ML20028C353
| ML20028C353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000134 |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20028C349 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8301070377 | |
| Download: ML20028C353 (6) | |
Text
,
![gn REGy,I9 UNITED STATES g
(,'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
yf WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k..v.../
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL FOR THE WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE OPEN-POOL TRAINING REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-61 DOCKET NO.
50-134 The Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) reactor is a 10 kW thermal General Electric open-pool reactor. The WPI reactor is installed in an existing pool inside an existing building on the WPI Worcester campus, thus there is no change in the physical environment. The WPI reactor has been operating since the initial licensing in 1959. Currently, there are no plans to change the structures or operating characteristics associated with the reactor during the time interval covered by this license amendment.
Based on the staff's review of specific facility characteristics which are considered for potential environmental impact, as set forth in the Safety Evaluation Reportl (SER) for this action, the staff concludes that renewal of this operating license will have an insignificant environmental impact.
Though judged insignificant, operating effects with the largest measure of environmental impact, both non-radiological and radiological, respectively, are summarized below.
The WPI reactor's 10 kW of thermal energy is transferred from the pool water to the environment by heat conduction to the ground and air, and by some evaporation of water from the pool surface.
Argon-41, a beta-gamma emitter with a half-life of 1.8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, produced by neutron activation of air during operation, is the principal radiological l
effluent of the WPI reactor. At power levels greater than 1 kW, air is drawn from locations in the reactor with the greatest potential for l
production of argon-41 (the beam port and thermal volume air cavities) j and discharged into the building exhaust system. The argon-41 injected into the monitoring system is monitored, and conservative interpretation of the data based on 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> of operation at 10 kW (in 22 years of reactor operation, the reactor has never been operated for more than 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> during a year) indicates an annual average specific activity release l
rate of 0.003 upci/cc of argon-41 in the discharge grom the ventilation stack l
to the atmosphere. This value is 7.5% of the 4x10- pCi/ml value specified I
in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 1 as one maximum permissible l
concentration.
DESIG:.r ED ORIGIR L I
l Certified 3r f
1 l
Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of the Operating License for the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Open-Pool Training Reactor, NUREG-0912, December 1982.
l 8301070377 821230 i
PDR ADOCK 05000134 j
P PDR
- In addition to the analysis in the SER summarized above, the environmental impact associated with operation of research reactors evaluated and is discussed in the attached memorandum.' pas been generically This memorandum concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the operation of research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up to 2 MWt 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 WPI reactor, and that there are no special or unique features which would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration Based on the foregoing considerations, we have concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to this proposed license renewal. Having reached 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 effect is appropriate.
Furthermore, based on the considerations discussed and evaluated above, we have concluded 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security, or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: DEC 3 01982 2
R. H. Vollmer to D. G. Eisenhut memorandum, " Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research Reactors and Critical Facilities," dated December 31, 1980.
~
v e
~
DEC 311980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division cf Licensing FROM:
Richard H. Vollmar, Director Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL C0!!SIDERATIONS REGARDING THE REMEWAL OF LICENSES FOR RESEARCH REACTORS In. response to your memorEndum.0f UcheEber 24,198b, subject $s $bove, we have reviewed the Muller to.5kovolt memorandum dated January.28,.197'4.
Based on thEt review, we have prepared the enclosed evaluatMn, and suggest that yqu utilize it for all future research reactor reviews. '
Q
.g: --
m w,z s7s
~
2 ace E. Tec===
Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of. Engineering Office..of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated,
ec e
E
~
I l
l s'
g pfC$
1 L(lif 4
T
~
ENVII ONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING OF RESEARCH REACTORS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction This discussion deals with research reactors and cri.tical 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 exce'ed 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 convenihnt' 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, oi placed in new buildings that are designed and constructed to blend ingith existing facilities.
~
. _- Facility __
.J.
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 thos"e required.in other campus facilities, specifically laboratories.
Heat dissipation is generally accomplished by use of a cooling tower located on the roof of the bu.ilding.
These cooling towers are on the order of 10' x 10' x 10' and are ccmparable to cooling towers associated with the air-concitioning system of large office buildings.
M'ake up for this cooling system is readily avail ~ble and usually oitained' from '
~
a 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 l
decay and monitoring prior to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer ' system.
l Solid radioactive wastes are packaged.and shipped off-site for storage at NRC approved sites.
The transportation of such.w.aste is done in accordance with existing NRC-DOT. regulations in approved shipping containers.
Chemical and sanitary waste systems 4re similar to those existing at other university laboratories and buildines.
Environner.tal Effects of Site Precaration and Facility Construction
~
Construction of such f acilities invariably occurs in areas that have a1 ready been disturbed by other university building construction and in some cases solely within an already existing' building. Therafore, construction would not be e.pected to have any significant affect on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or hearby waters or aquatic life.
The. societal, econcmic and esthetic impacts of unstru'ction would be no creater than that associated sith the construction of-a large effice' building or similar university facility..
A
~
2.
c Environmental Effects of Facility Operation Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 KRt will 'not have
. a sienificant effect on the environment.
This small amo0nt 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 ge'nerated 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 contairgrs a year.
~
Based on experience with other resea'rch reactors, specifically T.RIGA reactors;
...f - operat'ing in the 1 to 2 K4t range, the annual release of gaseous arid liquid.. '
effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curies Irespectively.
?
No release'of potentially harmful chemicar substances will occur during normal operation.
Small amounts of chemicals and/or high-solid content water may be released from the facility through the sani.tary sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from laboratory experiments.
Other potential effects of the facility, such,as esthetics, noise, societal or idpact on local flora and fauna are expected.txbe too small to' meas 0re.
Envircr ental Effects of Accidents Accicents rancino from the failure of experiments up to the largest cor'e' damage and fission product release considered possible result in dose's of only'a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and tre considered negligible with respect to the environment.
Unzvoidable Effects of Facility Cohstruction and Ooeration
?
l The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involves the materials used ir.-ccr.struction that cannot be recovered and the fissionable material used-in the react:r.
No adverse impact on the envircnment is e'xpected from either of these unacidable effects.
Alternatives to Construction and Ooeratiqn of the Facility l
To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, there'.are no suitable alternatives.
Some of these objectives are training of students in the c;eration of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of. neutron i
a.d ga
.2 ray beams to conduct experiments.
.o..
.~
- -3, Lono-Term Effects of Facility Constr'uction and Doeration The long-term effects of research facilities are considerad t'o 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 Senefits of Facility and Alternatives The costs are on the order of several millions of dollars with very little environmental impact.
The benef_its include, but are not limited to, some
~
combination of the following:
conduct of activation analyses, conduct 'of neutron radi6 graphy, training of operating personnel and eduettien of students.
Same of these activities could be conducted using p. article accelerators'or radioactive' sources which would be more costly and less efficient, There is '+
no reasonabl'e alternative to a nuclear research. reactor for conducting this spectrum of activities.
Conclusion The staff concludes that there will be no significant environmenta1 impact ~
associated with the licensing of research rsactors or cr.itical facilities designed to operate at power levels of 2 MWt or lower and that no environmental impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or* operating licenses for such facilitigs.
8 A g
es O
or i
1
(
l s
n g
i
-