequency: Co

Sample Analysis Frequency: Da

Samples Analytical

Analyzed For Method

Uranium Fluorimetry

Fluoride Specific ionEl ectrode

Nitrate Specific ionEl ect rode

Ammonia Colorimetry-Nessler Reagent

Sulfates Turbidi~metrically

PH pH meter

C-City Lift Sta

C-City Lift Staquid

nti nuous

ily (Monday thr

Mlinimum

Sensitivity

0.1 + 0.1 ppm

0.1 + 0.1 ppm

0.1 + 0.1 ppm(as- N)

0.1 + 0.1 ppm(as N)

1 + 1 ppm(as SO 4)

0 to 14 in 0.1units

Lti on

~tion

ough Friday)

InvestigateLevel

>0.1 ppm

1 ppm

10 ppm

10 ppm

50 ppm

<6.5 or> 8. 5

Shutdown &Correct Level

1 -ppm

3 ppm

*5 or*10

34

Nuclear- - City of -Richland lift station and -submitted daily to- an analyticallaboratory for analysis. *As discussed in Section 3-.3.1.1 an analysis of processcooling water -is-~made before each discharge to the sewage system. Furthermore,daily liquid grab samples are also collected from the discharge of the municipalsewage treatment plant, and are analyzed monthly. Additionally, sludge grabsamples are collected arnd analyzed quarterly'for urani UM; The results of theseanalyses of sanitary waste' liquid effluent Iare summiarized in Tables 3.11 and3.12.

3.3.2 Gaseous Effluents

With one exception, all building air and process offgases are passed through twostages of HEPA filters in series before release through stacks approximately 50feet above ground level (20 feet above roof level). The single gaseous effluentexception is the burner exhaust from the calciner furnace. Calciner burneroffgas consisting of propane combustion products is discharged directly to theatmosphere because it is in a closed system isolated from the process with nopotential for release of radionuclides. The HEPA filters are certified by themanufacturer to be at least 99.97% efficient for the removal of 0.3 micronparticles.

Liquid scrubber systems followed by dryers are used to remove the corrosiveoffgases from the UF conversion process and the acid etch tank ventilationexhaust and to protecf the HEPA filters. Airborne alpha activity is continuouslysampled after each stage of HEPA filtration. Additionally, a single sampling)robe, designed to operate isokinetically, is located in the exhaust stack andcontinuously samples the-exhaug lr-Kr tt draws a representativesample of air, through a Gjelman T e E ;c-fhr- filerf which is assayed weeklyfor alpha activity, the airborne effluent monitoring systemis estimated to be 3x1 iml fal ha ac tivi The isokinetic stackexhaust 'sample is a ! yz e wee y or ufran ium . Results of these analyses areplotted on Figure 3'.14 and they are sumimarized on a semi-annual basis andtabulated in Table 3.13. The high value, 112.38 uCi uranium, for the last partof 1978 is attributed, -by ENC, to the startup of the second UF6 to U02 conversionline. The sharp peak in 1976 was 'caused by a broken UF6 transfer line thatresulted in the estimated release of 40 kilograms of uranium 'inside the U02building. An.estimated 2.3 grams of uranium were released from the building inthe 1976 release.

The principal process chemical airborne wastes released from the Exxon NuclearU02 fuels plant are ammnonium fluoride and hydrogen fluoride which are generatedduring the conversion of UF6 to U02. Fluoride is removed from the conversionprocess by the process off gas systems. Thes'e offgases are liquid scrubbed toremove the fluoride from the air exhausted through the exhaust stacks. Despitethe scrubbing system, fluorides are released to the air.

The stack exhaust from the UF6 - U02 conversion process is continuously sampledfor fluoride and analyzed at weekly intervals. Figure 3.15 shows the measuredquantity of fluoride released per 1,000 kilograms of uranium processed.Additionally, the plant environmental surveillance program includes the:ollection of filter paper samples for fluoride analysis at selected locations

35

Tabl e 3.12

Semiannual Radiological Liquid Effluent Rel'easesto the Public Sewer

July

Jan.

July

Jan.

July

Jan.

Period

- Dec. 1976

- June 1977

- Dec. 1977

- June 1978

- Dec. 1978

- June 1979

Uranium (mCi)

1.64 Pvof 0140.61 Dp.00 ~ ,02.05 eCD-l001

1.87

0.88 cl.2.66

36

10

LIT

~r

7H;~49

Zero. pcuntZero OJrani

;in. f.h.....QIjp

..... iit.:.I

.... .....8 *I.

II

9.-I

b1:I.

9fC

0~8

113

an0

A) c~.-I

-~10-a-

SI

a

3

-1ID

.4

S

6

I

a

$L. L .4....4-

- - U. *-U-~*-~~I* I -. ---- I ..

* j. - . . -

I .:.i I ~:1::: Ii: FHVI H"HI I I ~.7Il ti-I HI'1~

I.-.

:1..... . . . . .

.4..

...

9..

.98..8..11181

I., I..98

2Th1

V 1

- .~ t.*-! $ 4? 9-9Y--*~ I-.9-t 4 4j.844~.8~4 ~ + ~4..44.4-4..48..,..4 ~

7TT~HAi+~±l V-H-H-4 H- Ft-HTtj

+H7+ -11

* .

* . .i*I

~L ITn"I

.44LL4

+4r 7

Ill.1-ij-:j

....... I ~44 4*~i$44i++4"~-I -~ ~ 11-8- ~ -lIII-1 -

A: .LLLJLLJ±JIUIU.ia ItL.4' I l 4 .'j.Lli+i~11ILi4I~t4.4IIH

+

1+1~.IL ~

'I9.

3

0111 ILL, 1.1 -L: -3 L! ýi it!A { L lmrr il-I j-**.j..*.*..

liii !It ill II. '~L I L~ I I~liI I Ii ~i*~I

1 T _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ iT 1 4 '' ;~ Ji~~lI.J±L~7~Lf ________ ________IT

Figure 3.14- Uranium' Released from U02 Building Exhaust Stacks Per Ton of Throughput

Table 3.13

S~emiannual Radiological Air Effluent Releases

Period Uranium (DtCi) Plutonium (pCi)

July

Jan.

July

Jan.

July

Jan.

- Dec.

- June

- Dec.

- June

- Dec.

- June

19.76

1977

1977

1978

1978

1979

7.99

3.91

10.64

12.78

112.38

20.68

0.28

0.04

0.17

0.09

0.06

0.0OP

*Subsequently the use of plutonium at the Exxon Nuclear Companyhas been discontinued.I

I

38

on-site and off-site. The filter papers, treated with Na2CO3, are exposed -for 30days with analyses performed monthly. The treated filter paper method of samplecollection is passive. No sample of air is drawn through the filter paper;th~usthe -principal form of fluoride deposited on the papers. would be the particulat eforms. The data presented on Figure 3.15 indicates that the measured fluoride inthe offgases is a maximum of about 12 grams and an average of about 6 grams per1000 kg of uranium processed. Information provided by ENC indicates the scrubberefficiencies used in the UF6 to U02 conversion operations to be 86 to 98%. Roughestimates indicate that the production of 1 ton of uranium per day would requireabout 1.5 tonsof UF6 as raw material and during the processing of UF,, 480 kg offluoride would be released. Assuming. that the released fluoride', during theprocessing is contained in the building and is scrubbed with water prior torelease. to the environment through stacks, it is estimated that the overallsystem, scrubber and filters, would have to have a removal efficiency of 99.998%in order to limit the final fluoride emission to 6 grams per ton of uraniumprocessed. Based upon the efficiency of the off gas scrubber systems, th is 6gramaverage value appears to be small. An indirect' measurement of the fluoridereleases is the me~asurement of fluoride in vegetation samples.

Vegetation samples are usually collected quarterly for fluoride analysis.Results of the analysis of vegetation for fluoride are presented in Table 3.14and summarized in Table 3.15. Table 3.14 shows the fluoride accumulation,measured monthly, at sampling stations 1A, 18, 5, 11 and 12. This data indicatesthat on occasions concentrations of fluorides have exceeded 40 parts per millionand during the summer of 1978 exceeded 60 parts per million for three consecutivemonths. Table 3.15 shows that during 1979, at four sampling stations 1A, 1B, 5,and 11, was at least 40 ppm the entire year.

The National Academy of Sciences7 study of the effects of fluoride3 indicates thatexposure of forage to an ambient air concentration of 0.5 ugm/m of HF f or 30days would result in an accumulation of 40 ppm or more fluoride. The monthlyaverage for 1980 at station 1B is 37 ppm. Station 1B is at a distance of 2000ft. northeast of t~a ENC Vite. The annual average X/Q value for this locationis approximately 10-1 sec/in

Using this X/Q value and an ambient air concentration of 0.5 ugm/m3 a releaserate of 0.05 gm/sec fluoride is calculated. This release rate would correspondto 4,320 gm/day or, assuming that the ENC plant operates at the 2 ton/daycapacity, 2,160 gm/ton uranium processed. The calculated release rati of 0.05gm/sec assumes an ambient air concentration al Station 18 of 0.5 ugin/i ; if theambient air concentration is only 0.1 ugin/i then the calculated release ratewould be 0.01 gm/tec, corresponding to 864 gm/day or, further assuming the 2ton/day production rate, 432 gm/ton uranium. It should be noted that in 1974(reference 1) the estimated release rate for fluorides was 0.0112 gm/sec. Thestaff considers the calculated values of 0.01 or 0.05 gm/sec for the ENC plant isnot unreasonable.

Thus, the staff concludes that the concentration- of fluorides in vegetationmeasured as part of the ENC environment surveillance program is inconsistent withthe ENC data on fluoride releases per ton uranium processed. The staff estimatesthat the fluoride releases are from a few hundred to a, few thousand grams per tonuranium.

39

a30

a

a4.

.1

.3 ~ ~ I ~+-ijjj-H-H f~~~~-j1 T1Ii ii I: I

I ~I a :.~I..aC j..:. I~4~* 4 4~~444 .4-.--,--.. -~ ..... :.4

Il-il H ~-*~*il1*

t) Fn u m ( . . . . . . . . .j. .....1.1

73:(

- - I. - - -~ I 1 3 -~- -. I -- ~~- -,~ t -t-t-i-- 1 -l~

CL0D

C-)

..0

C-+

! r:: .3 *1 * t IC'

* . 3..

a. ,4.* I..

* C..

3.a..,

a. a..-~ a..

4.10

.4

S

4-4:- J- ..: 1

.-.. aa.

C 33.

222a a

I!i;.

a-a-a* a.: if Cal..

a,..

l.a.* a .4

6

aS

-4

13 I a C I 1I -111 it I Ii Iiii C I C a IT-T HH.iH+F'F..1 LL.L! I I .- l 3 I I ! ha II! I

II I 1' i IIlila ~ s 3~i I~a jul C~W~I.* I I ~ iH li7

tC[ I3 ti V1 .1i .11 It--- a. a. -- r - -a -r : : ~ a

J!

M 1 1 1 1, 1Ii i i 1. r 1 1'. 4 ! 1 1a I. I I -AiI,~ i

7U1 ____ ___ ,it

v31 - .I q. I is 73- --1 - - 1975- I 6.l ATL -1%7&7. a.79

Figure 3.15 Fluoride Released from U02 Exhaust Stacks Per Ton of Uranium Throughput

7ý- Tabl e 3.14

Micrograms Fluoride Per Grant Vegetation

Sztation NumberDate IA 1B 5 11 '12

08/71 10.5 14.4 29.5 17.5 .10.509/71 6 .5 -- -- -- 6.010/71 21.0 14.5 --- 10.512/71 -- 22.8 20.0 16.8 30.001/72 -- 27.5 -- -- 27.602/72 -- 10.2 -- -- 11.9.03/72 -- 22.1 5.1 6.8 14.004/72 -- 29.6 -- -- 16.205/72 -- 20.8 -- -- 27.306/72 -- 19.4 19.5 16.4 12.707/72 -- 50.0 -- -- 57.408/72 -- 20.4 -- -- 20.909/72 -- 13.5 13.5 14.3 14.710/72 -- 29.2 -- -- 46.011/72 -- 14.0 -- -- 2 1'.012/72 -- 27.6 33.3 41.2 47.504/73 -- 13.0 12.7 8.6 19.105/73 -- 38.5 -- -- 16.006/73 ---- -- -- 13.907/73 -- 12.1 17.3 7.9 11.408/73 -- 26.5 -- -- 16.009/73 53.1 -- -- 20.810/73 -- 32.1 45.1 46.1 30.303/74 -- 3.0 2.0 5.0 2.0.05/74 0.7 0.3 -- -- 0.306/74 3.0 7.0 -- -- 2.007/74 10.5 7.5 2.5 2.5 10.808/74 4.0 4.0 -- -- 4.009/74 4.8 6.8 -- -- 4.410/74 7.2 5.8 3.2 5.6 7.211/74 .1.0 1.0 -- -- 1.012/74 5.2 6.0 --- -

05/75 4.0 2.3 -- 1.006/75 9.2 3.2 - 21.007/75 3.8 2.0 -- --

08/75 16.0 2.5 0.6 1.9 3.909/75 8.3 4.4 -- -- 3.810/75 11.0 0.6 - 1.511/75 6.6 2.4 706.8 4.012/75 29.3 14.0 ---- 23.0

41

-Table 3.14(Cortt'd>-

Micrograms Fluoride Per Gram Vegetation

Station NumberDate 1A 1B- 5 11 12

03/76 20.6 9.6 10.8 24.4 8.804/76 13.8 5.3 -- -- 8.505/76 4.6 4.1 - -7.8

06/76 64.6 37."7 ---- 48.907/76 62.0 38.9 37.4 24.4 11.608/76 9.0 .8.4 ---- 2.109/76 20.8 49.0 -- -- 24.610/76 3.8 ' 3.8 2.2 8.8. 2.211/76 26.0 18.0 -- -- --

12/76 35.0 22.0 - 19.003/77 75.9 40.0 45.8 37.6 29.704/77 43.2 39.7 -- -- 53.605/77 101.2 108.9 -- -- 21.506/77 12.5 1.3 11.9 38.7 35.307/77 35.9 27.2 -- -- --

08/77 -- -- -- -- 26.709/77 34.4 21.5 23.8 23.4 27.810/77 36.2 33.9 72.6 -- 13.811/77 8.0 5.0 -- -- 25.612/77 74.0 16.0 22.7 33.3 15.903/78 17.9 4.7 38.5 52.5 20.604/78 46.7 33.3 -- -- 34.005/78 57.6 19.8 -- I-- --

06/78 151.4 565.8 85.0 189.9 191.407/78 477.1 282.6 -- -- 215.908/78 8.0 73.1 -- -- 21.509/78 14.3 4.7 13.9 1.6 8.110/78 6.3 3.2 -- -- 15.411/78 26.2 13.5 - 5.3

42

Table 3.15

Summary of Fluoride Content of11 Environmental Vegetation Samples

Sampl eStation

1-A

1-B

12

13

Fluoride Content (ppm) No. of ConditionsExceedi ng StandardYear

19761977197819791980

19761977197819791980

19761977197819791980

19761977197819791980

19761977197819791980

1980

High Low Mean

65101477.

8990

49109566

4772.

377385

13334

2439

1905061

4954

2167860

29

486

6737

4134010

212144120

923

2449

214<1312

17

2136268173

1427204437

1124398729

2435534720

1027215836

-0--0--0--0--0-

-0--0--0--0--0-

-0--0--0--0--0-

-0--0--0--0--0-

-0-.-0--0--0--0-

-0-21

43

.33 Solid Wastes. Containers of contaminated solid w ste from the plantare gammfa-scanned prior to being released for burial. The sensitivity of theprocedure for uranium measurement is roughly 1 gm of U-235 per container.C~ontainers having very "low uranium content are shipped tow a licensed lolv11le-velwaste burial site while containers having larger concentrations are storedon-s~ite for possible further processing.

3.3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations, Environmental Monitoring Programs

Radiological. The environmental monitoring programs for radiological effluentsis adequate. The releases of radiological effluents v -ia process ventilationsystem, process cooling water and sanitary waste systems are adequatelymonitored. The radiological monitoring systems provide sufficient and timelyenough information that the licensee can assure conformance with the appropriateregulations. The groundwater monitoring system at the ENG site has consistentlyhad uranium concentrations of less than 0.1 ppm. The only recommendationsconcerning the, radiological environmental monitoring programs concern the testwell monitoring program. First,, it is required that the samples from the testwells be monitored for uranium, gross alpha, and gross beta activity. Analysisfor *uranium should be at least quarterly, and the analyses for alpha and betamonthly. If the gross beta activity -in any of the well water exceeds 50 pCi/l,the licensee shall conduct isotopic analysis to verify the significant individualbeta emitting nuclides.

on-Radiological. With the exception of groundwater and fluoride air monitoringsystems, it is the staff'Is conclusion that the non-radiological environmental,program is adequate.

The fluoride air monitoring system consisting of samples collected on sodiumcarbonate -treated filter paper and determining a factor to relate particulate to'gaseous fluoride is not equivalent to the EPA recommended impinger method nor thesodium carbonate tube method required by Washington State. Therefore, the staffrequ~ires that ENG modify this stack monitoring method for measuring totalfluoride releases. The method should be acceptable to EPA or the State.

The staff'Is assessment of the groundwater monitoring, led .to the followingconclusions., First, the shutdown and corrective action limits for the quality of,the groundwater are set too high. Based upon historical data these limits wouldnot have been exceeded even if the chemical waste had been pumped directly intothe groundwater. Secondly, the knowledge of groundwater flow in the immediatearea of the ENC site is not well known. ENC staff now believes thatat the lagoonsite the groundwater flow is generally eastward but under the lagoons theybelieve the flow is northward. And lastly, the test wells are hot located in anarrangement that allows the tracking of a contaminated plume. The overall-groundwater monitoring program is considered marginally adequate. This qualifiedapproval of the groundwater monitoring program can be raised to adequate when thefollowing recommendations are included.

44

Recomnmendati ons:

1) The. between and below liners leak detection system be.incorporated as part of-the groundwater monitoring systems.

2) Action levels for the between and below liners leak detectionsystem be prepared.

3) The licensee be required to notify NRC promptly whenever theinvestigate action level for the between' or below liner leakdetection system is exceeded. Furthermore, whenever theinvestigate action level is exceeded the licensee shouldprepare an initial assessment and describe the actionsplanned to correct the leakage. This assessment should beprovided to NRC within 3 months and thereafter, whileremaining in the -investigative range, should be documented and.provided to NRC on a semiannual basis.

4) The licensee should establish a system of test wells tomonitor the contaminated groundwater plume.

3.4 ALTERNATIVE ACTION

1.4.1 No Action

No action, in the context of this Environmental Assessment, would mean the denialof the application for license renewal (the proposed action). This al~ternative, ifimplemented, would result in plant shutdown.

To put this alternative into perspective, the .ENC plant has been in operationsince 1971 with insignificant environmental impact.

If the alternative were implemented then the plant would be decommissioned.During decommissioning more solid waste would be generated. A possible localenvironmental advantage might be attributable to denial 'of application for renewal,that is ', a source of fluoride and uranium would be removed. However, as statedabove, 'the release of fluoride and all radioactivity is controlled, monitored,and is a fraction of the applicable regulatory requirements.

The disadvantages to this alternative are several. For example, it would resultin less American competition for the manufacture *of low-enriched LWR fuels. ENCwould have to find other means to meet the conditions of its fuel supplycontracts with various companies. There would be local economic disruption inthe Tni-Cities area, ENC would reduce employment, the local government wouldexperience some reduction in its tax base. This alternative would also mean thatan expensive facility designed for approximately a 30-year useful life would beabandoned or converted to some other use.

45

2

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT-

4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF THE PROPOSED-ACTION

4.1.1 Air Quality

The ENC fuel fabrication site is located in an area where the quality of theambient air meets the National Primary and Secondary Amibient Air 'QualityStandards, except for particulates. High concentrations -of airborne dust, whichoriginate primarily from agricultural activities, are characteristic of most ofsoutheastern Washington State. Consequently, the Tni-Cities area is classifiedas a Priority I region with respect to suspended particulates. For the remainingair pollutants, Priority III is applicable, which places the, region in generalconformance with the national ambient air quality standards.

The normal operation of the Exxon fuel fabrication plant results in the releaseof very small amounts of airborne radioactivity. In terms of concentration, the1976, 1J 977, aq 1978 annuaý 4 average exhaust air concentrations of uranium were4x10-1', 6x1O-'- and 5.5A10' uCifml respectively. All of these qoncentrationshave remained well below the 10 CFR 20 limits for U-234 of 4x1OlL uCi/rnl. Theradiological consequences of normal gaseous releases are calculated in Section5.1.

The normal operation of the ENG nuclear fuel plant also results in the release offluorides. The fluoride monitoring data were discussed in Section 3. Using thestaff's estimate of the grams fluoride released per second the average,c oncentration of fluoride in the ambient air is estimated to be less than 0.5ugm/m3. This concentration ' assumin .g that the average for the months of Aprilthrough October is the same or less than the annual average estimate, is incompliance with Washington State requirements.

4.1.2. Water Quality

Both ground and surface water in the area of the Exxon Nuclear Company site is ofgood quality, both biologically and chemically, and is classed as grade A byWashington State.

Operation of the ENC does release small amounts of liquid radioactive effluentsto the surface water (Columbia River) via the public sewage system.

Results of samples of the water arriving at the sewage plant from ENC were shownin Table 3.11 as yearly averages of element ions, in 'parts per million, exceptwith plutoniur% which has been counted in pCi/liter. The plutonium concintrationis 1.35x10-0 uCi/ml that is well below the 10 CFR 20 limits of 1x1O- uCi/mlper liter.

46

4.1.3 -terrestrial Quality

The fluoride accumulation in vegetation was discussed in Section. 3. The data1iGdicated that on occasions concentrations of fluorides have exceeded. 40 partsper-million and that during the surmmer of 1978 exceeded 60 parts per million forthree consecutive months. Data.,presented in the previous section also showedthat during 1979 at four samplingý stations, the average fluoride concentrationexceeded 40 ppm for the 12-month period. At the sampling locations no forage wasbeing grown. Based upon the atmospheric dilution factors at distances in excessof two milIes f rom the ENC site, where forage would have- been growing, it isconcluded that the Washington State fluoride concentration limits for foragewould not have been exceeded at locations where forage was being grown.

4.2 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

4.2.1 No Action. i.e.. Denial of any License Renewal

Implementation of this alternative would obviate any further release ofradioactive materials to the environment, provided the plant decommissioning anddecontamination were effected without incident. There would be no furtherexpenditure of energy nor use of natural resources. The primary impact would besocioecono 'mic. The ENC employees would suffer loss of employment, EN.C would beout of business and the City of Richland note.a reduction in tax base.

47

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Two types of impact were con.-sidered:. radiological and n-on-radiological. In theradiologi~cal assessment, uranium was considered the material of major concern.The non-radiological assessment focused on the potential impacts caused by thedirect releases of fluorides. For both types of assessment, impacts caused byroutine plant operations and possible accidents were analyzed.

The radiological assessment was accomplished by comparing calculated results fromplant operation information with established requirements stipulated in Title 40,Code of Federal Regulations, Part 190 (40 CFR 190). This code limits theindividual dose for routine plant operation to 25 mrem/year to the whole body, 75mrem/year to the thyroid, and 25 mrem/year to any other organ. The significantpathways considered in the assessment include air immersion, inhalation, foodingestion, and direct exposure to soil and water bodies.

The major activity involved in the assessment was to estimate the human exposuredosage by using models which were developed ~tOak Ridge National Laboratory, andincorporated in the computer code AIRDOS II These models include atmosphericdispersion models and environmental exposure models which follow the requirementsof United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.109,"Calculation of annual doses to man from routine releases of reactor effluentsfor the purpose of evaluating compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," andRegulatory Guide 1.111, "Methods for estimating atmospheric transport andispersion of gaseous effluents in routine release from light-water-cooled-reactors."

In the assessment of the impacts resulting from the release of fluoride, theguidelines for fluoride prepared by the State of Washington were used. The Statsof Washington regulation limits the emission of f uoride to an average 3.7 ug/mfor any 12-hour per~iod; an average of 2.9 ug/m for any 24-hour per~iod; anaverage of 1.7 ug/m3 for any 3consecutive days; an average of 0.84 ug/m3 for 30consecutive days; knd 0.5 ug/m for the period Ma4rchl1 through October 31' of anyyear. The OCGIH' recommends a value 2500 ug/m*3 for fluoride at the industrialworkplace.

5.1 EFFECTS OF OPERATIONS

During routine plant operations, releases that could affect humans and theenvironment radiologically include gaseous and liquid effluents and solid wastescontaining uranium radionuclides.

The impacts caused by radiological air effluents were assessed by estimating themaximum dose to the nearest resident of the plant, using available information onroutine operational releases, and the AIRDOS II computer code for air releases.The maximum annual release of uranium is 112.8 'uCi that occurred in 1978 (seeSection 3.3.2). This value was used as the source term for an annual release.Table 5.1 presents calculated radiological dose equivalent that would be receivedby an adult residing in the residence nearest the fuel fabrication buildingssuming the 1978 uranium effluent data. The, nearest resident is located about

48

Table 5.1 Dose Commitments Based Upon Normal Operating GaseousRadiological Releases

Organ. Dose

Total Body Kidney Bone GI Tract Lung

Population Dose(50 mile)1041- 9.X1-412units person rem/yr 9.5 x 1 3.1 x 10~ 1.3 x 12 95x1 9.5 x lT

Nearest Resident 1- 071-units rem/yr 1.2 x 4.0 x 1 1.6 x 10~ 1.2 x i'1.2 x 10~

Site Bou 'ndary1.8 mile to Southeast 19X1- 0719X1-units rem/yr1.x O 6.3 x1O 2.5 x 10-6 1.9 xiO1. 10~

I I

. I

"-1/4 miles (about 3600 meters) to the southeast of the plant site. The pathways.onsidered in -the dose calculatio~n- include -direct irradiation, directinhalation, inhalation from resuspension and ingestion of Viegetation, meat, etc.

The term "'dose"~ referred to in this assessment is actually a 50-year dosecommitment.-* The critical organ considered in this assessment is the lungs of thenearest resident that is estimated to receive an annual dose of 0.012 mrem.

The critical individual would be an infant (0-1 yr age) in the inhalation pathwayand the lung dose would be increased by a factor of 1.8 compared to adults. Theestimated annual dose for such an infant is calculated to be 0.022 mrem. Thedose to this critical individual is 0.09% of the 25 mrem limit specified in 10CFR 190. Doses to the thyroid were not estimated as no radioactive iodine ispresent in the normal releases of the ENC plant.

Doses due to liquid pathways were not calculated. However, the NRC staff 10 hadpreviously calculated an estimated 'dose (assuming a sourc j term of 3.54 mCi peryear) f 5om the liquid pathways to be approximately 1.xO mrem (total-body) and2.2x10- mrem (bone). Thus, it is concluded that the maximum individual dose atthe nearest residence to- a critical individual is well below the recommendedlimits, and therefore adverse impacts to humans and the surrounding environmentare not expected.

The annual -dose to the eqntire population within a 50-mile radius of tj~e plant wascalculated to be 9.5x10 1 person-rem to the whole body and 9 .5xl104 person-remto the lung, without consideration of the dose that may result from resuspensionf the uranium deposited.

For comparison, natural background radiation in the area near the ENC plantresults in an annual whole body dose of about 135 mrem (reference 2). The annualdose that would be received from natural causes by the population of 250,220living within a 50-mile radius of the plant would be 33,780 person-rem.

Another source that could affect the environment is the leaching of radiologicalwaste water from holding ponds to the water table. Even though the ponds arelined with impermeable materials, various failures of the liners have resulted insome seepage of lagoon contents into the soil and non-radiological contaminantshave been detected in the groundwaters. Less than 0.1 ppm of uranium, the limitsof detectability for the analysis being used to monitor the groundwater, has beendetected in the groundwater. It is concluded that the non-radiological, as wellas the uranium, contamination of the soils under the lagoons poses no immediateimpact to the environment because there is only a remote probability of the waterentering the environment. This is concluded based upon (1) the nearest well usedfor drinking water is over 2 miles from the lagoons in a direction opposite thedirection of groundwater flow; and (2) by the time the contaminated groundwater

A -yer dose commitment is the total dose to the reference organ from aone-year chronic intake of radionuclides which will accrue during the remaining,lifetime (50 years) of an individual.

50

plume reaches 'the Columbia River there will have been considerable dilution ofthe contaminants and additional dilution would be provided by the river.

5.2 ACCIDENTS AND EFFECTS

Postulated accidents that have the potential for resulting in release ofradioactive materials from the ENC plant were analyzed when special NuclearMaterials License SNM-1227 was issued to the licensee. Additional accidentanalyses have been performed to support license amendments to permit variousplant modifications made since the plant began operation. The analyses performedhave addressed those accidents that are considered to occur with the samefrequency as with normal industrial plant operations. Analyses have also beenperformed to assess the consequences of severe accidents that are expected tooccur rarely, if at all1, if the consequences of the accidents could endanger thehealth and safety of the public. The accident analyses have been reviewed and ithas been concluded that the analyses were performed in a rigorous manner and thatthe accident spectrum analyzed addressed the infrequent, severe accidents thatcould conceivably endanger the public. However, as was'noted, the assumptions onthe criticality accident analysis did not conform to the current NRC regulatoryguidance. Consequently, a criticality accident analysis was performed. Also,the analysis of accidental release of a large quantity of UF6 was also performed.

5.2.1 Analysis of Large UF6 Release

The most severe radiological accident which can be postulated that could beinitiated by an event typical of industrial operations would result from therelease of the material contained in a uranium hexafluoride cylinder outside abuilding or when the ventilation system filters were inoperative At the time ofthe accident.* UF6 is a solid at room temperature. If a cyl inder were to f ail1,the UF6 would vaporize gradually.. The consequences of an accidental release ofUF6 from a cylinder were calculated using the following assumptions.

FACTOR VALUE USED.

Nearest Industrial Site:Distance 2000 mDirection Et NAtmospheric Dilution .xO se/

Factor,

Nearest Residence:Distance 3600 mDirection SE 91-Atmospheric Dilution 3.9x0 sec/in

Factor

51

UF 6 Released:Weight 540 KgTime 15 minutes

Uranium Released:Weight 365 KgForms soluble, uranium compound

Class DParticle Size I urnBuilding* Wake1

FactorBreathing Rate 3.47x10 4 m3/sec

*Release is assumed to occur at ground level.

The calculated doses to an individual at the nearest industrial site and at thenearest residence are given in Table 5.2. For an individual at approximately2000 meters from the cylinder storage area at the time of the accidental release,the total body dose is calculated to be 0.11 rem and the. dose to. the bone iscalculated to be 1.7 rem.

rhe maximum fluoride concentration at the neajest s .ite boundary corresponding tothis UF6 accident is estimated to bj 1.5 mg/rn This concentration is 60% of the0CGIH recommended limit of 2.5 mg/rn

5.2.2 Criticality Report

The accident analyses of a fuel manufacturing plant required under 10 CFR 70 mustinclude the discussion of the effects of a postulated criticality accident.However, the possibility of such an accident at a low-enrichment uranium facilityis remote. Historically, no accident of this, kind. has ever occurred in alow-enrichment fuel fabrication facility. Achievement of criticality withlow-enriched uranium requires carefully controlled conditions and is not likelyto happen accidentally. In addition, at the ENC plant, programs of design,review, procedural control, engineered safeguards, and audits are implementedroutinely to prevent a criticality accident of this kind.

The postulated criticality accident has the following characteristics (RegulatoryGuide 3.34):

0 The accident results in 1019 fissions produced in a series ofpulses within a supercritical liquid system.

o The accident releases only the volatile fission productsproduced by the above number of fissions. At this timeradtioactive decay begins.

52

Table 5.2 Estimated Doses (REM) From Postulated Accidents

Large UF6 Release Accidental Criticality

Organ Nearest Nearest Ners NearestIndustrial NretIndustrial Rsdn

Site Resident Site Rsdn

Total Body 1.1E-1 6.4E-2 9.2E-3 3.7E-3

Kidneys 4.2E-1 2.5E-1 --

Bone 1.7E-O 1.1E-O 2.8E-2 1.5E-2

G.I. Tract 1.1E-1 6.4E-2 8.1E-1 1.5E-2

Thyroid - -4.5E-0 1.7-E-0

Lungs 3.3E-2 2.1E-2 1.7E-1 5.5E-2

53

In the event of a criticality accident, an individual would receive exposure -from.internal as well as external sources of radiation. The doses to the individualresulting from direct exposure to prompt neutron and gamma radiation, fromsubmersion in a cloud containing beta and gamma emitting fission products andfrom inhalation of the fission products in the cloud have been calculated usingthe following assumptions:

FACTOR VALUE USED

Building Area

Building Wake Factorat 500 meters

Weather StabilityFactor

Wind Velocity

X/Q at O<t<8 hr*

X/Q at t>8 hr*

Building Confinement

100,000 ft2

Approximately

1.0

F Stability

1 meter/sec

1.0x10-4 sec/rn3

2.1x10-3 sec/rn3

30 air changes/hr

*These values are for the nearest residence, valges for 3thenearest industrial site are 2.2x10- and 3. 8xl0- sec/rnrespecti ve ly.

The results of the calculations indicate that an individual at the ngarestresidence would be expected to receive a dose to the whole body of 3. 7x10"1 rem,and a dose to the thyroid of 1.7 rem. An individual at the 3nearest industrialsite would be expected to receive a whole body dose of 9.2x10 3 rem and a thyroiddose of 4.45 rem. These doses are below the limits of 1 rem to the whole body and5 rmto the t~hyroid as specified in the EPA'sPrtcieAioGuds

54

6.0 MATERIALS AND PLANT PROTECTION

6.1 PHYSICAL PROTECTION AND MATERIAL ACCOUNTING

Current safeguards are set forth in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73. The regulationsin Part 70 provide for material accounting and control requirements withrespect to facility organization, material control arrangements, account-ability measurements, statistical controls, Inventory methods, shipping andreceiving procedu 'res, material storage practices, records and reports, andmanagement control.

The Commission' s cur irent regulations in 10 CFR Part 73 provide requirementsfor the physical security and protection of fixed sites and for nuclear2material in transit. Physical security requiremnents for protecting highlystrategic types and quantities of material , including 2 kilograms or moreof plutonium, include the establishment and training of a security organiza-tion (including armed guards), provision for physical barriers, and estab-lishment of response and safeguards contingency plans. Physical protectionrequirements for special nuclear material of moderate and low strategicsignificance (including low enriched uranium) include provision for estab-lishment of controlled access areas, monitoring these areas to detectunauthorized penetration, and communications capabili~ties to notify offsiteresponse forces of the need for assistance.

The Commission' s regulations in 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73,.described brieflyabove, are applied in the reviews of individual license applications. Licenseconditions then are developed and imposed which translate the regulations intospecific requirements and limitations that are tailored to -fit the particulartype of plant or facility involved.

The licensee has an approved material control and accounting plan and anapproved physical security plan which meet the current requirements for thelow enriched uranium which would be possessed at the site. Amendments tothis security plan would have to be submitted and approved prior to thelicensee's bringing onto the site large -quantities of plutonium which thelicensee may possess in the future. These amendments would also have-tobe in conformance with the current requirements of 10 CFR Parts 70 and 73.It is concluded, therefore, that the safeguards-related environmental impactof the proposed action is insignificant.

55

APPENDIXY A

Plots prepared by ENC staff of the concentrations of nitrate in the testwells are presented on pages A.2 through A.14. Plots of the sulfate con,-centrations are presented on pages A.15 through A.27.

.A. 1

-- r! T II-4--.- ' 17 1-1 --H! 44-I Ii Ii I I . I " I !1 4. I . ~ .L-.4-4-J-4-I-I.-4.-4-.4--4-I-4--I--4-4-4-.I-4-I.-4.-4--4-I-I- I-4-4-4--I-l-4-!-1-$-I-4-I-.I-l-4-4.4-I-4-4-I--I -4--4-4-I-4-4-4-4-4-I-4--I--I-4---1--4-4-44--l--4-.---.-4 -4-4-,--'----4------,-

.t-, -4-

II f~i I I I lII III I I III:

ILL -+!-rThEYU iil mi it ~~~~~~~~iV~~~~~1 Ti.1 IT. . . . . . . . . . i.. f]7. l i-I 'I "J.1 7I

14 1 -1-.- :1I

' H ; ji i.ii . .. I~ I IT.I r

;I i ll T ii I , - 777 7

4I .... ~ ..'. .

H ; L!j I H ill.

. . J .. ;

i t 11.. .. . . . . . . . . ..7 7 71

It t

1121

1

.6

Shu ri4i~&

,Correct: Lev

investigateLevel

Alert Level

1.7 t9793 1 4 ~ i7~T ~ 6 2 1a77. 77 j7960 ~s

FIGURE I A/ Average Monthly NO 3 + NH-I3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. j ;I,

Note: IT' signifies concentration below.'"Alert Level".

j~i *1.~1...

.1. 4.t4 :12 IT r I' I -, I1 F1,_44Th IIII.-4.--ThT 44TITLi 1±

7..L.1 i! Jff ............... 4- ITiTI1 i

L:.L.........................1 T

- - ---468

9

6

"Shuitdokm,Correc.L L~evi

9

4

II

IivestfgateLevel

Alert Le~vel

73_ P,4 i75* I i76 i q 77___ ___Ij7 j-, 79

W-'

FIGURE 21N : Average Monthly NO 3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. 2

Note: 11T' signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

TFFýr Ml 11±11TFT L 41T111 44.4- -4.4.4 .--. 444-4-4..-.4-4 4-ýI . . .i-4--4-"-I-+-,-+--I -- 1 -4- 1-4-+4--- F---+-+ -1 -F-I- "-" -f-

LI' FF --117F -FF-HT

4i-4-j~.

ThT-v.11 ii I I I 4Ei

li-Tt

iiill

8

II1-4-4-4-"-4-+-+ý . , -,+.-+- -iý-4

I, ii I I HA =T1 -H i4rI liii II I I I I I

''' i;1i I [11i i~ MljI'l.. .1 1 I! ,1 1 iii

S. Ij Lf Ififi~ -~fl

-IL

I. J

"Shutdown &

4or~ e

Investi!gate'Lievelii

Alert Level

-7 71 ~ ~ 2I¶I73-ý 1tT-W iq 75. w~ 76. 97 i1978 ______ 8D

FIGURE 3A/ : Average Monthly:NO.3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM). In

Test Well No. .3

Note: SI"P signifies concentration below ."Alert Level".

-t.

!7 1 _=ýT: r TTi 7=4 IBT1Ff __ TI fT.F[JRTHI F11 TrIT ý-Jý M_7.171 FlTTfTTE~I ý 1i 7!11I I4 I -b4- -H-4-4-4-4-H-44-H-4-4-1- i H+++H-1- -ft---IH---i--I--- 1---- -ii- 1--- i

-- ~ I ~ ~ I 4-4-4-4-4--F-I-I-+-4-4-4-4-F+--i-4-I-I-I--I-+-4-Iliii

nt ii HI I-il i-I-t.. Ft

IiI?

ti I±F1ughI f' I

1-

6:

'Shutdown &CGorrect Levi

i I. I11' I' ii 11111 t lii i 1 1 1! ii i

' IIiIL

iii

*i' i-H*iti- -t. -Ii vdii

HI'LI 41 711r

31 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I t

_jIL

f I'

LL I'' 'T 1 7 1 j~# -

*i 177+1T ~ .. u.j.

9II

66J

Tm~~estl.gate'Level

A rtLevelp. 1 1 It

72 I~I 19 Týr 11) L5 79 7 19 (U i~ f>~" D Li- . I..... 7.. ____ ___ -.... ._ _ _ _ _.

U, FIGURE 4jQW Average Monthly NO3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No.

Iii ,tl-t-1 =1-I -

I I

J. Id.-~EI1ýwI I I ; : I IIi-L

IT-TE TT'77T

~zT~ -T

_77 1

7-7

-r-F1-- '--t-'-~~~~~~~~ .... .... .... .... .... .... .--~--9 . .4----99--4--94 -.--. ---. 94-. -- 4.-4.

:I i : I m , I

- trr

I

i . . .. ...T .. ... ..I- 4.- --- -- I . . I ..... .. I I I , I . . i i- l- 944- I 9--.I I-.---.±444 I _;-~

l l]i . I __ ! __1 1* H II H+ -HIil. T1~IT17111Ff

U .I -1 -T!..

7 . 97 7.7.

II TT1

ifi

H'

H I - Ii f

IT+

_I -~ J--

-1] 1" 17- 7 77-7

VX*- Y An< LL L,

S ' Shutdown b,,Cbrrect Leve

InvestigateLevelI

Alert Level-- 4! lj9. -x 0 -A -k b.-- 117. - y1 e- .x:-_ S yt xk _4 i .I T

r) 72 i9 73 I ,,)74 r)I _5 ig 9 - 997.1/ '975 1979

FIGURE 5AJ Average Monthly NO 3 + N1H3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No.

Note: "X" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

K '\

Ii ~f

:~4t4] ý1TT rtlf

r r -r-r-r-r r ,-r, .- r, r 1~~~~ r r r -,- r r-r, , ,-,-r I *11 rrr9- r r -,--1-r,-r-r-rrrrrTrrrrr( r-r-r-rr , -r,--rr, r rr-'' 1

i~iJ±Lt J.IL-i-'-

..LI.LLL..!1SFLtUJ! li LI-

4-,-----3-f-4--,--3----4-4--+-i---+ -,--3-4-4--3-4-4- I -i-4-3-+-+-I-+-+-I--4--3- I-3-3--+--4--+-3-3--3-3--3-4- 3-3 -31--3--3-3--3--t-+--3---3

J 1.ý

4~i

iti F-r-I I

IIi i 1 ! 1 1

. . . . . . . . f-+- I . . I I . f-t-f-f-Fq - I -f-t-111 -t-"+-i-t-ý t-f -t-t-t- -1 1 r11- -I - I 'I II I I I i~I I I I I i-il +1. .. I i 111.1 1 f!"'ji I i I P

..................... .......... ...........

'It7 -- TT Tii L -1..TI 7 -- -- ------ -

VII -L-4 ii 77--.- . . .- . - -I - -7

ITLj- - .-- - - -- - ~ - LL

Tjj4 T~- T I ' -

'I4i tii -H

t -1t -

6

Shutdown~,Correct. TAevC

I

Invest: jI tL evel1

Alert Ifnrel.-V~ 1 397 I' -~ ~ ~ ~ :i~ ~ ~Ii 3 313.) 'I~ '~ ~_______

.Im)7 7 t__ 7I7.73 _ viu7 J 7.5 . V) 6! -I

FIGURE 6AJ Average Monthly NO, + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) InTest Well No. A~

F dl: 7 ýf4 I-

7' I,'

E-, - f-4:J!! 11

Tj

ff- f# I ArA I- ~ThL±b~1±jLL~

lu 444.j.-.

i i jii~ l ii

~TTh.i4J.L~.* Ii

IIliT TFý1-1..Ti-i I

' I 1!1q i i I j!!_! -lj.. . .. . ......... ............... L .4 FITII''

iL 1iI'-~i ' I. J!.

t 7.

.j.I i 1 1 1 1 i

T FT, it 41................ -.

--.LLI H~ - 7- . I- - -*--- -.--- - --- - . . . . .- 'I

I~ i*4 ~ I............... .. . .. . .-4-~

+Ht HL f

6'

SSh titCl wwln &borro(,;: Leve

I

Inves tlIA 'Level.

Alert 1~.ivel

7 f .1,)75~~~~~ ~~ a .) 5 .~ J ~ ~ ~~ 7:~j'I A~5J ~~x,'~ 1~III~~IAY r i . .

1974L) m7S .q76 .977 .479 80ig 73 ig 76 t977 aq 79 ig 7,V 14

FIGURE 74A/ Average Monthly NO 3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well 1No. j7

Note: "X" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

IT.[44 ;,r 7 L. ALL .4 _L1 UL--L.4.-I LI tIIi-iitIJlttlh4 ItTLTT1THTI1iiV1i14T1T1T ~pLt~ .tt

ill--fl~11 1 ! I 144-14ýi+i I I f F-H-f-H-H-1 1 1 1 rt

.- r-r F~T

II,-L~. .Li~-Ii_ ~ 444 J ~ ~ ~ ft TfIII I I II , I V I I I I ! ! I I

il '11 M 111 11HI t~I4. Hii ITI M

FJ 1.1 1-1

" 4 1 L _.

'I 11i l 1 ! - .i

H I-

!11H WI111

t --ill:;Fi14

,Co rrecc. Txvc

Leve.1

A *rl

1`-Y 73~ 75 76 7 : 7 7. i

~0 FIGURE 9P. Average Monthly NO3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. ~ I

~. r V V 7 1r711 r r-Vr---,--.-,--.--,.-..-

ht4.L i 4H-[ -L.41141-P I -4ii

.I. I..,- TFT

i.j I I I

I ~iiiII Iii']

-j-b H-~ttlTF

:liH±~-.~444414444414±4!

I I' tf - -1[11L! I I U I- . - .I j.

it RI -Hý *1t**ý *--* t J- I fi f f i

tti.IT i I

,ý' j -Ii1 rt !! i *.. - . .. HiL.. L..

11, j. hi l: [ . . .. . 7I' .-- -- -- -- :.. _a _ _ L

J17 LL !i LLL - i. _ - .. 4~

-1 t-tII

2 I H I MK

; ~7 ij~ 117 iI~L -------- - - - I. _H I 7 .jJj Y1 .17 l

71 '972- - 9319 4i75 96 _____ L

9

6

'Shutdown.1Corrcct, Levi

Investiy~te

Level

C)A

FIGURE 9 N4 Average Monthly NO 3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well No. 9.

Note: "XV signifies concentration below ';Alert Level".

'IT-iii

TT-17-'TT'r 77. 'P TrFF -iF M-1 -1 TTTTTT HI- ~~~HIThT-1

JJJiIHit'I _THFI I I F Th-Hh

* I

iii:I Il'ifil7

'I ii II liii rflUILIL' 'Trp-7.-.., 9 - 4 1 -,--r-1---4--1 -~-4--4--,--- *

I i I.. i 11 1 41 - L L I ý;.

-77 .7 7 7 I

Jill_ I

iIM I-ii

U. Ii I- H.t 661

ITI11F-

I HA

Im A

4 -. -J- -.. - -

I I . L-T

*J I tH I 1L 1'. - F FF-

T___ 1,1 li '1i 1 1

SShuit d wn &,Correc r Lev

I nve st 1,g, teLevel.

Alert' T,-velie71

; I I .1 A 7.A ý1~ 1.1 ulmilok 41 in i" 1"I U13 11L ~ .JII WI 'Is! j .ý A TA )1, 1. I I-1. .Ito 72 I w 7 3 m T w975.. I 1976., '977 i9 78 9g7 9. it- 0 - - -

FIGURE IOAI: Average Monthly NO 3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) InTest Well No. J

Note: "V" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

f711

I . I . I I I . I .. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FWI1 jd dIf F L1]II i I4+.

I! : i :

T-r

!~IT 'I I 7-tI Wi7~ t -7

S~ 7,

4giL

JI'l

9

II u d .),I

6

7

Inv e s ti:,it jleLevel

Alert Level11AP .7 .1

1.)71 f I Ix 2. U _____

I'~i197Z i9 73 '9 74 1976 is 77... I9.78%9.78

I I

FIGURE W4A : Average Monthly NO3 + NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well1 No. .

Note: 'T' signifies concentration below IliAlert Level".. I i I

I ,

-T'

-H! H,

j-1

H f

4

d- t iII-N ý T!

I-I.-TTIT, -T I

4 4 14 -11AI......

Tt-77 -1-7-

IT 7,

-- -- - --- - - 7* 7, L

11ý

r 1-4

& jcorýec! Leve

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7 1 1 H-T-T

V

L

.. ........L

-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Tt-

TI T TulllipA

'H +11-1- "F- T..

J IT

J. .1. 11. J J. i :J

t L]

Inves t J ga t eLevel.

11,71 7 2 73 i-j 75. ig 76 77 7 8 7 9

Alert L, jc'

FIGURE IZAI: Average Monthly N03 + NH3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) In

Test Well NO. 12

Note:. "X" signifies concentration below ';ýAlert Level".

..,-.~ r'"T4..A. I- tilTi~44~4-4~ I 11Tt

Ii3E:rV~T

ITL1TTT

*TI'tl' H44-i ______

Phi IITHBNTI-I Iii

T7

li

it'

~li,~I I I

TV'''I

71T Fr! .11

HTh 4:SShnltdf,'.!1 &Corre.-J 1.'evl

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' IH,T, 11

:1; I I!Ij!I.YLI!flIFF TiNT Ii

I.2I.

L! FF'1

.1'

* . g* ,I HL~

'I I

i:;.* I

* I Ii

44:

1FFI T.1.4.

Ii 'I

-~ -. ~ ..LLLL. .4 1lI44t T K ~.

I -

... ..... . 1 1 1 , jf 4 I -- . i t ... LD .' 1 ---~

Li 1 i M IT1

:7I lil '

;~~~4 -I III ! i* :!::; : 1 . -

9II

5

;;Ii.F ...... -4-H-I 5 i i4-H i+-I-H I i H-H -H 1 1. !-1 7-t .1. I'

.1[Ij 144 I LI- 2 I: ii :i (liii liii; IllIllIll III 1111.111111 Ill Ill II Ill Iii ILl H

I 9

LevelIi

4414.

.T-1-T-r-T-T-1-1

I i 1,4I

* Iii

''Ii

.11.1

ii; ~-H±~ '1I I I I I I I I I

S YI'A

ItTH.'11~11 lIiIiIiI**I~I*I~~*'**** .,. I

- -. *-- ~'~2* -. -.-- *~ IIn 711 III / I 19 /7-1 Ji~8m7 7I.' I L... I ~- L ___ -- r..i --7___

II

FIGURE I3AI: Average Monthly NO 3 +,NH 3 (as N) Concentrations (PPM) in

Test Well No.J.

Note: "V" signifies concentration below !'Alert Level"

4.H j 7 .L :~2iiti.9 I iii t4IILFfl+

Ii I ]I LL I J_ 41Th.... ...

IiI 1

i ~ ~ _JL4-J4.L-j.LuL4"-.I.J--- 4--.44444-4--44-----4--I- 44--4 4*-- 1--f-----*----ii ii

1 : ý_+

TTT.....

-I -;L 4 : 14 ~ kt±A 4tI4b+H I4I4-4 ~+t++ f ~ L* 9

.9

Ii Ii

ULL.4 ~.vI

AlLV

1-.~ i~*IT1-1

-t 2-I1..]*t*11)I-1--1*1*II

1* .4-.1 -Fl jm.

_. '

....

3;hutdowii &~,C rrect Level

!

7 I: If. L. 4 .1..

L" I ... I.

I 7 -

I I M I

til H i l II I

Li.t

I F1 -i I

S

S

2

Investip,

d:e

Level-

Alert Lf':vel

1.71 * 92 I9.3 _ ;7~-4 --- I75.7 1976 1977.___ ,I .!

ig 7H 79

FIGURE /9 Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well No. J

Note: IT' signifies concentration below ".Ale .rt Level".

f-i -I;;.

i~fy~j TIM 111 ffildI 4...Tiir I 117ml jTI :: * t±j

* . I

I FT* i I! Ij!!IlI~I:i I* ::I.IIII;lI:II;1 H111:1

--- 41IJi I t] 11 H1 -i I i -1-]

-,-~ -- ~----I--4--------f-I-+-,-~----i--I- I I I I I I I I I I I I I-4-4-4-I-i-I-4---~--I-4-I-I-I--I--4-4---4-I--4-4--'-4--,-I--4-.----4-4-F I I -*1 I.II

i 7 1 1 H- [

.1 ..- j .' . .T ... .~.. 7... ' 1 . T 4 . L . ' 777 -_-_-_

. . . . .i l :

7h t 4Jt . ..j .. .. .. .-. . .+-. . .

~~ ItJ..

Ishutdmol.i &eXorrct: Level

I .

Level.

Aler't Level.

7~ I ~)L7~Z. '9ý-T 7-4 -7 -5 76

FIGURE 2'9.: Average Monthly.Sulfate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well No.2

Note:. "X" signifies concentration below "Alert Level"., I

14 iLL ji 1~L7 ttj fTTý.

i i j7

.............

-I .- I t2 Il--I L Hift'41 4-P-MP, IITtL4444.

I I'I

4

111111II-rrII. iI ! II! ii

.1

L

Shutdownr &Xiorrcci leve .1

Ii ala! ! !

It lm H I I I 1 I H I.i.1.:1;.,:. I

- ... ..- -- -.--- I II I4--'-4--44--,--II-I4--4I-I-4-.--4-I4 44--I-II -4I-I-I----+-,I--,,-i-I----I-I.. .........---- a I----,---

Ii .4 Ii I Ii.1 . I

I I I I

I.T

tI

-P. 4- -[__.

a IT

6

5

qI

I.

Inve~stigilteLevel.

t-I 71 1 ig 72 --. !?.Zl iF,7V_ ill 75 ý ig 76.+ .~1 v) 7 7. iZq i 78..l__ w- 98 I i

FIGURE 3•9 Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No. 3.

Note: "X" signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

*. I ii.: I + ;.[4. ri~:fLIi Ijill

H-L4

JJJIL 41_fihf4.Lfit -I-

R 1 #1 I + -'.4-i.-,flu

'71-44- -7,77

i !; ii1 4'T _lT i~i TIiIL I iiii .11

.7-

i-~ftr $ii 7

TF1 7 ITFr

2b3utdown &iXorrecEf Level

-~--,-I- i-I-I-t. 1 I 1.1.

ii 1711:!

Ii

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

I, 2

..... ... ~$~ ~~1!. . . . . . . .. . . .. .i-

* - -. .r .* . . . . ,.7 r* .I

1)

I nv e s t lg .ieL~evel

Alert Le~'el

- I.-.--. "'.71 t97~ i9 7 3 t9 76 7 7. 7 8 79 _198.0

FIGURE 4 ! Average Monthly Sul fate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well No,. 4

Note: IT'X signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

( 'I

I-.

.i

* httfI. I T4

rjrrd-r j I.:1rrrrr L L.tE E l l ,-F--4---4-*-4-I-++-I---+-I-I-4-4--t- t-4--9-+-l-1---I-+-i--i- F + + 1-1 -4-i-I- I -i---~-+ I "--1--I--- F

IF t-+H-ti~ji 4fj-F-1 1

1# 1':a-it

Ii

L1H-; jj a rr.3h tdow ve

- -,~ I---4-,-#4 I -- 4--+-#~--4-4-+4-4---4-4-1-4- 1-4.4

:1 I

T. II I

IL I

',~ ~ P1 T-

ý4 #1 7-l-

6

'I

3

6

21

InvestigateLevel

Alert 1,ev (21t1.41.

193 I 197 I76 i'97 A1977.o7, t,4.79

'~J .. ,...

~ ~1C)

FIGURE 5•:Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well No. $

Note: "X" signifies concentration below "'Alert Level".

-4-+ ..4-. ~ ~ ~ T t . ....

I .w ~

.I I-Lu

4iI -t 41-114 +4 H

Ii

..i-i -;-* I

ii P :: 11! 1 h I I!1. . --- 4- 1 0 M I i I I I I I 1 -4 -+ 4-4 -+-4-

I ; tI ". ~Ij J ~ ! 4-1 i 4- + 71.T1 It-f Ii -T-7. 7

'.hutdown [i.,Correci: Leve)

2

I

I m

T- - -~..

_ _ H

'2

.5

-5

.2

I I

InvestigateLevel.

Alert Level

71 X __ __ 1 q7 &s7 N_ __ :'_ __ _ 1_____t_____1 J.;

FIGURE 6 9 Average Monthly.Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No.

Note:,- "X's signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

..........

iII-~i* .4.1 P fl- t I# liftI 4- 11- -ff IH-FIH1-fT iI4fiI I

1 1; i m . 1 1 1 1 14-44-HI : : : I II I I I4. . . If - i-l--,1' !- 1'--111 I--i j~1 i hjj-t-1l-rrTr7 I I :

-Tr

I,,

I-I

tiT~ii'TiTTTFiTV

,hutdown&9Correct. .wevel

I ! I.. i.. - ----- . . . . . .

! i I 1 I I I I I I I I I II I-1 1-1 .1 1 - Pi- r .I'~ i JJii SI I I

IT! 1 i -TAT 1"I H I HIR -H-I 111 -1 i 11 !i 1-T

.. ..... ...... ....

it!A-* _0 -1.4777.

i f i i IFHt 11111 IM W HL

r

JT... .... ij-

.. ..... I" T El-p EL

+E -- - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

J.- Ti I I JI I 1 1 j i

L j- JJ 1-1 -'T r711- ill 44 J I.I. . ..... L'T ",

JJJ11T]"i flt

x X"x x x xx

'I

Invest 1y: -eLevelI

Alert L'-ud

YL ~74i 27f3Li2_-I ~~77. 78~.L~~' 1

FIGURE 75' Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well1 No. II.

Note: " signifies concentrat~ion below "'Alert Level".II.

~ ........ ! I I 1 11 I I I I I I I I i I . 1 1 1 1 1 t I ! + t

_- -I4-"--44--" 4 411 1

+I. L.f- j-'144-- Idd ý4 J+j_ _- -III I III I I II IILL

BIi [7t _MT-1-IT-,

-4-I

7- 77 -71 I TI

7-'

4 L ;I fil

;hu~dwo.,Y &vaCorrc!' 1nvel.

LeveJ

Alert 1,.ovelI '~ 1972 1--1 7_.V 4 J 975. in76. ______ 7.7._ tY 1980

FIGURE SS.: Average Monthly S~ulfate Concentration (PPM) inTest Well No.8

Note:. "V" signifies concentration below "'Alert Level".

ý ..I . - ý . . ý . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- I-4--4--4-+-4-4-I-4-4--I--I--4 -4-4-4--4--4-I.-4-.4---1--4.-4--I-4-4-2--..-U-1 A. J- 1-

ii-.t-.v.

')Ihmtdowni &n~orrect Level

f ~.... ....j .........- .1. .[ii II Ii I I I

1.-~fl .17 T flfl

--- ~~ L4.T-

-- I* TI T J L .4 -j

___~~~ A .~(~..--I I i I' II';_[ LL 2-

,6

4

3,

2

Invest.i tecLe've'.

Aleirt .'½___L97 7 3 1 7, 5

-~ .~ :~ ~ ~ i~~~~~~~~~~~~ .2.gz"t1 I SP. 1jýj' 22.6.1 1 t~r~jr~~ 221&b~t1 vl~j~

12279.. ~q8Olip76. '9 77 '9 7

FIGURE 9.5' Averag~e Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No. 9

Note: "V' signifies concentration below !'Alert Level".

* +~ U~i.FTFRTpiTh~p~~ T~LII iI--f--H-H4H--I- -- A--4 4 44 4 4 JHJ-1-

! O i I lii I ' H-

'I- T. i'I !'

.. [. .. . ....-. . I . F T ~ ~ i

TIL 11 111 -1 .L± ...

106

a Orrect, -evei

907

Investigate

Alert Lt:-... 4.,,.

1,71 .19 72 '9 ij 1915 ,q77 i.. '.479 E~O19 /Z5 m 74 1975 . iq 76 m77 1978 v4 79

FIGURE /09•: Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No. Q

Notn: "V" iignifies concontrnt.inn below "Aler~t Level".

.4-44--, - -

iHi--t+HiI ! . I ý I I : ; I I -I I I I -I I 1 ' -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 I -1

.. . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4-q -4Lu-H 'HFIH H-dTm I I I I I I : I I [ I I I I ; I . : t I i. . 1+-~+--t-t--I---*t-41-- -I - -+-t-I-t------

4-

t+[ -~ 1-H-I TH-H-H-V'-H-iI::

4-. J....~ L L -4--44-3---.---4I I I II III I I I4--44-4-4-I .44-44-I- ---- 4J-I-4-I-1I-4- .-- I--4-III4--I -!4-4.4-'-I-4,.--..44----l ,-4.-,-,I ,--,-i-

I I I I I I I I

,hutdown &Xinrrect Level.

IT T 1.

7-- -1, .111 - - :-- 7

f1H

i V77 44-T

II I

-7.k

+H. .2i~

9

6

6

4.

I.

ill

2

I ý ,

Investip1ite

Le vel

Al ert L '~YO 7 . ~ a * - ~ ~ :3 Ji1~ 2~ ?- .~ y _____,Tigf 5______ill;)__Vf!

FIGURE S1: Average Monthly Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No..

Note: 'T' signifies concentration below !'Alert Level'".

IT T* H4 I I II I 'I

T'I

17 -T7fT 7[t nI -TAml. 2

I ~4.

Correct Level.

12

2.:

14i 7 . .

''.1.

* I.22.

Ii 'Ii

2~21.L~

* .2..

- ~ .- --

I..-:

ii I I I* -

Ii* I. I I

6

J.

7 .. . . . .

ii'i!

7 7

lIT 1- Iii

-I.1

.122

22,1 I I

-i

H4~:

Ii Ii I IIThr~tI7HTt7~7:1 -~ -I

7 .lLIh-1 rt,

.22],

* i I

-, I.

9

I nvestl-Leve]

2- I.. 4 I -1

I 2

I ii1 LLL I 2:1.J..1

*2''' .2 JIlL..L.i) ~ .1..

2

-. S *

.'71 i .972 ____ 79-4 7 --- -'e.F I 1977.- j lfl7~ __ 12179 19

Al'ert. L, 1.A

FIGURE /29: Averagje Monthly Su).fate Concentration (PPM) in

Test Well No. 12.

Note: "XV signifies concentration below "Alert Level".

I I-i-- i .4-i4- 4 4 4. L l.~

...........+ II III 111111 I 11111 I I [I I I

-ý-rL A-i N I4'444I ~~~- -~~~---f I ~~~~I I; I I--t--i1iiIii-----+i-- -+ I I4I4-i I-4- I---4A I-A-14 4-

Ii

Shutdom.ri &9.~ orc.Lv

-, I ~ II I I I I I-4-4-I-.I-4-J-.J-1-I.-14-L4-I.LL.LA.LL.LI J.J.J.JWWL.L.LI

liii! Ii'* ~ r-t---~ 4-,---,-4-4-~-.-4--+-,-,-I--I- -~- ~ LL.LL.L1L~ILLL

-uII i I I ~ [i ~ I

iii. .1 .I~ I I.. Il-I I I Ii-

I i-i: i iJ* ;. I I

I.,I r,.,I

I-i

V ~II-f I i~4I Jiii7~~ . .'~i4 {)i.2. .. . ..1* .. .i 4Li~

.1 F ij

7 1V1--71 =7. :

~~7-,

6

2

Leve';

Alert ýi

* .0t*

* I

M1'

.1. .~1 t~1 11-Ill-iA~ .111.

I I

'.5 2 . j 72 1993i7J ~95 g6 [ 77. 79.__ 19-

j~j*t II

I'

FIGURE 13'S: Average Monthl~y Sulfate Concentration (PPM) in

Test WellI No. .

Note: "T' signifies concentration below ".Alert Level".

REFER ENC ES

1. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing, EnvironmentalStatement Related to Operation of Uranium Oxide Fuel Plant,. Exxon NuclearCompany., Docket No 70-1257, March 1974.

.2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Directorate of Licensing Fuels and Materials,Environmental Statement Related to Operation of Mixed Oxide FabricationPlant, Exxon Nuclear Company, Docket No. 70-1257, June 1974.

3. E-xxon Nuclear Company, Inc., Applicant's Supelemental Environmental Report,Uranium Oxide Fuel Plant Expansio6n Phase IH), JN-14 Addendum 3, July 1974.

4. Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., Applicant's Environmental Report, Uranium OxideFuel Plant Expansion (Phase III), JN-14 Addendum 4, August, 1977.

5. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Fluoride Standards, Chapter 18-48WAC, February 4, 1971.

6. Letters:

a. E. Y. Shum, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to Mr. H. Paul Estey,Exxon Nuclear Company, "Questions Related to Environmental InformationSubmitted in Connection with Exxon's License Renewal Application (SNM-1227, Docket No. 70-1257)" Enclosure, October 8, 1980.

b. H. Paul Estey, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., to E. Y. Shum,U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, re: Time frame for reply to October 8 letter.October 21, 1980.

c. H. Paul Estey, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., to E. Y. Shum,U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, January 9, 1981.

d. H. Paul Estey, Exxon Nuc lear Company, Inc., to E. Y. Shum,U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, January 21, 1981.

e. H. Paul'"Estey, Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc., to E. Y. Shum,U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, January 30, 1981.

f. H. Paul Estey, Exxon Nuclear-Company, Inc., to E. Y. Shum,U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission, February 2, 1981.

7. National Academy of Sciences, Biologic Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants:Fluorides, 1971.

8. Moore, R.E., The AIRDOSII Computer Code for Estimating Radiation Dose toMan From Airborne adionuclides in Areas-Surrounding Nuclear Facilities,ORNL, 1977.

9. ACGIH 1972, "Threshold Limit Values for Substances in Workroom Air,"adopted by ACGIH for 1972.

10. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Order to Modify License in the MatterExxon Nuclear Company, Docket No. 701257, Special Nuclear Material LicenseNo. SNM-1227, Amendment No. 22, January 28, 1980.