ML19351F787
| ML19351F787 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/31/1980 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343C428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102200170 | |
| Download: ML19351F787 (4) | |
Text
'
4 7
-Y
.. =
- 4 4
h f
V f
h*
W g
DISTRIBUTION DEC 311980 Zentral Files SAB Reading DHVollmer DRMuller WHRegan MEMORAfiDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing FROM:
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
ENVIR0fafE!!TAL C0flSIDERATI0flS REGARDING THE REtlEWAL OF LICENSES FOR RESEARCH REACTORS In. response to your memorandum of flovember 24, 1980, subject as above, we have reviewed the Muller to.Skovolt memorandum dated January 28, 1974.
Based on that review, we have prepared the enclosed evaluation, and suggest that you utilize it for all future research reactor reviews.
orienal sissed br:
Richard H. Volkner Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
,h yr-f b,.
8 3 02j00 l]D
}:? -
^
" :: > DE:ET;SAB..DE:ADET.
. D E).,,
s.
$""'"'b.WHRe[ani'cc.D.@uiler.
.'...RdVd11mer
- <t>
12/30/80 12/; /80 12/[/80 l
. :== ~ :. :.
a:.,::a c 7 7;c :, g 3 5 c :., 2 c c.=.
~
ENVIR0tWENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING CF RESEARCH REACTORS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction This discussion deals with research reactors and critical facilities which are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MWt and lower, and are used primarily for basic research in neutron physics, neutron radiography, isotope production, experiments associated with nuclear engineering, training and as a part of the nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will generally not exceed a 5 day week, a hour 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 most frequently on the campus of large universities, the 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.
Facility There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the facility other than utility service facilities which are similar to those required in other campus facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat dissipation is generally accomplished by use of a cooling tower located on the roof of the building. These cooling towers are on the order of 10' x 10' x 10' and are comparable to cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning system of large office buildings.
Make up for this cooling system 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 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 done in accordance with existing NRC-DOT regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those existing at other university 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 university building construction 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 waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and esthetic impacts of construction would be no greater than that associated with the construction of a large office building or similar university facility.
. Envircnmental Effects of Facility Doeration Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 MWt 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. Exten-sive drift 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 kept as low as practicable by minimum air ventilation of the tubes. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established 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 amount to more than a few shipping containers a year.
Based on experience with other research reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors, operating in the 1 to 2 MWt range, the annual release of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curies respectively.
No release of potentially hannful 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 esthetics, noise, societal or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to be too small to measure.
Environmental Effects of Accidents AccideLis ranging frcm 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 Construction and Operation The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involves 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 Ooeration 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.
~
_3 Lone-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Oceration The long-tann effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific knowledge and training.
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.
Costs and Benefits of Facility and Alternatives The costs are on the order of several millions of dollars with 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 power levels of 2 MWt or lower and that no environmental imoact stataments are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities.
7 i
e