[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23280-23282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10973]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-297]
Environmental Assessment and Notice of Finding of No Significant
Environmental Impact Regarding Proposed Renewal of Facility License No.
R-120, North Carolina State University
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering issuance of an amendment to renew for 20 years Facility
License No. R-120 for the North Carolina State University (NCSU or the
licensee) PULSTAR Research Reactor located on the NCSU campus in
Raleigh, North Carolina.
Environmental Assessment
This environmental assessment is written in connection with the
proposed renewal for 20 years of the facility license of the NCSU
PULSTAR Research Reactor (PULSTAR) at Raleigh, North Carolina, in
response to a timely application from the licensee dated August 19,
1988; as supplemented on January 2, April 17, and December 18, 1989;
April 17 and July 18, 1990; January 25, 1991; November 30, 1992;
September 15, 1995; and October 4, November 25, and December 30, 1996.
The proposed action would authorize continued operation of the reactor.
The facility has been in operation since Facility License No. R-120 was
issued in 1972. Currently, there are no plans to change any of the
structures or operating characteristics associated with the reactor
during the renewal period requested by the licensee.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is required to authorize continued operation of
the reactor so that the facility can continue to be used in the
licensee's mission of research.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since we have concluded that there is no significant environmental
impact associated with this license renewal, any alternatives will
either have no
[[Page 23281]]
significant impact or greater impact than the proposed action.
An alternative to the proposed action that was considered was not
renewing the operating license. This alternative would have led to
cessation of operations, and decommissioning of the facility, with a
resulting change in status and a likely small impact on the
environment.
Another alternative is to take no action on the request for
extension. The facility license would not be deemed to have expired
until the application has been finally processed (10 CFR 2.109). To
take no action on the applicant's request would not be responsive;
therefore, this alternative is rejected.
Environmental Impact
The PULSTAR operates in an existing shielded pool of water inside
an existing multiple-purpose building, so this licensing action would
lead to no change in the physical environment.
On the basis of the review of the specific facility operating
characteristics that are considered for potential impact on the
environment, as set forth in the staff's safety evaluation report (SER)
for this action, ``Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of
the Operating License for the Research Reactor at North Carolina State
University'' (NUREG-1572), it is concluded that renewal of this
facility license will have an insignificant environmental impact.
Although judged insignificant, operating features with the greatest
potential environmental impact are summarized below.
Argon-41, a product from neutron irradiation of air during
operation, is the principal airborne radioactive effluent from the
PULSTAR during routine operations. Conservative calculations by the
staff, based on the average total amount of argon-41 released from the
reactor during the last several years, predict a maximum potential
annual whole-body dose of less than 1 millirem in unrestricted areas.
Radiation exposure rates measured outside the reactor facility building
are consistent with this computation. For continuous reactor operation,
the licensee conservatively estimates a maximum potential annual whole-
body dose of about 25 millirem in unrestricted areas.
The staff has considered hypothetical credible accidents at the
PULSTAR and has concluded that there is reasonable assurance that such
accidents will not release a significant quantity of fission products
from the fuel cladding and, therefore, will not cause significant
radiological hazard (less than 1 mrem for the maximum hypothetical
accident) to the environment or the public.
This conclusion is based on the following:
(a) The maximum reactivity for any single experiment allowed
under the technical specifications is insufficient to support a
reactor transient generating enough energy to cause overheating of
the fuel or loss of integrity of the cladding.
(b) At a thermal power level of 1000 kilowatts, the inventory of
fission products in the fuel cannot generate sufficient radioactive
decay heat to cause fuel damage even in the hypothetical event of
instantaneous, total loss of coolant, and
(c) The hypothetical loss of integrity of the cladding of three
fuel pins will not lead to radiation exposures in the unrestricted
environment that exceed guideline values of 10 CFR Part 20.
In addition to the analyses in the SER summarized above, the
environmental impact associated with operation of research reactors has
been generically evaluated by the staff and is discussed in the
attached generic evaluation. This evaluation concludes that there will
be no significant environmental impact associated with the operation of
research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up to and
including 2 MW(t) and that an environmental impact statement is not
required for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses
for such facilities. We have determined that this generic evaluation is
applicable to operation of the PULSTAR and that there are no special or
unique features that would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources beyond those
normally allocated for such activities.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The staff has obtained the technical assistance of the Idaho
National Engineering Laboratory to perform the safety evaluation of
continued operation of the PULSTAR. The staff consulted with the North
Carolina State official regarding the environmental impact of the
proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the foregoing environmental assessment, the
Commission has concluded that the proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for this proposed action.
For further details with respect to this action, see the licensee's
request for a license amendment dated August 19, 1988, as supplemented.
These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20037.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of April 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate,
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research
Reactors and Critical Facilities
Introduction
This discussion deals with research reactors and critical
facilities that are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 Mw(t)
and lower, and are used primarily for basic research in neutron
physics, neutron radiography, isotope production and experiments
associated with nuclear engineering, training, and as a part of a
nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will generally
not exceed a 5-day week of 8-hour days, or about 2000 hours per year.
Such reactors are located adjacent to technical service support
facilities with convenient access for students and faculty.
Sited most frequently on the campuses of large universities, these
reactors are usually housed in already existing structures,
appropriately modified, or placed in new buildings that are designed
and constructed to blend in with existing facilities. However, the
environmental considerations discussed herein are not limited to those
facilities that are part of universities.
Facility
There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical
structures, or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the
facility other than for utility services, that are similar to those
required in other similar facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat
dissipation, if required, is generally accomplished by use of a cooling
tower located next to or on the roof of the building. These cooling
towers typically are on the order of 10 by 10 by 10 feet and are
comparable to cooling towers associated with the air conditioning
systems of large office buildings. Heat dissipation may also be
accomplished by transfer through a heat exchanger to water flowing
directly to a sewer or a chilled water system. Makeup for the cooling
system is readily available and
[[Page 23282]]
usually obtained from the local water supply.
Radioactive gaseous effluents during normal operations are limited
to argon-41, and the release of radioactive liquid effluents can be
carefully monitored and controlled. Liquid wastes are collected in
storage tanks to allow for decay and monitoring before dilution and
release to the sanitary sewer system or the environment. This liquid
waste may also be solidified and disposed of as solid waste. Solid
radioactive wastes are packed and shipped offsite for disposal or
storage at NRC-approved sites. The transportation of such waste is done
in accordance with existing NRC and Department of Transportation
regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those at other
similar laboratories and buildings.
Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and Facility Construction
Construction of such facilities invariably occurs in areas that
have already been disturbed by other building construction and, in some
cases, solely within an already existing building. Therefore,
construction would not be expected to have any significant effect on
the terrain, vegetation, wildlife, or nearby waters or aquatic life.
The societal, economic, and aesthetic impacts of construction would be
no greater than those associated with the construction of an office
building or a similar research facility.
Environmental Effects of Facility Operation
Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 Mw(t)
will not have a significant effect on the environment. This small
amount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by means
of small cooling towers. Extensive drift and/or fog will not occur at
this low power level. The small amount of waste heat released to
sewers, in the case of heat exchanger secondary flow directly to the
sewer, will not raise average water temperatures in the environment.
Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to argon-41,
which is generated by neutron activation of air. In most cases, this
release will be kept as low as practicable by using gases other than
air for supporting experiments. Experiments that are supported by air
are designed to minimize production of argon-41. Yearly doses to
unrestricted areas will be at or below established 10 CFR Part 20
limits. Routine releases of radioactive liquid effluents can be
carefully monitored and controlled in a manner that will ensure
compliance with current standards. Solid radioactive wastes will be
shipped to an authorized disposal site in approved containers. These
wastes should not require more than a few shipping containers a year.
On the basis of experience with other research reactors,
specifically TRIGA reactors operating in the 1-to-2-Mw(t) range, the
annual release of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas
should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curie, respectively.
No release of potentially harmful chemical substances will occur
during normal operation. Small amounts of chemicals and/or high-solid-
content water may be released from the facility through the sanitary
sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from laboratory
experiments.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as aesthetics, noise,
or societal effects or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to
be too small to measure.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accidents ranging from the failure of experiments up to the largest
core damage and fission product release considered possible result in
doses that are less than 10 CFR Part 20 limits and are considered
negligible with respect to the environment.
Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction and Operation
The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involve the
materials used in construction that cannot be recovered and the
fissionable material used in the reactor. No adverse impact on the
environment is expected from either of these unavoidable effects.
Alternatives to Construction and Operation of the Facility
To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors,
there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are
training of students in the operation of reactors, production of
radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct
experiments.
Long-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Operation
The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be
beneficial as a result of their contribution to scientific knowledge
and training. Because of the relatively small amount of capital
resources involved and the small impact on the environment, very little
irreversible or irretrievable commitment is associated with such
facilities.
Costs and Benefits of Facility Alternatives
The costs of facility alternatives are on the order of several
millions of dollars and have very little environmental impact. The
benefits include, but are not limited to, some combination of the
following: conduct of activation analyses, conduct of neutron
radiography, training of operating personnel, and education of
students. Some of these activities could be conducted using particle
accelerators or radioactive sources, which would be more costly and
less efficient. There is no reasonable alternative to a nuclear
research reactor for conducting this spectrum of activities.
Conclusion
The staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental
impact associated with the licensing of research reactors or critical
facilities designed to operate at a power level of 2 Mw(t) or lower and
that no environmental impact statements must be written for the
issuance of construction permits, operating licenses, or license
renewals for such facilities.
Dated: December 3, 1996.
[FR Doc. 97-10973 Filed 4-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
