ML20043B422
| ML20043B422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 04/26/1990 |
| From: | Weiss S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043B410 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005300015 | |
| Download: ML20043B422 (7) | |
Text
,,_
-<>ru i
4 -
.g a
w" 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDFINDINGOFNOSIGNIFIC_Ay ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT REGARDING PROPOSED RENEWAL OF FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-52 UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA DOCKET NO. 50-113 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is-considering issuance '
of an amendment to Facility License No. R-52 for the University of Arizona TRIGA Mark I. research reactor' located on the University of Arizona (lictasee) campus in Tucson, Arizona.
ENVIRONMENTAL' ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment is written in connection with the proposed-renewal for 20 years of the facility license of the University of Arizona TRIGA Hark I' research reactor (UATR) at Tucson, Arizona, in response to a timely application from the licensee dated October 17, 1988, as supplemented on July 17, 6
1989, September 15, 1989 and January 30, 1990. The proposed action would authorize continued operation of the reactor with an increase in authorized power level from 100 to 110 kilowatts (thermal). The facility has been in
. operation since Facility License No. R-52 was issued in 1958. 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.
'The increase in the operating power level from the existing 100 kW(t) to 110 kW(t) was requested by the licensee to permit testing of the reactor or scram settings without exceeding its licensed power level. The licensee intends to
- normally operate the reactor at or below 100 kw(t). The increase in power level will not require any additional equipment.
9005300010 900522 ADOCK0500f.
PDR P
t
,O Need for the Proposed Action The license for the facility was due to expire in December 1988. The proposed action is required to authorize continued operation so that the facility can continue to be used in the licensee's mission of research.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action An' alternative to the proposed action that was considered was not renewing the license. This alternative would have led to cessation of operations, with a resulting change in status and a likely small impact on the environment. The other alternative was to renew the license without authorizing the increase in power level. This alternative would have led to a nearly iden-tical impact on the environmental as the proposed action.
Environmental Impact The UATR operates in an existing shielded pool of water inside the
(;
existing Engineering Building, so this licensing action would-lead to no i
change in the physical environment.
Based on the review of the specific facility operating characteristics l
.that are considered for potential impact on the environment, as set forth in thestaff'sSafetyEvaluationReport(SER)I for this action, it is concluded that renewal of this facility ifcense at an increased power level will have an insignificant environmental impact. Although judged insignificant, operating features with the greatest potential environmental impact are summarized below.
1 NUREG-1390, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of the Operating License for the TRIGA Training and Research Reactor at the University of Arizona."
WP'
4+6:.
s s.
.. Argon-41, a product from neutron irradiation of air during operation, is the principal airborne radioactive effluent from the UATR during routine operations.
L Conservative calculations by the staff, based on the total amount of Ar-41 released from the reactor during a year, predict a maximum potential annual whole body dose of less than 1 millirem in unrestricted areas.
The staff has considered hypothetical credible accidents at the UATR 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 to the environment or the public.
This conclusion is based on the following:
l a) the excess reactivity available under.the technical specifica-tions 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 110 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 i
c) the hypothetical. loss of integrity of the cladding of the maximum irradiated fuel rod will not lead to radiation exposures in the unrestricted environment that exceed
+
guideline values of 10 CFR Part 20.
4
-In addition to the analyses in the SER sumarized above, the environmental impacts 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 levelsuptoandincluding2MW(t)andthatanEnvironmentalImpactS'.atementis not required for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities. We have determined that this generic evaluation is applicable
f
% L
[
.J to operation of the UATR 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 in performing the safety evaluation of continued operation of the UATR facility.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPl.CT Based upon 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 October 17, 1988, as supplemented on July 17,1989, September 15, 1989 and January 30,1990. These documents are
[
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555.
l Dhted at Rockville, Maryland this 26 day of April 1990.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
e Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactor, Decomrnissioning and i
Environmental Project Directorate l
Division of Reactor Projects - III, l-IV, Y and Special Projects l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
=c s. i i
c ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING OF i
RESEARCH REACTOR $ AND CRITICAL fat!LITIES
' Introduction This discussion deals with research reactors and critical facilities which are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MW(t) and lower, and are used primarily for basic researci in neutron physics, neutron radiography, isotope training and as a
- production, experiments associated with nuclear engineering,ilities will j
part of a nuel, ear physics curriculum. Operation of such fac I
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 most frequently on the campuses of large universities, the reactors are usually housed in already existing structures, appropriately modified, or j
placed in new buildings'that are designed and coastructed to blend in with However, the environmental considerations discussed existing facilities.
herein are not limited to those which are part of universities.
Facility There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures cr transmission lines attached to or adfacent to the facility other than for utility services, which are similar to those required in other similar Heat dissipation, if required, is facilities, specifically laboratories.
generally accomplished by use of a cooling tower located next to or on the These cooling towers typically are on the order of roof of the building.
10x 10' x 10' and are comparable to cooling towers associated with the air-Heat dissipation may also be-conditioning systems of large office buildings.
L accomplished by transfer through a heat exchanger to water flowing directly to
'l a sewer or a chilled water system. Make-up for the cooling system is readily I
l available and usually obtained from the local water supply.
Radioactive paseous effluents are limited to Ar-41 and the release of 4
iquid effluents can.be carefully monitored and controlled.
Liquid radioactive wastes are collected in storage tanks to allow for decay and monitoring prior to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer system. This liquid waste may also be solidifi,ed and disposed of as solid waste. Solid radioactive wastes The are packaged and shipped off-site for storage at NRC-approved sites.
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 o
similar laboratories and buildings.
1
" ~~
w-
=
4uw a
q" g.
a t
inviroerental Effects of Site Preceration and Facility Construction Construction of.such facilities invariably occur in areas that have already solely been disturbed by other building construction and, in some cases,ld not be
.crithtt, en already existing building. Therefore, construction wou expected to have any significant effects on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or meerby waters or aquatic life. Tne societal, cconomic and esthetic impacts of construction would be no greater th;3 those alsociated with the construction of a large office building or similar research facility.
Environmental Effects of Facility Doeration Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less that t W(t) will not have a significant effect on the environment. This'small amount of waste heat is tenera11yrejectedtotheatmospherebymeansofsmallcoolingtowers.
xtentive drift and/or fog will not eceur at this low power level. The small s
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 Ar 41, which is generated by neutron activa +,1on of air.
In most cases, this will be kept as low as-practicable by using gases other than air for supporting experiments.
Experimentsthataresupportedbyairaredesipnedtominimizeproductionof
.Ar-41. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas wili be at or below established guidelines in 10 CFR 20 limits. Routine releases of radic, active liquid effluents can be carefully monitored end 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.
Based on experie3ce with other research reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors
. operating in the 1 to 2 W (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 harwful 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 flera 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. cert damate and fission product release considered possible result in doses that are ess than 10 CFR Part 20 guidelines and are considered negligible with respect to the environment.
i
- + =.,.... -
o s. e 4
3 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 meterial 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 accog lish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of students ir-the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
1.eno. Term Effects of Facility Construction and Operation The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial as a result of the 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 and irretrievable conaitment is associated with such facilities.
Costs and Benefits of Facility 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 tie following:
conduct of activation analyses, conduct of i
i 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 hire 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 level of 2 W(t) or lower and that no environmental impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities.
4 Dated: August 8, 1988 i
e N
.