ML20126H485
| ML20126H485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126H428 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8506180356 | |
| Download: ML20126H485 (7) | |
Text
'
UNITEO STATES NUCLEAR RE~ULATORY COMMISSION o
WAS HNGTON, D. C. 20665
%*****/
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED TRIGA RESEARCH REACTOR OF THE tlNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DOCKET NO. 50-602 Description of Proposed Action This Environmental Assessment is written in w nnection with the proposed construction permit and operatino license for The liniversity of Texas (UT) TRIGA research reactor, in response to t'te UT application dated November 9, 1984, as supplemented. The proposed action would authorize the construction and subsequent operation of the reactor facility in accordance with the UT's application. A new Nuclear Engineerino Teaching Laboratory (NETL) building which houses the reactor facility will be constructed at the Balcones Research Center located about 7 miles north of the llT main campus at Austir, Texas.
Need for the Proposed Action The proposed construction and subsequent operation of the UT reactor facility at the Palcones Research Center site is to help accommodate growth of programs in various nuclear fields both at the University's main camput and at the Research Center site. The proposed action is required to authorize the construction of the NETL building and the contained reactor facility so that it can be used to expand the applicant's program in education and research.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action that was considered was not
. granting the construction permit and therefore not accommodating the applicant's needs. There are no suitable or more economical alternatives which can accomplish both the educational and the research objectives of this facility.
These objectives include the training of engineering students in the operation of nuclear reactors, the operation as a source of neutrons for peutron activation analysis or neutron radiography and other activities related to education and radioisotope applications.
Environmental Impact of Facility Construction Areas of the Balcones Research Center site served as a magnesium manufacturing plant prior to 1950. Since 1950, a few areas of the site have been developed as part of University research programs, while other areas remain undeveloped.
By 1980 a major development program at the research center beoan with several new facilities constructed and many of the original site structures removed.
The NETL reactor facility building will be the fourth structure constructed at 8506180356 050604 POR ADOCK 05000602 A
j I
i e
i I
l '
1 i
i the Research Center site since 1980. Three previous development pro.iects constructed near tha proposed NETL building site are much larger buildings i
than the proposed NETL building. Additional construction pro.iects are also l
planned ard proposed for the continued development of the Research Center.
)
Utility construction projects such as chilled water, heated water, electricity, t
road construction and other support facilities for the Research Center are provided and preposed for the continued development program of the Research Center. The NETL utility construction is a part of this develcoment program.
i l
Based on this review, the staff concludes that the construction of the NETL building will be in an area that has been disturbed by other building construction and the activities associated with this construction will be j
less extensive than those of the three larger previous pro.iects. The NETL i
building's utility reoufrements Wil not differ substantially from those j
recuired by previous construction pro,iects at the Research Center and this j
construction should have no impact on areas beyond the Research Center s'ite.
l Environmental Imoact of Fecility Operation i
The proposed UT TRIGA reactor is designed to operate at power levels up to and including 1.1 Mw with oparation at or near the maximum power level expected to i
j average about 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per week.
l The disposal of waste heat form the reactor operation is provided by heat i
exchange with a central chilled water supply. The central chilled water facility with multiple units es large as 1200 tons will provide the ultimate i
i heat rejection source. The peak facility heet load is 313 tons for the i
reactor and 60 tons 'or the building. Total average heat rejection by the l
reactor from actual operation is expected to be much less than the peak value of 313 tons.
}
Radinactive pas effluents produced by the reactor are argon-41 and nitrogen-16.
i The short half-life of nitrogen-16 eliminates any significant environmental release. The actual release of argon-41 averaged over a year will not result in a dose in an unrestricted area in excess of 100 mrem /yr. This dose is
),
within the 500 mrem /yr limit specified by 10 CFR 20.
t i
1.fouid waste releases typical of similar facilities are less than 0.01 curies per year. The UT reactor normal operations will produce no radioactive liquid l
waste. However, some cleaning activities or irradiations may generate limited i
liquid waste which will be diluted as necessary and disposed of in the sanitary sewer under the supervision of the University's radiation safety staff at concentrations within the guideline values of 'O CFR 20.303.
i Solid waste generated as e result of reactor operations will consist primarily 1
of ion exchange resins and filters, potentirlly contaminated paper gloves and i
glassware which are expeSt'd ta ca"*'i" ' f*" nillicuri'5 'f radi'""clid'5 1" a volume of about 17 ft /yr. This solid waste will be collected by the University's health physics staff, combined with other University-generated weste, and held temporarily before being packaged and shipped to an approved 1
disposal site in accordance with applicable regulations.
1
. The staff also considered hypothetical credible eccidents at the UT reactor and concludes 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.
Rased on the review of the proposed UT reactor 'aciHty operating characteristics the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SFPig the environment, as set forth in that are considered for potential inpact o for this action, the staff concludes that the operation of the #ccility will have an insignificant environmental impact.
1 This conclusion is based on the following:
I a) normal operations will generate irsignificant amount of gaseous, liquid-and solid wastes. Anticipated radiation doses from these wastes in an unrestricted area will be within the 10 CFR 20 guideline values, b) the ultimate heat rejection source (the central chilled water facility) is capable of absorbing all the veste heat from the reactor operation, c) the excess reactivity available under the technical specifications is insufficient to support a reactor trensient generating enough energy to cause overheating of the fuel or less of integrity of the cladding, d) at a themal power level of 1100 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 e) the hypothetical loss of integrity of the cladding of the maximum irradiated fuel rod will not lead to radiation exposures in the unrestricted environnent that exceed guideline values of 10 CFR 20.
l In addition to the analyses sumarized above, the environmental impact associated with construction and operation of research reactors has been 9enerically 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 construction and operation of research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up to and including 2 MWt and that an Enviromental Impact Statement is not reouired for the issuance of construction pemits or operating licenses for such facilitics.
The staff detemined that this generic evaluation is applicable to the construction and operation of the UT reactor and that there are no special or unique features that would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation.
I NUREG-1135 " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Ct.nstruction Pemit and the 0 prating License for the TRIM Research Reactor at the University of Texas
. Agencies and Persons Consulted The staff obtained techrical assistance from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in performing the safety evaluation of the construction and operation of the UT reactor facility.
Conclusion and Basis for No Significant Impact Findirg l
Based on the foregoing considerations, the staff has concluded that there will be no sionificant environmental impact attributable to this proposed i
construction and operation. Having reached this conclusion, the staff has further concluded that no Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed actine need be prepared and that a No Significant Impact Finding is t
appropriate.
Dated: May 13, 1085 f
r
\\
l ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING OF 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 a nuclear physics curriculum.
Operation of such facilities will generally not exceed a 5-day week, 8-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 l
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 l
_p aced in new buildings that are designed and constructed to blend in with existing facilities.
However, the environmental considerations discussed
.l herein are not limited to those which are part of unlversities.
Facility' There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the facility other than.fpr.
utility services, which are similar to those required in other similar facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat dissipation is generally accom-plished by use of a cooling tower located on the roof of the building. These cooling towers typically are on the order of 10' x 10' x 10' and are comparable to cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning systems of large office buildings.
i Make-up for the 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.
Liquid wastes 'are collected in storage tanks to allow for decay and monitoring prior to dilution and release to the sani-tary 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 weste systems are similar to those existing at other similar laboratories and buildings.
I e
- - - -. - - - -, - - - -.. + ~
Environaental Effects of Site Preceration and Facility Constru: tion Construction of such facilities invW. ably occurs in areas that have already been disturbed by other building cch ruction and, in some cases, solely within an already existing buildin;-
Therefore, construction would net be expected to'have any significant effect on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and esthetic ir; acts cf construction would be no greater than those associated with the construction of a large office building or similar research facility.
Environmental Effects of Facility Oneration Release of thereal effluents from a reactor of less that 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.
Ex-l tensive drift and/or fog will not occur at this low power level.
Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to Ar-41, which is generated l
.by neutron activation of air.
Even this will be kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for supporting experiments.
Yearly doses to unre-stricted. areas will be at or below established guidelines in 10 CFR 20 limits.
Routine releases of radioactive, liquid effluents can be carefully monitored and i
control. led in a manner that will ensure compliance witli current standards.
Solid
. radioactive waites will be shipped to an authorized disposal site.in approved cont'ainers.
These wastes should not require 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, Tespectively.
No release of potentially. harmful. chemical. substances will occur during nomal
.operat on.
Small amounts of chemicals and/or high-solid content water may be i
released from the facility through the sanitary sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from laboratory e,xperiments.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as estutics, noise, 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 damnoe and fission product release considered possible result in doses that are less than 10 CFR Part 20 guidelines and are considered negligible with respect to the environment.
4
iw-_
i.
i
- l i i l
1 i
Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction and Operation l
l The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involve the materials i
used in construction that cannot be recovered and the fissionable material i
i used in the reactor.
No adverse impact on the environment is expected from i
{
either of these unavoidable effects.
t l
Alternatives to Construction and Operation of the Facility I
To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no l
suitable alternatives.
Some of these objectives are training of students in j
the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
i i
Lono-Tem Ufects of Facility Construction and Ooeration j
The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial J
as a result of the contribution to scientific knowledge and training.
Because l
of the relatively small amount of capital resources involved and the small l
impact on the environment, very little irreversible and irretrievable 4esnit-l ment is associated with such facilities.
Costs and Benefits oY 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 i
combination of the following:
conduct of activation analyses, conduct of j
neutron radiography, training of operating personnel and education of students.
Some of these activities could be conducted using particle accelerators or i
radioactive sources which would be more costly and lets efficient. There is l
no reasonable alternative to a nuclear research reactor for conducting this spectrum of activites.
4 j
Conclusion i
The staff concludes that there will be no significant environmental impact associated with the licensing of research reactors or critical facilities 1
i designed to operate at power levels.cf 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 facilities.
I l
l l
I.
3