ML19343C427
| ML19343C427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1981 |
| From: | Ahearne J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Barnes M HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343C428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8103240138 | |
| Download: ML19343C427 (2) | |
Text
,
f[
%. i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i -
s e
Y..... #
February 20, 1981 A
e CHAIRMAN 7
'g The Honorable Michael D. Barnes b %s,%dARO 4 bb C
United States House of Representatives NsDort //0/
Washington, D. C.
20515 g
4 9
Dear Congressman Barnes:
g This is in response to your January 9,1981 letter concerning the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) research reactor located on the grounds of the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland.
The AFRRI reactor is a small one megawatt TRIGA type research reactor. AFRRI received an initial operating license or. Nne 26, 1962 and on Novenber 4,1970 that license was extended until November 4,.280.
By letter and e'iclosures dated October 3,1980, AFRRI submitted a timely request for another extension of their operating license. The enclosures to their renewal applicetion, consisting of safety and environmental information, were prepared by Dames and Moore, a consulting engineering firm located in Bethesda, Maryland.
In accor-dance with NRC Regulatiors and the Administrative Procedure Act, the existing license remains in effecc until the renewal application is acted upon by the NRC.
The receipt of the application for renewal and the fact that it will be reviewed by NRC was published on November 25, 1980 in the Federal Register.
In response to this notification, a group called the Citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety has filed a Petition to Intervene in the relicensing of the AFRRI reactor.
Actions involved in a response to such a Petition include the development of appropriate areas for intervention and subsequent hearings before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB).
These hearings, which have procedures for public participation, will be held in the Bethesda area. The NRC, in review-ing the submi.tted information, will conduct an analysis of all the environmental and reactor safety related aspects of the AFRRI reactor operations.
In regard to the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) requires the preparation and issuance of an EIS for all major Federal actions which signifi-cantly affect the quality of the human environment. When it is unclear at the outset whether preparation of an EIS for the action in question is justified, the URC regulations implementing NEPA,10 CFR Part 51, require preparation of an Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) leading in turn to either (1) a find-ing of no significant impact and preparation of a negative declaration; or (2) to a finding of significant impact and preparation of an EIS.
In 1974, the 81.08240 GB
The Honorable Michael D. Barnes.
NRC staff prepared a generic EIA for research reactors which concluded that
...there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the licensing of research reactors or critical facilities designed to operate at power levels of _2 megawatts or lower and that no environmental wpact state-ments are required to be written...".
This generic appraisal was recently (December 31,1980) re-reviewed and the prior finding reconfirmed (copy enclosed).
In its preliminary review of the AFRRI license renewal application, the NRC staff has tentatively concluded that since the AFRRI reactor appears to meet the criteria of the Environmental Impact Appraisal, an EIS will most likely not be prepared for the AFRRI facility.
However, any final staff determination in this regard is subject to challenge at any ASLB proceeding that is convened to consider the renewal request.
You can be assured that in the ASLB hearings, all proper citizen safety and environmental concerns will receive approprlate consideration.
To keep you fully apprised of all future actions by the NRC pertaining to this licensing action, I have directed the staff to place you on the distribution lists for important correspondence in this case.
Sincerely,
\\
/
M John F. Ahearne
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
Director, Department of State Planning Baltimore, Maryland 21201 Director, Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program Energy & Coas~tal Zone Administration Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Mr. Charles W. Gilchrist Montgomery County Executive Rockville, Maryland 20850 Ms. Elizabeth B. Entwisle Citizens for Nuclear Reactor Safety, Inc.
Bethesda,'
, land 20014
~
f' DEC 311980 i;Ei-:0RAl!DU:-) FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Directcr Division of Licensing FRS:-1:
Richard H. Vollrer, Director Division of Engineering SbSJECT:
EllVIR0fS;EllTAL COI:SIDERATI0I:S REGAR0l!!G THE REllEHAL OF LICErl5ES FOR RESElaCli REACTORS r
In. response to your nenorandum of !:ohember 24, 1.000, subjqct as above, we have revie;ed the I;uller to.Skovolt no.7orandua Jated Janunry 28, 1974.
l'ased on that review, we have prepared the enciased evaluation, and suggest that you utilize it for all future research rc.. tor revicus.
O !f.r.-1
- med L7 c'
- 1. rd :. Vener Richard H. Vollror, Director f
Division cf Engineering Office of *:uclear React'or Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated D
+
i t oW*
M
3 ENVIR0mEr4TAL CONSIDERAT10f;5 REGARDi'.G THE LICENSil;G OF RESEARCH REACTORS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction This discussion deals with research reactors and citical faciliths.;hich are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MWt ant lower, and are used primarily for basic research in neutron physics, neutron ra. iogra:hy, isotope produci. ion, experiments associated with nuclear engineering, raining ar,d as a part of the nuclear physics curriculum.
Operation of such fa:ilitics aill 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 hou 3 per year. Such reactors are located adjacent to technical service support facilities with convenidnt access for-students and f aculty.
Sited most frequently on the campus of large unit 2rsities, the reactors are usually housed in already existing structures, appropriately codified, or placed in new buildings that are designed and constructec to blend in with existing facilities.
_Fa c'. l i ty There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electri:al cr mechanical structures or transnission lines attached to or adjacent to 1ie facility other than utility service facilities which are similar to those regt. ired in other campus facilities, specifically laboratories.
Heat dissipation is g:ierally accomplished by use of f
a cooling tower located on the roof of the buildin;.
These cooling towers are on the order of 10' x 10' x 10' and are comparable to cooling te*rs associated with the air-conditioning system of large office buildiqgs.
Make up for this cooling system is readily available and usually obtained from the local water supply. Radioactive gaseous efflu:nts 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 monitoring prior to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer system.
Solid radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped off-site for storage at NRC approved sites.
The transportation of such waste is dor.e in accordance with existing URC-DOT regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemicai and sanitary waste syr xms are similar to those existing at other universitv laboratories and bu Idings.
Environmental Effects of Site preparation and Facility Construction i
Construction of such facilities invariably occurs 'n areas that have aliudy been
' disturbed by other university building constructici and in some cases solely within-an already existing building.
Therefore, construction would not be expected to. have any significant affect on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby viaters or aquatic life. The societal, econt mic and esthetic impacts of construction would be no greater than that associated with the construction of a lago office building or similar university facility.
b P00R BRIGINAL
-2
.(
Environmental Effects of Facility Operation Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of ' ass than 2 IGt will not have a significant effect on the environment.
This all amount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by means c: small cooling towers.
Exten-sive drif t and/or fog will not occur at this lc. power level.
Eclease of routine gaseous ef fluent can be lici 2d to Ar 41 which is generated by neutron activation of air.
This will be kep: as low as practicable by minimum air ventilation of the tubes. Yearly & ses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established limits. Routin 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 apr oved containers. These wastes should not amount to more than a few shiraing containers a year.
Based on experience with other research reactorr, specifically TRIGA reactors, operating in the 1 to 2 PWt range, the annual r. lease of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less ':an 30 curies and 0.01 curies respectively.
No release of potentially harmful chemical subs.nces will occur during normal operation.
Small amounts of chemicals and/or hi;h-solid content water may be released from the facility through the sanitary ewer during periodic bloudoun of the cooling tower or from laboratory experic-,ts.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as esthetics, noise, societal or impact on local flora and fauna are expected.o be too small to measure.
Environmental Effects of Accidents Accidents ranging from the f ailure 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 c)nsidered negligible with l
respect to the environment.
Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction and Operation r
The unavoidable effects of coastruction and operation involves the materials used in construction that cannot be recovered anJ the fissionable material used in the reactor.
No adverse impact on the envircument is expected from either of these unavoidable effects.
Alternatives to Construction and Operation of th: Facility To accomplish the objectivee associated with res: arch re'c' rs, there are no sui' table alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of students in the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron p-and ganraa ray beams to conduct experiments.
P00R ORIGIML
a.
(.
Lc. 9-Tc: n Effects of Facility Con truction and loeration The lonc-term effects of research facilities ar. censidered to be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific i,.owledge and training.
Because of the relatively low amount of capital resources involved and the small impact on the environnent very little irr versible and irretrievable com.mitment is associated with such facilities.
C_osts and Benefit _s_ of Facility and Alternatives i
The costs are on the order of several millions o f dollars with very little environmental impact.
The benefits include, bu. are not limited to, some combination of '.he f 91owing: - conduct of activ. tion analyses, conduct of neutron radiography, training of operating pers<nnel and education of students.
Some of these activities could be conducted usi: g particle accelerators or radioactive sources which would be more costly ad less efficient.
There is no reasonable alternative to a nuclear research reactor for conducting this spectrum of activities.
Con cl us i,on, h
The staff concludes that th2re will be no signi. icart environmental impact associated with the -licensing of research react rs cr critical facilities designed to operate at pow 2r levels of 2 PWt or lower and that no environmental impact statements are regt. ired to be written fcr the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilitics.
?
P00R ORIGINAL
~,
MICHAEL-O. CARNES STH DWTRICT. M ARYLANo
. a)
COMM'"C: 0" Fo"E'2N ^rnins f
f meconsesWass:
e
, was w.svons owicz, m u o.s..o s,c -,c, m, 3
EUROPE AND THE M3 DOLE EAST
, jg INTERN 4TIO**
E MAC
- * [ 7 d f3,, "
1
[
couurTvrc on THc JuonciAny W3CQaeMfT, Eta Congres$ Of tijt EnittD 6fatts "a~~ -*" - '"ac'-
IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND 8534 Seccess Avesswa A02"C^CNo sacose FLoom 54WEm Semene. Manvkasso 20910 GQvEMNMENTAL RELAT50NS 0U$t Of M c N 25tHhM Df5 Oot) sas.4ses comurrrreosrucoisraicT
=aregga,o~,cgygac Gasfjington, D.C. 20515 or coLuws:A Trv.mtm
.co m o TTY.h3997
'u 5,"JUJ;*J"'*
January 9, 1980 Honorable John F. Ahearne Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 "H"
- Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Ahearne:
I am writing to you with respect to the relicensing of the research reactor of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) located in Bethesda, Maryland.
It is my understanding that tho-reactor is scheduled for relicensing in the near future.
I would like to request that every consideration be given toward recuiring the prepa ration of an environmental impact statement prior to that relicensing.
As you are aware, the reactor is located in a densely populated, mostly residential area, and it is imperative that the safety and security of the neighboring residents be assured, and well as the safety of those who work near the reactor.
On behalf of a group of my constituents with whom I recently met, hearing be held prior to relicensingI would also like to recaest that a pub Such a hearing would, I hope, include the presentation of daca relevant to this reactor, an explanation of its functions, I:
review of the safety and security aspects which are soand a thorough
[
vitally important.
This hearinc would also provide a forum for citizens concerned about reactor safety to express those concerns and to directly question the officials involved with the project.
j i
Your consideration of these requests is appreciated.
I Sincerely,
/.
i Michael D.
Earnes MDB:pdf
)
$101