280 likes | 436 Views
Changes to EPA Radiological Stack Monitoring Requirements, and Ramifications on LANL Operations. David Fuehne, CHP March 22, 2005 – AMUG Meeting LA-UR-05-1903. 2. Discussion Areas. EPA standard for radiological stack monitoring 2003 changes to standard Maintenance & inspection requirements
E N D
Changes to EPA Radiological Stack Monitoring Requirements, and Ramifications on LANL Operations David Fuehne, CHP March 22, 2005 – AMUG Meeting LA-UR-05-1903
2 Discussion Areas • EPA standard for radiological stack monitoring • 2003 changes to standard • Maintenance & inspection requirements • LANL impact • Design criteria for new stacks • LANL impact • Conclusions
3 EPA Standard for Radiological Stack Monitoring • 40 CFR 61, Subpart H – DOE facilities • 10 millirem per year • Entire laboratory is one facility • Receptor is residence, school, business • Stack monitoring required if potentialemissions exceed 0.1 mrem per year • Normal operations • No credit for pollution controls (HEPA, scrubbers, etc.) • LANL – Meteorology & Air Quality group, Environmental Stewardship division • 28 monitored stacks
4 Changes to the Standard in 2003 • Incorporate ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 • Revision to 1969 standard • Maintenance & inspection criteria • Design criteria for samplers and emission stacks • Existing emissions sources • Grandfathered design • Maintenance & inspection criteria apply • New or Modified Stacks • All design criteria apply • M&I criteria
Maintenance & Inspection Criteria
6 Maintenance & Inspection Requirements • Many minor items – calibrated electronics, clear rotameters, etc. • Stack sample system inspection program • Annual inspections • Nozzles, probes, sample lines • Proper alignment • Free from damage • Free from deposition • Clean the systems if deposition is observed • When? No guidance provided
7 M&I Requirements:LANL Implementation Plan • Flexible borescope into stack lines • Focus on nozzle openings, probes, bends in sample lines • Record images – photos & video • 2003: Six systems with visible deposition • Two were easy to clean • Two were difficult to clean • Two were impossible Photo property of UXR
8 M&I Requirements – LANL Implementation:Easy to clean Accelerator stack – discrete point of deposition • Caulking / sealant – HVAC maintenance? • Immediately removed during inspection • Small amount of rad material (sub-nanocurie Co-60) on cleaning material, include in annual source term
9 M&I Requirements – LANL Implementation:Easy to clean Rad liquid waste treatment facility • Wet environment – condensed vapors • Straightforward cleaning - remove, wipe down, replace • Small downtime on sampler • No detectable rad material in cleaning solution, cloths • Completed within 60 days of discovery
10 M&I Requirements – LANL Implementation:Difficult to clean • Research facility – two stacks • Straightforward problem, complex solution • Nuclear facility issues • Safety review process • Perchlorate concerns – bomb gear • Stack fan shutdown, coordinate with users • Oil mist on surfaces – HVAC maintenance • No detectable activity on surfaces, cleaning materials • Completed ~18 months after discovery
11 M&I Requirements – LANL Implementation:Impossible to Clean • Nuclear facility, two stacks • Original stack samplers, ~ 30 years installed • Visible scale on external surfaces • Old design – 1969 samplers • Low transport efficiency <20% • Three 90-degree bends • Operation issues – restricted access, no backup samplers • Decision – Replace, not clean • Four sample rakes on each stack – independent • Roof level – simplify access • EPA agrees to plan • Deadline : Dec 2005 – 24 months after initial inspection
12 Effects of Deposition on Emissions Data? • Already assume some particulate losses will occur • Assumed rate-of-loss based on large diameter particles • Emissions calculations correct for these assumptions • Double-count by including rad material from inspections in annual source term • Most cleaning shows NDA • One stack with sub-nanocurie levels • Result – no negative impact on program; conservatism is built-in
13 Changes to M&I Program - Audit • Visually examine external surfaces as well as internal surfaces – inspect nozzle conditions • Record imagery each year • Formalize process with procedure, annual performance summary • Currently – IWDs, checklists
15 Design Criteria for New & Modified StacksSample probe performance • Recommend single-point shrouded probe • Nozzle transmission ratio 80-130% • Particle transmission to collection media >50% • 10 micron particles used for analysis
16 Design Criteria for New & Modified Stacks:Sample location • Well-mixed, uniform flow • Justifies single point sampler • Flow angle > 20 degrees • Velocity profile COV < 20% • Aerosol concentration COV < 20% • Use 10 micron particles to test • Iterative process – pick location & test • Failure – test new location • Swiss-cheese stack
17 Design Criteria for New & Modified StacksComplicating factors When do these criteria apply? • New source, including new construction in existing buildings • Modification of existing source • Modification must cause increase in off-site dose >0.1 millirem/yr • Certain activities are NOT modifications • Review new activities for sampler system design adequacy
18 Design Criteria for New & Modified StacksComplicating factors LANL stacks – Seven systems meeting design criteria • Locate new ops in these buildings More reviews required, more manpower requirements • EPA notification timeline • Monitoring yes/no/what • System design adequacy
LANL Example Waste Repackaging Facility
20 Design Criteria, LANL Example:Waste Repackaging Facility • Original plan – new construction • Easy to meet requirements • Tall stack, smooth transitions, “clean” system to test • New plan – retrofit existing system • Poor fan-to-stack transitions • Aerosol injection points • Accessing sampling points – scaffolding • Problems generating 10 um aerosol in quantity • Stack tests unsuccessful
21 Design Criteria, LANL Example:Waste Repackaging Facility • Move sampler to new location – glove box exhaust • Long straight runs • Lower air volume to dilute aerosol • Concern – facility as a whole is not monitored, just primary glove box operation
22 Design Criteria, LANL Example:Waste Repackaging Facility Lessons Learned • Time Line • Entire process – six months to get approved location • Capability to perform these tests in the future • Aerosol R&D team dissolved years ago • MAQ stack engineering team “streamlined” • Collaboration among 3+ groups required – priorities? • Rely on outside vendors – clearances, training, schedule
LANL Example TRU Waste Vitrification
24 Design Criteria, LANL Example:TRU Waste Vitrification • New process at LANL = new source of emissions • Off-site dose potential over 0.1 millirem per year • Retrofit existing stack? Cannot meet design criteria • Cannot change buildings – material concerns • Solution – brand new stack(s) • Not same as sampler upgrade discussed earlier • Capital funding required; multiple years delay • Operations cannot commence until upgrade complete
26 Conclusions New maintenance & inspection criteria • Routine inspection requirements are good improvement • Cleaning activities can impact facility operations • “Gray area” on time window for completion of cleaning activities • Compliance issues could arise if cleaning operations delayed
27 Conclusions, continued Design criteria • Additional workload for new process reviews • Retrofitting existing systems can be problematic • Testing capability at LANL may not be available • Iterative testing can be frustrating • Can result in significant delays for planned operations
28 Thanks for your time! • Questions or comments? David Fuehne LANL ENV-MAQ 505-665-3850 davef@lanl.gov http://www.airquality.lanl.gov external web site