EA-503; (FONSI) and Environmental Assessment O-Wing Renovation Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Table of Contents
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT O-WING RENOVATION Y-12 PLANT, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT O-WING RENOVATION Prepared by The U.S. Department of Energy Oak Ridge, Tennessee
ACRONYMS
1. SUMMARY
2. NEED FOR ACTION
3. PROPOSED ACTION
4. ALTERNATIVES
5. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTS
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
7. PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED
8. REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
6.1 Accident analysis summary.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 O-Wing Rolling and Forming Process Flow Diagram.
Figure 3.1 O-Wing Rolling and Forming Process Flow Diagram (Continued).
Figure 5.1 Location of Bldg. 9215, O-Wing.
Figure 5.2 Geological Setting.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT O-WING RENOVATION Y-12 PLANT, OAK RIDGE, TENNESSEE
AGENCY: U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
ACTION: FINDING Of NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA), DOE/EA-0503, for activities at DOE's
Y-12 Plant associated with the renovation and operation of the
enriched uranium metal forming facility (Bldg. 9215, O-Wing).
Based on the analyses in the EA, DOE has determined that the
proposed action is not a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning
of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.
Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact statement is
not required and the Department is issuing this Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).
COPIES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARE AVAILABLE FROM:
Mr. William G. McMillan
DOE Y-12 Site Office
Building 9704-2, MS-8009
Y-12 Plant
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
(615) 576-2409
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carol Borgstrom, Director
Office of NEPA Oversight
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585
(202) 586-4600
PROPOSED ACTION: The proposed action involves the renovation and
modified operation of the enriched uranium metal-forming facility
located in Building 9215, O-Wing, at the Y-12 Plant. A number of
items would be replaced, including the salt baths, the sheet rinse,
the vertical turret lathe, the roller leveller, the square shear,
the storage racks, the lead and oil baths, the monorails and
handling equipment, and the instrumentation and related piping,
power and ventilation for the support of the new equipment.
Structural modification would be made to the various enclosures
around the major pieces of process equipment. The objectives of
the renovation are to maintain production reliability in a facility
that has been in operation for 30 years; to provide improved
safety, health, and environmental protection; and to execute system
tests, quality monitoring, and operator training for the purpose
of ensuring a timely start-up and safe operation of the facility.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The potential environmental effects of the
proposed actions are insignificant. The proposed finding of no
significant impact for the O-Wing facility renovation is based on
the following factors, which are supported by the information and
analyses in the EA.
The renovation of the O-Wing facility will not require any
additional building space. No new land or structure will be
required for this operation. No significant impact to the
2
environment is expected during the demolition/construction phase
of this project.
The renovation of the O-Wing facility will reduce the overall
airborne emissions of U^235 by 90% due to the addition of improved
air emission control facilities. No increase in liquid and solid
emissions will be realized by the operation after renovation, and
current treatment facilities are in compliance with state and
federal regulations. No environmental impact is expected due to
the renovated operations of the O-Wing facility.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED: In the EA, DOE considered the two
alternatives that exist for the renovation of the O-Wing facility:
1) no action, and 2) the proposed action. The no action
alternative was determined to be unsatisfactory because the project
involves the restoration of a vital facility supporting national
security. Continued deterioration of the facility will increase
the risk of production interruptions.
The alternative of renovating the O-Wing facility was determined
to be environmentally insignificant, and will provide the
opportunity to incorporate new equipment and modifications to the
existing facility. These improvements are needed to enhance
reliability of the production of weapon parts assigned to the
3
Y-12 Plant and to improve contamination control and worker safety.
The selection of an alternative site for the O-Wing operation was
not considered due to production and security requirements.
DETERMINATION: The proposed O-Wing facility renovation activities
at the Y-12 Plant do not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within
the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act. This finding
is based on the analyses in the EA. Therefore, an Environmental
Impact Statement for the proposed action is not required.
Issued at Washington, D.C., this _________day of July, 1991.
Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary
Environment, Safety and Health
4
DOE/EA-0503
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT O-WING RENOVATION
Rev. 5 July 1991
Prepared by
The U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
ACRONYMS
BCVWDA Bear Creek Valley Waste Disposal Area
BMAP Biological Monitoring Abatement Program
CAPCA Closure and Postclosure Activities
CPCF Central Pollution Control Facility
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOP Dioctyl Phthalate
DPM Disintegrations per minute
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EFPC East Fork Poplar Creek
HEPA High-efficiency particulate air (filters)
LLW Low-Level Waste
MAA Materials Access Area
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
ORGDP Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant
ORR Oak Ridge Reservation
PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
PWMP Project Waste Management Plan
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SNM Special Nuclear Material
TSP Total Suspended Particulates
UEFPC Upper East Fork Poplar Creek
WEPCF West End Pollution Control Facility
WTSD Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
1. SUMMARY
The operation of the O-Wing facility is necessary to meet the schedules and material
requirements for Department of Energy (DOE) activities. The new facility is a renovation of the
existing facility. Equipment will be replaced to improve personnel protection, production
reliability, and to reduce overall emissions. The effect of the renovation and operation of this
facility in terms of personnel safety and environmental impact compared to the overall Y-12 Plant
operations will be small.
The effect of the operation of the O-Wing facility on the local fish and wildlife will be
insignificant. Normal emissions of airborne contaminants resulting from O-Wing operations at
the plant perimeter are expected to be less than 1% of the overall plant emissions (Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, 1989).
All air emissions produced by the O-Wing are permitted by the State of Tennessee
Division of Air Pollution Control, and overall emissions will be reduced from pre-renovation
levels by the addition of high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filtration. The waste streams
produced by the operation will be treated to recover the special nuclear material (SNM) and
disposed of in an environmentally acceptable manner. No impacts are expected on ground or
surface water.
No additional land will be required to implement this project, as it involves the
replacement of existing facilities. This project will not impact any rare or endangered species
known to exist on DOE/Y-12 Plant lands or other property on the Oak Ridge Reservation
(ORR); it will not affect any archaeological, historical, or cultural resources. Since the activities
are enclosed in an existing building, no floodplains or wetlands will be impacted.
All personnel involved with the operation of the O-Wing facility will be experienced in
handling enriched uranium and will be properly trained. Operating procedures and administrative
controls will be enforced, and safety systems such as stack monitors will be utilized to minimize
the possibility of an accident or accidental release to the environment.
2. NEED FOR ACTION
The O-Wing renovation consists of several projects including a part of the Production
Capability Restoration line item program, a cooling coil installation, and a capital equipment
project. The purpose of this program is to replace or restore aging facilities at the Y-12 Plant
1
to ensure that the Oak Ridge Operations can fulfill their mandated production requirements
safely and efficiently. The O-Wing metal-forming facility in Bldg. 9215 was built in 1957 to
provide a unique facility for the forming and shaping of enriched uranium metal in preparation
for machining operations. The equipment in the O-Wing has exceeded its expected useful
lifetime. The hydroform, used to press enriched uranium metal parts, is the last one in operation
of all similar models built in the 1950s.
The O-Wing Renovation is needed to increase worker safety and lessen the negative
impacts of the facility on the environment. This renovation will enhance the safety and effective
performance of future DOE activities (15-20 years). Modern material handling techniques and
equipment are needed to improve material isolation and environmental control.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the environmental
consequences associated with the renovation and operation of the O-Wing facility. This
assessment is being performed in accordance with DOE guidelines (52 FR 47662) for compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act, as implemented by the regulations promulgated by
the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). This action is not addressed
in the DOE Guidelines' typical classes of action which require an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS), nor is it categorically excluded. Therefore, an EA is appropriate to provide the
basis for determining whether the subject action is a "major federal action significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment." This EA addresses the real or potential impacts or
effects of the O-Wing facility on the surrounding environment. Because the Y-12 Plant is one
of the weapons production facilities under review in the Nuclear Weapons Complex
Reconfiguration Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), the proposed action has
been reviewed with regard to its relationship to this PEIS. The PEIS will consider the option of
moving or phasing out weapons complex functions now carried out at the Y-12 Plant. The
proposed O-Wing renovation would not prejudice any decision to relocate these functions
because this renovation project is necessary in the short-term to maintain production reliability
and to provide improved safety, health, and environmental protection. Thus, the renovation
should not be deferred until completion of the PEIS and issuance of the record of decision. The
"no action" alternative under the PEIS includes, among other things, actions needed to bring the
weapons complex facilities into compliance with environmental, safety, and health regulations.
The proposed O-Wing renovations would provide such compliance; accordingly, they are
considered to be part of the PEIS "no action" alternative.
2
3. PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action is the renovation and modified operation of the enriched uranium
metal-forming facility located in Bldg. 9215, O-Wing. Items to be replaced include the salt baths,
used to anneal and preheat uranium parts; the sheet rinse, used to remove salt from the parts;
the vertical turret lathe, used for trimming metal parts; the roller leveller, used to remove
warpage from metal sheets; the square shear, used to cut metal into pieces; the storage racks; the
lead and oil baths, used for preheating metal parts; the monorails and handling equipment, used
to transport parts within the facility; instrumentation and related piping, power, and ventilation
for the support of the new equipment. Structural modifications will be made to the various
enclosures around the major pieces of process equipment to improve personnel protection and
ventilation. The circle shear will be re-furbished and a new computerized Robot Gantry System
will be installed and used to move parts from station to station within the shear phase facility.
A new 25-in. Hydroform will replace the existing 26-in. Hydroform which has been in operation
for 33 years, far exceeding the useful life of metal pressing machinery. Specific details of the size
and capacity of process equipment are considered classified information according to DOE Order
5650.2A.
The technical objectives for the O-Wing renovation are to restore long-term production
reliability in a facility that has been in operation for 33 years; to provide, in the renovation design,
the required safety, health, and environmental protection to assure more stringent as low as
reasonably achievable controls; and to define and execute systems tests, quality monitoring, and
operator training for the purpose of ensuring a timely startup and safe operation of the facility.
All of the activities for this project will take place within the protected area of the Y-12
Plant. While the primary construction site is located in O-Wing (first floor level of Bldg. 9215),
work will also be required in N-Wing (O-Wing basement), in O-Wing, second floor level (plenum
area), and in the air supply plenum east of O-Wing. O-Wing, first floor, is a Materials Access
Area (MAA) and will remain an MAA until all SNM has been recovered, as feasible, from the
materials and equipment to be removed during this project. Most of the work to be performed
in N-Wing will not be in an MAA Both O-Wing and N-Wing are radiological control areas and
will remain so during the renovation. Building 9215 is used for the storage, handling, and
manufacturing of accountable nuclear materials.
During the renovation, much of the existing equipment and ductwork will be removed, any
entrapped uranium will be recovered, and the appropriate decontamination will be performed.
The wastes from these operations will be disposed of as appropriate [i.e., construction waste to
3
the landfill, low level wastes (LLW) to storage, and hazardous wastes to permitted treatment,
storage, or disposal facilities].
New forming and support equipment will be located inside a new room designed for glove
port access and window viewing at the equipment stations. The new computerized Robot Gantry
System will be used to move parts from station to station within the room. The "pressing zone"
will be enclosed and connected with the equipment enclosure. In addition, the oil bath, lead
bath, and cooling conveyor will be located inside the shear area. An HEPA filtration system will
be installed to filter contaminated exhaust from the new Shear Phase and Forming Press room.
Air conditioning will be supplied to the facility by the addition of cooling coils in the existing air
supply plenum. Construction waste and any fluids, solids, or sludges generated during operation
will be collected in criticality safe containers and processed to recover the SNM. The operation
of the renovated facility will not differ from previous operations except that newer equipment and
procedures will make the operations safer and environmentally cleaner. Process flow diagrams
for the process are provided in Figure 3.1. The "Blue Goose" referred to in the diagram is a
specially designed transport vehicle.
4. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were considered concerning the O-Wing Renovation Project: (1) A no-
action alternative, and (2) the proposed action. The "no-action" alternative would require the O-
Wing operations to continue utilizing aging equipment. This increases the possibility of an
unscheduled production stoppage and precludes the opportunity to install improvements to
worker safety, health, and environmental protection. The proposed action alternative will provide
new equipment and modifications to the existing facility that are needed to enhance reliability of
the production of weaponry parts assigned to the Y-12 Plant and to improve contamination
control and worker safety. Production and security requirements precluded the consideration of
an alternate site outside of the ORR.
5. SITE DESCRIPTION AND ENVIRONMENTS
The Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant lies in a valley between the Cumberland and the southern
Appalachian mountains in eastern Tennessee. The plant is located on 37,000 acres of federally
owned land along with two other major DOE facilities, the Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant
(ORGDP) and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Y-12 Plant site is located 3 miles from
the population center of the city of Oak Ridge. Bear Creek Road, the principal access to the
4
Figure (Page 5)
Figure 3.1 O-Wing Rolling and Forming Process Flow Diagram.
Figure (Page 6)
Figure 3.1 O-Wing Rolling and Forming Process Flow Diagram (Continued).
site, runs east and west along the northern side of the plant. The main Y-12 Plant area is
situated in eastern Bear Creek Valley and is bounded on the south by Chestnut Ridge and on
the north by Pine Ridge. Scarboro Road marks the eastern boundary. The plant occupies an
area ~1 km (2/3 mile) wide by 5.2 km (3.2 miles) long, the longer axis being essentially parallel
to the ridges. The plant site area contains 811 acres with about 600 acres enclosed by perimeter
security fencing (Martin Marietta Energy Systems, 1988). The O-Wing is in Bldg. 9215 on the
Y-12 Plant Site (Figure 5.1).
5.1 AIR QUALITY, METEOROLOGY, AND CLIMATE
Regional air quality is the product of local meteorology, terrain, land use, and emission
sources. The predominance of high-pressure systems restricts the dispersive capacity of the
atmosphere. Consequently, eastern Tennessee has a high pollution potential.
The climatology of the Oak Ridge area is of the humid continental type characterized by
mild winters [3.4C (38.1F) average temperature in January] with high and low annual extremes
of 40.5C (105F) and -22.8C (-9F). Due to its topography, general weather patterns of the
area do not reflect those of the more mountainous segments of the southeastern United States.
Prevailing wind regimes travel predominantly in a northeast to southwest line, both up and down
the valley, in alignment with the parallel ridges. Intense, highly confined storms of short duration
occur frequently within the area. Heavy precipitation occurs in both the winter and summer,
whereas spring and autumn are comparatively dry. Annual mean total precipitation is 134 cm
(52 in.). Only under unusual conditions is snowfall a significant portion of the precipitation.
Control of air pollution by restrictions on ambient concentrations is accomplished through
Ambient Air Quality Standards and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) increments.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for six pollutants, and
numerical PSD increments have been established for two of these six pollutants for the Oak
Ridge area. An area in compliance with NAAQS is designated as an attainment area for these
pollutants. The State of Tennessee has the same air quality standards for criteria pollutants and
PSD increments as the national standards, and has an additional standard for gaseous fluoride.
In addition to requiring compliance with the NAAQS, PSD regulations establish strict air
quality increments (allowable changes). Currently, PSD increments are only applicable to sulfur
dioxide and particulates. The amount of deterioration allowed is determined by area
categorization. At present, the entire region less than 50 km (31 miles) from the Y-12 Plant site
is categorized as Class II. The closest Class I area is the Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
located ~50 km (31 miles) (at the closest boundary) southeast of the site.
7
Figure (Page 8)
Figure 5.1 Location of Bldg. 9215, O-Wing.
The State of Tennessee has designated the entire region of the Y-12 Plant site as attaining
the NAAQS for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, and total suspended
particles (TSP); it did not request monitoring of lead or gaseous fluorides, due to the lack of
emission sources. The average concentration of the 93 TSP samples obtained at the Y-12 Plant
during 1988 (most recent data) was 52 ug/m^3, which is 20% of the NAAQS, TSP 24-hr standard
of 260 ug/m^3. No exceedances were recorded in 1988.
5.2 WATER QUALITY
5.2.1 Surface Water
Bear Creek
Bear Creek flows from its headwaters at the site of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)-closed S-3 Ponds westward through the Bear Creek Burial Ground Waste
Disposal Area for ~7.2 km (~4.5 miles), where it then turns northward to flow into East Fork
Poplar Creek (EFPC). EFPC ultimately enters Poplar Creek, which discharges to the Clinch
River. A detailed summary of streamflow, aquatic life, contamination levels, and sources may be
found in the Final EA Report for the Y-12 Closure Initiation Projects (DOE, 1988a).
East Fork Poplar Creek
The Upper East Fork Poplar Creek (UEFPC) flows easterly through the Y-12 Plant and
drains an area of ~800 acres. In addition, the creek serves as a receiving stream for point sources
within the Y-12 complex, and the bulk of the flow in UEFPC is the result of the Y-12 Plant
discharges. The UEFPC discharges into Lake Reality, which discharges into EFPC. The 3Q20
flowrate from Lake Reality is 11.5 cfs. The 3Q20 stream flow is a drought flow calculated
statistically as the lowest expected flow over 3 consecutive days with a 20-year recurrence interval.
This flow is monitored in accordance with the Y-12 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit.
The water quality of the Lake Reality discharge has been in compliance with NPDES
effluent limits. The only parameter which demonstrated exceedances of any significance in
CY1989 was pH. A study conducted by the Oak Ridge Task Force under direction of the
Tennessee Department of Water Management during 1985 indicated that quality in the water
column of EFPC was within established criteria limits.
5.2.2 Groundwater
Groundwater flow in the Bear Creek Valley is divided into two flow regimes, the Bear
Creek watershed and the EFPC watershed. Facilities east of the S-3 Ponds are located in the
9
EFPC watershed, and the facilities west of the S-3 Ponds are located in the Bear Creek
watershed.
Geological Setting
The Y-12 facility is located in the Bear Creek Valley in the Valley and Ridge Province of
the Southern Appalachians. Bear Creek Valley trends northeast to southwest and is bordered on
the north by Pine Ridge and on the south by Chestnut Ridge.
The Bear Creek Valley is underlain by deposits of the Conasauga Group, consisting mostly
of interbedded limestones, dolomites, and shales. The bedrock is covered with alluvium and
residuum of weathered bedrock. Pine Ridge is composed of the resistant sandstones and
siltstones of the Rome Formation (Figure 5.2). Chestnut Ridge is composed of the resistant
siliceous dolomites of the Knox Group.
Structural features vary widely throughout the valley and include joints, fractures, and
solution cavities. The ORR is crossed by two major thrust faults: (1) the Copper Creek fault
in the southeastern part of the ORR and (2) the White Oak Mountain fault in the northwestern
part. No reports of earthquake activity or surface rupturing associated with any of the faults
within the site vicinity has been reported, and the possibility of fault activity is considered
extremely unlikely (Bollinger, 1975).
The largest earthquakes recorded in the Southern Appalachians were those occurring near
Gasden, Alabama (January 1905, maximum intensity VIII) and Giles County, Virginia (May 1987,
maximum intensity VIII). These earthquakes were located about 250 km (155 miles) and 350 km
(220 miles), respectively, from Oak Ridge and were far below the damaging level (U.S. DOE,
1988a).
Hydrogeologic Setting
In the Bear Creek Valley, the unconsolidated alluvium and the bedrock act, essentially,
as a single aquifer to a depth of about 200 ft below the ground surface. There is wide variation
in the permeability of the bedrock formations. Groundwater flow is divided into two flow regimes
by a topographic high near the S-3 Ponds. West of the S-3 Ponds, groundwater flows southwest
with Bear Creek; east of the S-3 Ponds, water flows northeast toward Lake Reality. Groundwater
contamination comes from several sources in the EFPC watershed. Summaries of these can be
found in the Y-12 Plant RCRA Closure Initiation Project's Environmental Assessment.
10
Figure (Page 11)
Figure 5.2 Geological Setting.
5.3 LAND USE
Ninety square miles of rolling, wooded land was purchased by the U.S. Government in
1942 for the purpose of building the city of Oak Ridge and several major plants (Y-12 Plant
included). They became part of a national program to develop an atomic weapon. The Y-12
Plant is situated in Bear Creek Valley at the eastern boundary of the ORR. The plant property
lies on the valley floor and northern slope of Chestnut Ridge. The Y-12 Plant area, including
the buffer zone, is ~1377 ha (3450 acres) oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, about 9 km
(5.5 miles) long and 1.5 km (1 mile) wide. Bldg. 9215, where the O-Wing facility is located, is in
the EFPC watershed.
The general area within a 16 km (10 mile) radius of the plant is taken up by residences,
farms, recreation, industry, and woodlands. Several commercial dairy farms are present in the
area. Agricultural crops generally are grown in small plots for single family use (DOE, 1988a).
Two recreational areas, Clark Center Recreation Area and Melton Hill Dam Reservation, are
in close proximity to the Y-12 Plant. Organized deer hunts are carried out annually on the ORR.
These hunts are not allowed in areas adjacent to the Y-12 Plant or its disposal areas. The nearest
surface water intake (in a down flow direction) is at Kingston, which is ~32 km (20 miles) away
on the Tennessee River. For contaminants to reach this intake, the water would have to flow
upstream. Due to the Tennessee Valley Authority dam system this is possible, although unlikely.
5.4 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The area in and around the Y-12 Plant has fauna typical of both the natural forest and
forest-edge habitats in the temperate deciduous forest biome. A predominance of tall,
broadleafed trees characterize the region's pristine or natural vegetation. Dominant and influent
mammals include the whitetail deer, red and gray fox, bobcat, raccoon, gray squirrel, fox squirrel,
eastern chipmunk, white-footed mouse, pine vole, short-tailed shrew, and cotton mouse. Bird
populations are large; however, most of the small birds do not reside in the forest through the
year.
The flora and fauna found in Bear Creek and EFPC are different. Bear Creek has a clay-
rock substrate dominated by gravel. Some of the upper reaches of this creek will be dry during
dry summer periods. This limits the flora and fauna. EFPC is primarily a sediment-rich stream.
The bottom sediments are basically silt with considerable mud accumulation. All reaches of
EFPC below Lake Reality contain non-zero low flow.
12
5.4.1 Terrestrial Resources
The terrestrial resources for the areas in and around the Y-12 Plant include both plant and
animal life. In the forested areas, the most frequent dominants include northern red oak,
chestnut oak, and tulip poplar. Occurring with lesser frequency are white oak, black oak, scarlet
oak, post oak, various hickories and ash, red maple, black gum, dogwood, and beech.
The grasslands in the Y-12 Plant area are of two types: native or semi-native successional
areas and cultivated grasslands. The native or seminative successional areas are either maintained
(e.g., under power transmission lines) or are reverting to forest. Cultivated grasslands are
hayfields, lawns, and pastures. This type of grassland is the predominant type in and around the
Y-12 Plant area.
The mammals, birds, and herpetofauna identified during several different intensive surveys
and those species which are expected to occur on the ORR include a diverse variety of species.
Some of the species, such as small mammals and herpetofauna, may restrict their movements to
a single habitat type. Large mammals and birds, however, may range over several habitats. There
are six habitat types in the Y-12 Plant area: oak-hickory, chestnut-oak, flood plain forest, pine
plantations, old field, and wetland. Ninety six of over 300 bird species known to exist in
Tennessee have been identified in the Y-12 Plant area. A detailed account of the mammals and
birds typically seen on the ORR can be found in the Y-12 RCRA Closure Initiation Project's EA.
Examples of herpetofauna (reptiles and amphibians) associated with the hardwood forest
habitat include the American and Fowler's toads, red-backed salamander, eastern box turtle,
northern copperhead, timber rattlesnake, black rat snake, and five-line skink. On the other hand,
the pine plantations are nearly devoid of herpetofauna. Examples of herpetofauna associated
with the old field include the American and Fowler's toads, eastern box turtle, six-line racerunner,
black rat snake, five-lined skink, northern black racer, fence lizard, northern brown snake, eastern
garter snake, and eastern hognose snake (DOE, 1988a).
5.4.2 Aquatic Resources
The Y-12 Plant is located on the headwater divide between Bear Creek, which flows to
the west of the plant, and EFPC, which flows to the east. The headwaters of Bear Creek
originate in the vicinity of the S-3 Ponds Closure and Postclosure Activities (CAPCA) Project;
the creek flows -12.9 km before joining the EFPC near East Fork Poplar Creek kilometer 2.6.
The Bear Creek watershed has a drainage area of 19.4 km^2. Approximately 65% of the
watershed is wooded, and much of the remainder consists of waste disposal areas located in upper
Bear Creek Valley. A review of the aquatic conditions for Bear Creek may be found in the Y-12
RCRA Closure Initiation Project's EA (DOE, 1988a).
13
Both Bear Creek and EFPC have been sampled for aquatic biota. Both creeks are slow-
moving streams with a minimum of scouring. Headwaters of both tributaries are closely
associated with Y-12 Plant activities. Flow from Lake Reality represents the origin of EFPC.
The EFPC watershed is the major aquatic resource which might be affected by the
proposed action. Building 9215 is located -1000 ft north and 5000 ft east of the nominal
headwaters of EFPC and is located within the EFPC watershed.
EFPC is primarily a sediment-rich stream. The bottom sediments are basically silt.
Reported aquatic fauna included tubifex, crayfish, burrowing mayflies, damselflies, plus the larvae
of cranefly, mosquito, and midge. These fauna are representative of high siltative loads. Based
on species absence/presence, it is concluded that EFPC has poorer water quality than Bear Creek.
This observation is based on the lack of tubifex and the presence of trichoptera in Bear Creek,
plus the presence of chironomus only in EFPC (DOE, 1988a).
There is an ongoing Biological Monitoring and Abatement Program (BMAP) which
incorporates both laboratory toxicity tests and in-stream monitoring of both invertebrates and
vertebrate species, species diversity, and contamination levels of the resident organisms,
sediments, and surface waters. The sediments in the EFPC floodplain have been found to be
contaminated with mercury, cadmium, and PCBs, as well as other heavy metals and organics.
These contaminants are present in organisms taken from the stream. This has resulted in
environmental stress and reduced populations when compared to other similar streams in the area
such as Brushy Fork and Hinds Creek, which have not been impacted by the activities at the
ORR. These streams are used as reference streams for the biological monitoring programs for
the ORR. A comprehensive summary and baseline data for EFPC can be found in the First
Annual Report on the Y-12 Plant BMAP (DOE, 1988b).
5.5 HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The ORR area, including the Y-12 facility, is rich in archaeological resources, both
prehistoric and historic. The archaeological periods for East Tennessee are the Paleo-Indian,
Archaic, Woodland, Mississippian, and Historic Native-American. All of the early inhabitants left
traces of their occupations behind them. Indian mounds, arrowheads, cemeteries, and log cabins
can be found in the area. Archaeological surveys have yielded findings from each period within
the ORR except for the Historic Native-American Period. Only a small percentage of the 37,000-
acre ORR has been examined either intensively or generally for archaeological and historic sites;
further study of the entire ORR has been precluded by funding limitations, existing extensive
disturbance, or for safety reasons.
14
6. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The proposed action is not expected to have any additional impact on the air quality,
meteorology, and climate; the water quality; land usage; the biotic resources; or the historical,
cultural and archaeological resources of the ORR.
6.1 PERSONNELS
Current DOE and Y-12 Plant policies and procedures will be strictly adhered to during
all phases of the proposed action to insure personnel safety. Prior to demolition, representatives
of the Health, Safety, and Environment, and Accountability Division will take samples of the
expected construction debris (i.e., walls, equipment, etc.) in the proposed demolition and
renovation areas to determine the contamination level and corresponding construction worker
protection procedures. Once the wastes have been characterized, notification via an updated
Project Waste Management Plan (PWMP) will be made to representatives from Engineering,
Environmental Management, Operations, Waste Treatment Operations, and Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal (WTSD).
Because of the extensive SNM recovery and decontamination effort which will be required,
chemical operators will perform decontamination work in O-Wing to minimize the need for
equipment transfer to the C-1 Wing Equipment Decontamination Facility, Bldg. 9212. A minimal
temporary decontamination area will be installed in O-Wing since no decontamination area
currently exists. Criticality Safety Department review and approval of the temporary
decontamination area and related needs will be required. The related needs will include limited
use of detergent cleaning solutions, collection and storage of solutions and sludges, in-process
storage of contaminated and decontaminated materials, and decontamination procedures for large-
volume equipment such as salt baths, furnaces, etc. The use of these decontamination procedures
is expected to minimize the quantity and volume of waste generated during the demolition.
6.2 WASTE DISPOSAL
Current DOE and Y-12 Plant waste disposal procedures, in addition to those developed
for the O-Wing renovation and operation, will be followed to ensure compliance with waste
disposal regulations and a minimal impact on the environment. All items to be removed from the
O-Wing are contaminated in varying degrees with enriched uranium. Some of the enriched
uranium material is not normally accessible for direct recovery and inventory, and is carried as
a holdup estimate for SNM accountability purposes. Demolition work on this project will include
removal and disassembly of equipment, piping, duct-work, etc., to the extent necessary to recover
15
the included SNM. Recovery of the accountable material will be accompanied by cleaning
operations to decontaminate the items to the extent feasible and economically justified. All
fluids, solids, and sludges generated will be collected in criticality safe containers or equipment
and processed as required to recover the SNM. After cleaning, the equipment will be monitored
to determine appropriate handling as industrial waste or LLW. Waste will be inspected by Health
Physics personnel prior to disposal.
The demolition work in preparation for construction will generate primarily low-level
contaminated, nonhazardous solid waste. One piece of process equipment, the old lead bath, will
be handled as mixed waste (RCRA and radioactive) and will amount to less than one half of 1
yd^3 of waste. The lead bath will have the recoverable enriched uranium removed in the C-1 Wing
Equipment Decontamination Facility in Bldg. 9212, and will then be stored in a mixed waste
storage facility at ORGDP. The C-1 Wing of Bldg. 9212 is part of a facility operated for the
recovery and recycle of enriched uranium, an economically valuable material.
A maximum estimate of 265 yd^3 of contaminated LLW will be generated during the
demolition phase of this project. Health Physics personnel will monitor demolition material and
may permit small quantities (<5%) of the waste to be sent to the Y-12 Centralized Sanitary
Landfill II, regulated under Tennessee Department of Health and Environment Rule 1200-1-7,
as non-contaminated waste [<5000 disintegrations/min (DPM) direct and <1000 DPM
removable]. The waste characterization, handling, and disposal plans are listed in the PWMP.
In this plan, all waste resulting from the demolition phase will be characterized, segregated into
combustibles, metals, concrete, rubble, oil, solvents, and into contaminated and non-contaminated
categories to be salvaged or disposed of, as appropriate, in one of the facilities addressed below.
Final acceptance of waste for disposal is contingent upon compliance with plant procedures
related to handling, movement, and disposal of low-level contaminated solid waste.
Two options exist for disposal of the large, bulky, and heavy equipment. The first option
involves decontamination and disposal of the equipment in the Bear Creek Valley Waste Disposal
Area (BCVWDA). The BCVWDA, which is currently being prepared for closure, is expected
to remain open for the duration of the demolition project. Adequate space is available in the
BCVWDA for the demolition waste. The second option would require the cutting or disassembly
of all equipment into sections to be cleaned in the temporary decontamination area and placed
into "B-25" storage containers or 17H drums (55 gal). A B-25 container holds 3.5 yd^3 of material
and measures 4 ft x 4 ft x 6 ft. The equipment would be cut using plasma burning inside the
existing Shear Phase hood area (see Sect. 6.3). After decontamination, most equipment and
material is expected to remain classified as low-level contaminated solid waste. Economic
considerations will dictate what equipment will be disposed of whole and what will be sectioned
and stored.
16
The demolition material generated will be handled as follows. Non-radioactive,
non-metallic debris (brick and concrete), about 5% of the total waste, will be sent to the Y-12
Centralized Sanitary Landfill II. Non-contaminated, salvageable metallic waste and contaminated
metallic LLW (structural steel and piping), 35% of the total, will be segregated and either sold
as scrap through the Y-12 Salvage Yard or placed in B-25 boxes/17H drums and sent to the
storage vaults at the ORGDP. The storage vaults are operating under interim status pending
issuance of a RCRA operating permit. The remaining non-metallic, non-hazardous contaminated
LLW, 60% of the total, will either be sent to the BCVWDA or sectioned, placed in B-25
boxes/17H drums, and stored at the storage vaults at ORGDP. The total amount of waste
storage containers to be sent to the storage vaults at the ORGDP represent less than one-half
of one percent of the storage volume available. Any hazardous or low-level mixed waste
generated during the decontamination operations will be sent to the uranium recovery operations
in the C-1 Wing of Bldg. 9212. The volume of waste sent will not affect routine C-1 Wing
operations.
The BCVWDA has accumulated approximately 12,000,000 ft^3 of material at a rate of
approximately 400,000 ft^3/year for at least the last 30 years. This material has been contaminated
with both enriched and depleted uranium. A 1989 analysis of a number of wells of varying depth
in the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime indicates that the groundwater has an annual mean
gross alpha activity in excess of the 15 pCi/L drinking water standard and an annual average gross
beta activity in excess of the 50 pCi/L threshold value. The calculated dose equivalent for gross
beta activity indicates that the 4 mrem/year drinking water standard was exceeded in only two of
the wells. Although the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime is not in a drinking water aquifer,
the standards for drinking water are used for comparison. The maximum amount of demolition
waste generated by the O-Wing Renovation Project will be an estimated 6,800 ft^3 of enriched
uranium contaminated material. This would result in an increase of 0.057% in the total volume
of material in the BCVWDA. Therefore, since the O-Wing demolition waste is primarily alpha
emitting enriched uranium contaminated material, the O-Wing Renovation Project will have very
little impact on the groundwater contamination in the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime.
6.3 EMISSIONS
Four types of emissions will be generated during the demolition and operation phases of
the O-Wing Renovation Project. These are: 1) air emissions; 2) liquid effluents;
3) non-contaminated solid waste; and 4) solid scrap material. The handling of these emissions
will be discussed in the following section.
17
Demolition
Plasma burning (acetylene torches) will be used during the demolition phase to section the
large pieces of steel, stainless steel, piping, conveyors, and equipment into segments for placement
into B-25 boxes/17H drums for storage. The existing large Shear Phase Hood will be used as
a plasma burning enclosure. All cutting operations will be performed inside of the hood. The
exhaust ventilation system in the hood will be upgraded to provide HEPA filtration and will
remain active throughout the demolition and construction phases. Removal of large equipment
and installation of oversized entrance and exit arrangements will make the hood an ideal
enclosure for burning and decontamination work. All operations will be monitored by Y-12 Plant
Health Physics personnel.
Operation
Overall plant emissions will be reduced as a result of this renovation. The 1988 emissions
from O-Wing operations were estimated to have produced a 50-year, whole body dose
commitment of 0.44 person-rem to the population living within 50 miles of the Y-12 Plant. This
whole body dose commitment of 0.44 person-rem can also be expressed as 4.7 x 10^-4
mrem/person. The maximally exposed off-site residents were estimated to have received a dose
of 0.19 mrem. (Y/ENG/SAR-64, 1989)
After operations begin in the new facility, the primary emissions will be U^235 and lead.
Precise emissions levels for routine operations are within the State-permitted values included in
the air permit, and are classified. Future emissions from the restored portion of the O-Wing will
be reduced nearly 100% by the addition of HEPA filtration. Properly installed HEPA filters
capture particles with 99.97% efficiency to three-tenths of a micron.
Emissions are generated from the O-Wing operation in the form of process off-gas (heated
or contaminated air) from the various equipment located within O-Wing and will be channeled
via the heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system through HEPA filters and/or baghouse
filters prior to being discharged to the atmosphere.
The primary method for controlling the dispersion of the enriched uranium particulate and
other hazardous particulates is through the use of "in-line" filtering systems. All major process
exhaust registers have CA-24 Continental Filters covering their openings, except for the Portable
Lead Bath and the 300-Ton Press, which is not in use. All process air is initially filtered before
it is exhausted to the main exhaust duct header.
In addition, the two exhaust ducts coming from the southeast side of the Shear Phase
process equipment area have HEPA filters, which are located before the exhaust air enters the
main exhaust duct header. Prior to being discharged to the atmosphere from Exhaust Stack
18
No. 4, the O-Wing primary ventilation exhaust system also channels all room air and process
equipment off-gas through the bag filter house, which contains 64 filter bags, each having a dust
collection efficiency of approximately 99.9%. The Hydroform area exhaust is channeled initially
through a HEPA filter bank, which contains three filters in parallel, before it is discharged to the
atmosphere from Exhaust Stack No. 1. The Abar Water Quench Vacuum Furnace, which
discharges to Exhaust Stack No. 2, is also equipped with HEPA filtration.
All roughing filters used in the O-Wing ventilation exhaust system are changed monthly
during inventory; the accumulated uranium is credited to the O-Wing inventory. HEPA filters
used in the Shear Phase Facility and Abar Water Quench Vacuum Furnace ventilation exhaust
systems are replaced when the pressure drop across the filters exceeds 4.0 in. Water Gauge. The
64 filter bags are changed out when the total oxide accumulation in the Bag Filter House reaches
2000 grams of enriched uranium.
Exhaust Stacks No. 1,2, and 4 are provided with external monitoring and continuous stack
samplers. Samples are removed and analyzed once per week. Based on this weekly analysis and
the flow rate through the stack, an emission rate for the stack is computed.
Stack No. 4 is also equipped with a real time sampler, referred to as a "Break Through
Monitor," which alarms when the rate of accumulation rises above a predetermined setpoint. It
is intended to detect sudden changes in operation which would result in rapidly increasing
radiological emissions, such as a filter rupture within the Bag Filter House. If the limit is
exceeded, alarms are sounded in Bldg. 9215 and in the Plant Shift Superintendent's office. The
filter paper from the Break Through Monitor is delivered to the laboratory for priority analysis.
The laboratory analysis verifies and quantifies the emission. Operation of process equipment
exhausting to Stack No. 4 is discontinued until it is verified that the alarm is false or the source
of the problem is identified and corrected.
Liquid effluents discharged from Bldg. 9215, O-Wing, include sheet rinse water, mop water,
wash water, lathe coolant, and oils. Sheet rinse water, about 1200 gal/year, is transferred to Bldg.
9212 for uranium recovery. After recovery, the water is either sent to the West End Pollution
Control Facility (WEPCF) (>15 ppm U) or sent to the Central Pollution Control Facility (CPCF)
(<15ppm U) for treatment and discharge. Both of these facilities are permitted under the Y-12
NPDES permit. Effluent values from the WEPCF average 0.23 ppm U and 1 million gal/year.
Effluent values from the CPCF average 3 ppm U and 1,450,000 gal/year. Mop water (<15 ppm
U), about 20,000 gal/year, is collected and sent to the CPCF. The quantity of mop water sent
to the CPCF represents about 1.4% of the total volume of water treated by the CPCF. Wash
water from the hand-washing facilities is not considered hazardous or uranium contaminated.
Lathe coolant from O-Wing is handled by the M-Wing coolant treatment facilities and represents
19
about 2% of the total amount treated in M-Wing. Hydraulic oil and pump oil from O-Wing are
sampled for uranium and are historically non-contaminated.
Solid scrap materials produced in O-Wing are managed to meet regulatory requirements
and DOE directives. Solid scrap materials are treated separately, depending on whether they are
contaminated or not. Scrap materials are either assumed to be contaminated (and treated as
such) or are measured to assure they are below allowable contamination levels and treated as
non-contaminated wastes. Non-Contaminated solid scrap materials include respirators, non-
contaminated paper towels/cardboard boxes, and "Classified Waste."
Contaminated solid scrap materials are transferred to Bldg. 9212 for uranium recovery.
These materials include paper, rubber wear pads, rubber diaphragms, roughing and HEPA filters,
bag filter house filters, gloves, shoe scuffs, salt sludge, and miscellaneous materials in 4-liter
beakers. The amount of this material produced by the O-Wing facility will be reduced by at least
10% from the prerenovation levels due to the decreased amount of worker handling of uranium
materials.
Contaminated solid scrap material does not include massive uranium scrap, which is
generated as a by-product from the production of uranium parts in O-Wing. Massive uranium
scrap is considered to be any uranium metal that is not an end-product and remains as a separate
material (i.e., not mixed with other materials). The various types of scrap produced in O-Wing
include picture frames, off-spec parts, chips, fines, and "cut" scrap. These materials are recycled
in the Bldg. 9212 Casting Facility.
6.4 ACCIDENT SCENARIOS
An accident analysis was conducted to determine possible accident scenarios in the O-Wing
facility. Table 6.1 summarizes the results of the accident analysis. For each accident scenario
analyzed, this table lists the probability of occurrence and the consequence as developed under
the guidelines of DOE Order OR 5481.1B. For each accident, more than one cause may exist,
resulting in multiple sets of scenarios and dose levels. These consequences and frequencies are
outlined in the accident analysis section of the draft Final Safety Analysis Report (Y/ENG/SAR-
64, 1989). Standards for radiation exposure are outlined in DOE Order 5480.11, Radiation
Protection for Occupational Workers. The maximum allowable routine worker exposure level is
5 rem/year, the maximum allowable accidental single dose level is 25 rem, and the maximum off-
site dosage is 100 mrem/year.
No credible accidents (frequency > 10^-6/year) involving the release of hazardous chemicals
are identified that result in a significant uptake by the operator or the public. In most cases, the
inventory of hazardous chemicals is intentionally held extremely low to reduce hazards. Accidents
20
21
Table 6.1. Accident Analysis Summary
Accident Accident Off-site dose On-site dose Scenario
class description (mrem) (rem) requency Consequence
Fire Hydraulic oil 7.0 8.8 4.7 x 10^-6 Possible operator
fire 1.7 8.8 2.3 x 10^-3 fatality/injury,
<20 <0.5 1.8 x 10^-5 radiation exposure
Lubricating oil 7.0 8.8 1.8 x 10^-7 Possible operator
fire 1.7 8.8 9.0 x 10^-7 fatality/injury,
<20 <0.5 7.2 x 10^-9 radiation exposure
Bag filter 3.2 x 10^3 8.8 8.8 x 10^-5
house fire <20 8.8 1.2 x 10^-4 Radiation exposure
<20 <0.5 9.8 x 10^-3
VTL fire 1.6 x 10^1 8.8 7.2 x 10^-5
6.9 x 10^-2 8.8 1.0 x 10^-2 Radiation exposure
<20 <0.5 1.0 x 10^-2
WQVF 2.0 x 10^1 <0.5 1.3 x 10^-3 Radiation exposure
oxidation 6.1 x 10^-3 <0.5 3.8 x 10^-1
Oil bath 1.0 x 10^2 8.8 5.2 x 10^-5
fire 4.5 x 10^-1 <0.5 3.7 x 10^-2 Radiation exposure
Explosion Circle shear <20 <0.5 5.0 x 10^-5 Possible operator
explosion fatality/injury,
radiation exposure
Asphyxi- Abar furnace <20 <0.5 4.0 x 10^-6 Possible operator
ation argon <20 <0.5 3.6 x 10^-5 fatality/injury
Criticality Salt bath 1.0 x 10^5 1.5 x 10^6 1.5 x 10^-7 Possible operator
criticality fatality/injury,
radiation exposure
Natural High wind <8 x 10^2 <0.5 1 x 10^-4
phenomena Earthquake 1.0 x 10^2 8.8 1.9 x 10^-5 Radiation exposure
VTL = Vertical Turret Lathe
WQVF = Water Quench Vacuum Furnace
Scenario frequencies < 1 x 10^-6 are considered not credible.
involving lead exposure were not postulated because there is no credible scenario leading to an
acute exposure. In general, the O-Wing facility is designed and operated in such a manner that
safety systems, design features, operator action, and administrative controls work together to
minimize the consequence and probability of potential accidents. Detailed analysis of these
accidents can be found in the draft Final Safety Analysis Report (Y/ENG/SAR-64, 1989).
6.5 LAND USE
The O-Wing renovations will occur entirely within the existing facility and will not require
any new land or building expansion. The O-Wing facility will have no impact on current land use.
6.6 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed action will have negligible socioeconomic impacts on the Y-12 Plant. The
construction will be performed by an existing contractor and will require little additional
workforce. The construction will take place totally within the Y-12 Plant exclusion area and will
have no sociological impact on the Oak Ridge community. The renovated facility will be
operated by the current staff, will require no additional operators, and the throughput of material
will not change.
6.7 HISTORICAL, CULTURAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCE IMPACTS
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that cultural resources be
evaluated prior to their being impacted by remedial actions undertaken by federal agencies. Since
the activities associated with the O-Wing facility are confined within an existing structure, there
are no significant impacts on these resources.
6.8 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
This project will not impact any threatened or endangered species in the area since the
operational activities of the O-Wing are confined to Bldg. 9215. A summary of threatened or
endangered species found in the vicinity of the Y-12 Plant may be found in the Y-12 RCRA
Closure Initiation Projects EA (DOE, 1988a).
6.9 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT/WETLAND PROTECTION
The O-Wing operations do not lie in or near any wetland or within the 100-year floodplain
of any stream. The operation of the O-Wing will not affect or adversely impact any wetlands.
22
Therefore, no additional analysis is necessary to comply with Executive Order for Floodplain
Management (EO11988), Executive Order for Protection of Wetlands (EO11990), and the DOE
Compliance Regulation for floodplains/wetlands (10 CFR 1022) will be satisfied.
7. PERSONS/AGENCIES CONTACTED
1. D.R. Huddleston
DOE, Oak Ridge
2. T.S. Tison
DOE, Oak Ridge
3. D.G. Page
DOE, Oak Ridge
4. R.D. Oglesby
DOE, Oak Ridge
5. P.W. Phillips
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge
6. J.E. Stone
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge
7. G.L. Pfennigwerth
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Oak Ridge
8. Charles Brown
Tennessee State Planning Office
8. REFERENCES
Begovich, C. L., et al., DARTAB: A Program to Combine Airborne Radionuclide Environmental
Exposure Data with Dosimetric and Health Effects Data to Generate Tabulations of
Predicted Health Impacts, ORNL-5692, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
1981.
Bollinger, G.A., A Catalog of Southeastern United States Earthquakes 1754 through 1974.
Research Division Bulletin 101, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia, 1975.
23
Fielder, George F., Jr., Archaeological Survey with Emphasis on Prehistoric Sites of the Oak Ridge
Reservation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1974.
G & M, Hydrogeologic Investigations of the S-3 Ponds Area at the Y-12 Plant, Y/SUB/87-0026C/18,
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., 1987.
Gifford, F. A. Jr., The Problem of Forecasting Dispersion in the Lower Atmosphere, U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, DTI, 1962.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Environmental Surveillance of the U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge Reservation and Surrounding Environs during 1987, ES/ESH-4/V1, 1988.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Preliminary Proposal 938 for O-Wing Temperature Control,
Building 9215, Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant, 1989
Moore, R. E., et al., AIRDOS-EPA, A Computerized Methodology for Estimating Environmental
Concentrations and Dose to Man from Airborne Releases of Radionuclides, EPA 520/1-79-
009, Washington D.C., 1979.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Monitoring Report -- United States Department
of Energy Oak Ridge Facilities, Calendar Year 1984, ORNL-6209, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, 1985.
Parr, P. D., Resource Management Plan for the Oak Ridge Reservation, Vol. 4, Append D:
Endangered and Threatened Plant Species, 1984.
Pasquill, E., Atmospheric Diffusion, D. V. Nordstrand 6, Ltd., London, 1962.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Summary Report, Instream Contaminant Study -Task 5, Office of
Natural Resources and Economic Development, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1985.
Turner, D. B. and A. D. Busse, User's Guide to the Interactive Versions of Three Point Source
Programs: PTMAX, PTDIS, and PTMTP, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1973.
U.S. Department of Energy, Final Environmental Assessment Y-12 RCRA Closure Initiation
Projects, 1988a.
U.S. Department of Energy, First Annual Report on the Y-12 Plant Biological Monitoring on
Abatement Program (Draft Copy). Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN,
1988b.
24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third
Edition, Parts A and B, Report AP-42, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's
Guide, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA-450/4-79-031, Research
Triangle Park, NC, 1979.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants,
40 CFR Part 61, March 1985.
Y/ENG/SAR-64, O-Wing Renovation Final Safety Analysis Report Draft, Martin Marietta Energy
Systems, 1989.
Y/SUB/90-00206C/1, Part 2, Groundwater Quality Assessment for the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic
Regime at the Y-12 Plant, Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc., May 1990.
25
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
