ML19273B575
| ML19273B575 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000077 |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19273B573 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904090269 | |
| Download: ML19273B575 (13) | |
Text
@
p UNITED STATES 7..
k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISslCN h
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 q %.ly';
%......y SAFETY EVALUATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO LICENSE NO. R-31 THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA DOCKET NO. 50-77 Introduction By letter dated October 12, 1977, The Catholic University of America (the licensee) requested that Facility Operating License No. R-31 for their AGN-201 research reactor, Serial No.101, be renewed for a period of twenty years. This would extend the expiration date of the license to November 15, 1997. In response to our request, the licensee provided additional information in support of this renewal application by letters dated April 21, 1978 and January 5, 1979. The proposed revised Technical Specifications (TS) submitted with the renewal application have been modified to meet regulatory requirements. The modifications have been discussed with and accepted by the licensee.
Discussion This AGN-201 reactor is located in Washington, D.
C., and is of a design developed by Aerojet-General Nucleonics. The reactor was first licensed to operate on November 15, 1957, for a period of twenty years. The reactor i's currently licensed to operate up to a steady state power level of 100 milliwatts thermal. A number of AGN-201 reactors have been licensed to operate at this power level and greater.
Moreover, considerable operating experience to date indicates that the AGN-201 reactor parameters can be accurately predicted. No unusual problems have arisen or are anticipated from operation of The Catholic University AGN-201 reactor in the manner authorized by the license.
Reactor Description The AGN-201 is a small research reactor designed to operate at a power level of 0.1 watt. This type of reactor has been used exten-sively for education and training and for experimental programs requiring a low neutron flux level. The reactor core consists of a number of polyethylene disks impregnated with uranium dioxide 7904090 M.
. enriched in U-235. The inherent design features of this reactor and the low power level at which it is operated preclude the buildup of significant amounts of fission products.
I, Safety Evaluation The present facility has not significantly changed from that described in the license Amendment No. 3, April 26,1961, when the reactor was moved to its pemanent location in the Pangborn Engineering and Architecture Building.
By virtue of their power, negligible fission product inventory and strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, the AGN-201 reactors do not present significant hazards to the public. - Their safety and reliability have been demonstrated in several facilities fnr many years.
The proposed TS have been reviewed and revised. The TS generally incorporate the design features, characteristics, and operating conditions described in the original Hazards Sumary Report for the AGN-201 Reactor (1) submitted in support of Dockets F-15 and F-32 and referenced in the licensee's application.
Inclusion of compre-hensive surveillance requirements and administrative controls will assure acceptable perfomance of safety related equipment and require safety related reviews, audits, and operating procedures. Record keeping and reporting requirements will provide sufficient information to permit an assessment by the Comission of safety related activities and changes.
There are, however, several differences between the accompanying TS and the original AGN documentation. These are discussed below.
The AGN-201 Preliminary Design Report (2), submitted on the F-15 docket, mentioned themal fuses in the control and safety rods and a boron-loaded polyethylene sheet surrounding the graphite reflector.
The function of the thermal fuses in the control and safety rods was to cause the rods to fall from the core in the event of excessive temperatures produced in a nuclear excursion. They would, therefore, serve as a backup to the core thermal fuse which already serves as a backup to the normal scram system. The function of the boron-loaded sheet was to absorb themal neutrons thereby reducing gamma ray production from neutron capture in the shield water and the'resulting radiation level outside the shield.
These design features were not mentioned in subsequent submittals including the Hazards Summary Report (1), the AGN-201 Reactor Manual (3), and the Shield Design Report (4). They were not referred to in the original AEC Hazards Analysis (5) or subsequent safety evaluation.
They were not incorporated into the assembled AGN reactors and are not included in the proposed TS.
2-
~
S 3
Many years of experience operating AGN-201 research reactors without thermal fuses in the control and safety rods and without a boron-loaded polyethylene sheet surrounding the graphite reflector has established that these reactors can operate safely, as assembled, at licensed power within acceptable radiation levels to both operating personnel and the general public. Based on our review and the above considerations, we have concluded there is reasonable assurance that operation without thermal fuses in control and safety rods and the bcron-loaded polyethylene sheet referred to in the Preliminary Design Report will not endanger the health and safety of the public.
The original AGN-201 documentation 0-3) limited the total available excess reactivity to 0.2% ak/k. The staff has previously evaluated and authorized an increase in the excess available reactivity including contributions from positive worth experiments, to 0.65% ak/k (Amendment No. 6) and this value has been incorporated into the TS.
Because of the self-limiting action of the large negative temperature coefficient, an instantaneous reactivity insertion as high as 2.0% ak/k rould not result in core damage or radioactivity release. Limiting the total available excess reactivity to 0.65% ak/k assures that the reactor will not become prompt critical and that the reactor periods will be sufficiently long such that the reactor protection system and/or operator action can effectively scram the reactor well before any safety limits are exceeded.
The licensee has submitted a revised safety analysis report in the renewal application that incorporates the foregoing changes. No changes made to the facility have resulted in a decrease in margins of safety.
Furthermore, reactors virtually identical to this one with similar TS have been licensed for operation for periods of up to 40 years.
Hence, the bases and conclusions with respect to the safety of operation that were determined in our Safety Evaluation supporting the original license, as amended, in support of the current operating license remain unchanged. The revised TS are more definitive than the original and will provide the necessary controls and surveillance requirements to ensure safe operation during the period of the license renewal. The licensee has recently conducted a complete overhaul of all control and safety systems and has refurbished the major components.
. The fuel consists of polyethylene material with uranium dioxide (enriched to 19.9',' in U-235) uniformly dispersed throughout the polyethylene. polyethylane is an organic material that can sustain radiation damage wnen exposed to fission product bombard-ment. Test data was provided by Aerojet-General Nucleanics of samples of core material exposed in the Arganne National gaboragory Cp-5 reactor. The CP-5 reactor is a 5 megawatt (flux-10I n /cm -
sec) reactor. Tests included exposures at full power for periods up to one week continuous operation. Analyses of these tests re-vealed that radiation damage was evident in a reduced density and there was some loss of hydrogen from the polyethylene. An extrapolation of these results, assuming that the integrated flux-time (nyt) is responsible for the damage, for continuous operation at 100 watts equates to a core life of six years prior to any damage occurring. At 5 watts contiraous operation the care life would be approximately 120 years and at 0.1 watt continuous operation about 6,000 years. As the nonnal operating cycle is less than 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week, or less than 24%, the projected life approaches 25,000 years.
From this anelysis it is reasonable to conclude that the AGN-201 core operating 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per week at 0.1 watts (flux - 4.5 x 106 n/cm2 - sec) would sustain no radiation damage over the 20 years of reactor operation requested by the licensee's application.
Moreover, due to the fact that:
(1) no unusual problems have arisen during over 20 years of authorized operation at 0.1 watt (T)
(2) the revised TS require surveillance and periodic testing of safety relat.ed equipment to assure cent 1nued safe operation of the reactor and to assure that any significant component degradation will be M9cted in a timely manner, and (3) other AGN-201 reactors of this, ?. also have considerable operating experience without evidence of any unusual problems, we have concluded that The Catholic University of America AGN-201 reactor can continue to be operated in a safe manner for the requested 20 year period.
Furthennore, based on these considerations, we have concluded that the estimated useful life of the facility will extend at least to the end of the requested 20 year period. Therefore, from a reactor safety standpoint the proposed amendment is acceptable.
The subject facility has been in operation since November 1957, for education and training and for experimental programs requiring a low neutron flux level. The current facility staff lacks a senior reactor operator with an effective senior reactor operator license. A faculty member is receiving training from the Memphis State University AGN-201 reactor facility and will receive his license in early 1979. All control rods are in storage and the control console is maintained deenergized and locked in accordance
. with the TS. Additional personnel will be trained during the Spring 1979 semester.
The licensee's Operator Requalification Program has been reviewed and found to be acceptable.
Financial Considerations Based on The Catholic University of America's financial information submitted with the application dated October 21, 1977 and the additional information provided April 21, 1978 in response to NRC staff request of February 16, 1978, we have concluded that the licensee possesses or can obtain the necessary funds to meet the requirements of Section 50.33(f) of 10 CFR Part 50, and that the
, licensee is financially qualified to continue operaticn of the facility over t.be 20 year renewal period requested.
Emeraency Planning The Emergency Plan was submitted with the application dated October 21, 1977 and revised January 5,1979, in response to NRC-staff guidance. We have reviewed the plan and concluded that it confonns to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E and provides a basis for an acceptable state of emergency pre-
- pardness, Security Plannino A completely revised Security Plan was submitted on July 8,1977, that supersedes and replaces all earlier plans. We have reviewed
.this plan and find it acceptable to meet the requiremer.ts of 10 CFR Part 50, Section 50.34(c) and 10 CFR Part 73.
This document and our evalu-ation findings are in the Cormission's files and are withheld from public disclost., a pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.790(d).
This amendment, in keeping with current Commission practice, adds a paragraph to the license which identifies the currently approved security plan and incorporates the plan as a condition of the license.
Conclusion on Safety We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this license will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
..s
, II.
Environmental Impact Aporaisal The environmental impact associated with operation of research reactors has been generically evaluated in the attached memorandun (Reference 6).
This memorandum concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the licensing of research reactors to operate at power levels up to 2ftWt and that no environmental impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities. We have determined that this generic evaluation is applicable to operatice of ti.e Catholic t.niversity of American AGM-201 reactor and that there are no special or different features which would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation. Con-sequently, we have determined that the conclusion reached in the generic evaluation is equally applicable to this license renewal action and that an environmental impact statement need not be pre-pa red.
Furthermore, based on our review of specific facility items which are considered for potential environmental impact, discussed.below, we have concluded that this license renewal action is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.
Facility There are no pipelines or transmission lines entering or leaving the site above grade. All utility services (water, steam, electricity, telephone and sewage) are below grade and are comparable to those required for typical campus laboratories. Heat dissipation is accomplished by radiation in a large water tank which serves as the heat sink and is a sealed unit.
The reactor is desianed as a sealed system, and in normal operation does not have any gaseous or liquid radioactive effluent. Solid, low-level radioactive waste generated in the research effort will be packaged in accordance with USNRC and DOT regulations and shipped off-site for storage at NRC approved sites. The transportation of such waste will be done in accordance with existing NRC-00T regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those existing at other university laboratories and buildings.
Environmental Effects of Facility Operation Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of 0.1 W. will not have a significant effect on the crivironment. This small amount df waste heat is rejected to the surrounding water tank and eventually to the atmosphere by means of conduction and radiation.
There will be no release of gaseous or liquid effluents.
Yearly doses to un-restricted areas from external radiation will be at or below
, established limits.* Solid radioactive wastes generated in the research program will be shipped to an authorized disposal site in approved containers. These wastes should not amount to more than a few shipping containers a year.
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 from laboratory experiments.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as esthetics, noise and societal 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 of only a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and are considered negligible with respect to the environment.
Unavoidable Effects of Facility Oceration the ui: avoidable effects of operation involve the fissionable material used in the reactor. No adverse impact on the environ-ment is expected from these unavoidable effects.
Alternatives to Ooeration of the Facility To acccmplish the obfectives 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.
Lono-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Coeration The long-term effects of research facilities are considered.to be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific knowledge and training. There is no construction planned during the renewal period; and'therefore, no_ constructicn is authorized under this if censing action.
Because of the relatively low amount of capital resources involved and the small impact on the environment very little irreversible and irretrievable commitment is associated with such facilities.
- 10 CFR 20
.g.
Costs and Benefits of Facility and Alternatives The monetary costs involved in operation of the facility are less than $5,000/ year. There will be very limited environmental impacts.
The benefits include, but are not limited to, some combination of the following: conduct of activation analyses, conduct of neutron radiography, training of operating per',onnel 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 alternatives to a nuclear research reactor for conducting this spectrum of activities.
Conclusion and Basis for Necative Declaration Based on the foregoing analysis, we have concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact attributed to this proposed license renewal.
Having made this conclusion, we have further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared and that a negative declaration to this eff.ect is appro-priate.
Dated: March 12,1979
~ b'I.
UNITED STATES h,
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
' ' 'O E l
wasmucTen, o c. 2:us
$V:%,'I 0 %- nF hi.. o 3 137.',
e e
D. Skovholt, Assistant Director for 0---ating Reactors, L ENVIRONMINT.u. CONSIDE2ATIONS RECARL C LICENSINC OF P.ESEARCH REACTCKS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction This discussion deals with research reactors and critical fscilities which are de si;n=d to op :st. at low pous: levels, 2 Zh..nd i:ver, and e
are used pri=arily for basic research in neutron physics, neutron i
radiography, isotope production, experi=ents associated with nuclear i
engineering, training and as a part of the nuclear physics curriculu=.
Operation of such facilities will generally not exceed a 5 day week, 8 hour9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> day or about 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year.
Such reactors are located adjacent to technical service support facilities with convenient access for students and faculty.
~
Sited cost frequently on the canpus' of large universities, the reactors are usually housed in already existing structures, appropriately codified, or placed in new buildings that are designed and constructed to blend in with existing facilities.
Facility There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or =echanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjac.ent to the facility other than utility service facilities which are similar to those required in other ca= pus facilities, specifically laboratories.
Heat dissipa tion is generally acco=plished by usa of a cooling tower loc ated on the roof of.the building.
These cooling towers are on the order of 10 X 10' X 10' and are c:= parable to cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning syste= of large office buildings.
Make up for tais cooling systen is readily available and usually obtained from the local water supply.
Radioactive gaseous effluents are limited to Ar 41 and the release of radioactive liquid. effluents can be carefully monitored and controlled.
These ' liquid wastes are collected in storage tanks to allow for decay and mor.itoring prior to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer system.
Solid radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped off-site for stora;s at AEC approved sites. The transportatien of such vaste is done in accordance with existing AEC-OST re;ulations in app cved shipping containers.
Ct.ecical and sanitary waste systems are similar to these existing at other university laboratorics and buildings.
4
_,p
)
o q 19 u..
D. Skovholt *-"
Environ = ental Ef fects o f Si:e orecaration and Facili:. C:nstructicn Construction cf such facilities invariably occurs in a:tas that have already been. dis:urbed by c:her university building cons::uc-ion and in some cases scicly wi:hin aa already existin; building.
Theref::c,
- r. : n-struction would no t be expected to have any significant affec: on :he terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and esthetic i_= pacts of cons".ruction would be no greater than that associated with the construction of a large office building or si=ilar university facili:y.'
Environ = ental Effects of Facility Coeration Release of thermal effluents fro =.a reactor of less than 2 E*t will not have a significant offect on the environ =ent.
This small a=ount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by ceans of scall cooling towers.
Extensive drif t and/or fog will not occur at this low power level.
Release of routine gaseous effluent can be limited to Ar 41 which is generated by neutron activation of air.
This will be kep t as low as practic:able by mini =u= air ventilation of the tubes.
Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established Li=its.
Rou tine releases of radioactive liquid effluents can be carefully conitored and controlled in a cancer that will ensure ce=pliance with current standards.
Solid radioactive wastes will be shipped to an authorized disposal site in approved containers.
These was:es should not a=ount to = ore than a few shipping containers a year.
Based on experience with other research reactors, specifically TRICA reactors, operating in the I to 2 MWt range, :he annual release of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.0L curies respectively.
No release of potentially har=ful c6emical substances will occur during normal operation.
Scall amouars of chemicals and/or high-solid conten:
water =ay be released f:c= the facility th:cugh the sanitary sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from laboratory experi-
=ents.
1 Other potential effects of the facility, such as es thetics, noise, societal or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to be too s=all to ceasure.
,.,g\\'("h '
- ,,u(
.M hN hN
s
(
\\.
D. Skovholt J A !'
27 1274 Environren:a1 Iffe::s of Accidents Accidents rangi ; frc: the failure of experiments up to the larges t core damage and fission pr: duct release considered possible result doses of only a c:all fraction of 10 CFP. Part 100 guidelices and are in
, considered negligible.with respect to the environ =ent.
Unavoidab'.a.If fecis of Facilit r Cons ru. -
ction and Cosra:isn The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involves the materials used in construction that cannot be recovered and the fissionable caterial used in the reactor.
No adverse i= pact on the environ =ent is expected frc: either of these unavoidable effects.
Alternatives to Construction and Coeration of the Facility To acco=plish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no suitable alter:atives.
Some of these objectives are training of students in the operation of reactors, production of r,adioisotopes, and use of neutron and ga==a ray beams to conduct experi=ents.
Lenz-Ter= Ef fec ts o f Facility Construction and Ooeration The long-ters effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific ktowledge and training.
Because of the relatively low amount of capital resources involved and the small i= pact on the envirec=ent very little irreversible and irretrievable ce==i =ent is associated with such facilities.
Costs and Benefits of Facility and Alternatives The costs are oc the order of severak millions of dollars with very little environ =enta*. i= pact.
The besefits include, but are not limited to, sc=e combination of the following:
conduct of activation scalyses, conduct of neutron radiography, training of operating perscnnel 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 reasonabic alternativc to a
. nuclear research reactor for conducting this spe.ctru of activities.
e l
D. Skovholt MM 2 S GM Conclusion The staff cencludes that there will be ne signific:n: c virocnent '
impact associated wi:n the licensing of research reac tors or critic.il facilities designed to opera:e a: pcwer levels of 2. fit or lower and that no environ. ental impact sta:erents are required to be written for the issuscce of construction per=its or cperating licenses for such facilities.
A s
M
//
Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Di:ector for Environ = ental ?:cj ects Directorate of Licencing h
Q(
3" -
M(hdVh\\y\\h{.E\\\\g
\\ -)\\Y D
W m
I
\\
e 9
8 4
g e
S e
e
References 1.
" Hazards Summary Report for the AGil-201 Reactor," Aerojet General Nucleonics, August 1956 (see Docket F-15).
2.
"AGN Model 201 Reactor, Preliminary Design Study," Aerojet General Nucleonics, May 1956 (see Docket F-15).
3.
"AGN-201 Reactor fianual," Aeroj.:t General Nucleonics, July 1957 (see Docket F-15).
4.
" Shield Design for the AGN-201 Reactor," Appendix F to Reference 1, September 1956 (see Docket F-15).
5.
AEC fiemorandum accompanying License R-10, March 29,1957 (see Docket F-32).
6.
D. Muller to D. Skovholt memorandum " Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research Reactors and Critical Facilities" dated January 28,1974(attached).
h g
O