ML20196E238

Forwards Environ Rept to Support 990524 Request to Modify License R-79

ML20196E238
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Rolla
Issue date:	06/24/1999
From:	Freeman D MISSOURI, UNIV. OF, COLUMBIA, MO
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9906280133
Download: ML20196E238 (9)

Text

r

, U2:ivzrsity cf Miss=ri-R:lla

.. /*o um Nucle:r Re:ctor Facility 118l 70l 1870 Miner Circle

( Rolla, MO 65409-0630

'g% #u Thone: (573) 341-4236 FAX: (573) o41-4237 j

June 24,1999 l

l Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Dear Sirs:

)

We have enclosed our Environmental Report to support the request to modify our operating license which was made in our letter to you date May 24,1999.

Thank you for considering our request. We appreciate your handling this matter as soon as possible )

as it is a matter of the utmost importance.

Sincerely,

'!a ff Dr. David W. Freeman UMR Reactor Director DWF/mk I I

l Marvin Mendonca, Project Manager cc:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission PDNP C@ '

M.S. I1-B-20 Washington, D.C. 20555 9906280133 990624 PDR ADOCK 05000123 R PDR ._

ff an equal opportunity institution

w c ,

Environmental Repo_rt 1.0 Proposed Action The University of Missouri-Rolla Reactor Facility proposes to have the wording of our current operating license changed to make the license effective for a period of twenty years from the date '

it was issued (January 14, 1985). Therefore, if the proposed action is implemented, the current license would be effective until January 14,2005. The current wording of the license specifies that the license expires on November 20,1999.

There are no safety considerations dependent on the duration ofoperations at our facility. Because of the low licensed power (200kW) and operating history of the facility, there are no fuel burn up or material damage issues to be considered. The facilhy has operated less than 150 MW-hr since the last license renewal was issued.

The University of Missouri-Rolla Reactor Facility will apply for a license renewal withing 30 days prior to the license expiration date. If the proposed action is denied, the license renewal application will be prepared and submitted prior to October 20,1999. If the proposed action is approved, the license renewal application will not be due until December 14,2004.

2.0 Background

The University of Missouri - Rolla Reactor (UMRR) is a pool reactor operating with Materials Test Reactor (MTR) - type fuel. The fuel is enriched to just less than 20 % in U 235. The maximum licensed operating power is 200 kilowatts. The UMRR is Ecensed by the U. S. Nuclear Regulatoly Commission pursuant to 10CFR50 as a research and utilization reactor. The facility operating license number is R-79 (Docket No. 50-123). ,

l The reactor is housed in a metal building located on the east side of the campus in Rolla, Missouri, near 14th Street and Pine Street (See Figure 1).

1 i

~

m.

l

,, , Universitybf Missouri-Rolla ~~

To i 44 i toward n om u w . , n ....C.,c. u St. Louis

&nd 4C0:1100 $ OI.CX I Off "'M $3 N.

7 r

Pizza inn

,,,,-=~~~ r_o ~s ii /

usam o I.,,/ '

i5 LJM

/ gg;.,,,,

i si. . .- . _.

j u. 3 -== '. 53 4

"" .;., n i

!@ 19 ~

tam an

]

sns

"" l l '\ j Q

'a == m . _ _ , , - ,

11:"

.av % s _

I x w 3 i I

5".;;b  :. s,. ,,,, '

~. .. 2 * = " * ~

2 m m, m.-

l l J,.

}

3 t .........

To I-44 toward  ;

] -

ot

'"~

Oga .

l I = l 1

Springfle1d - "'#". .,.. -. fi so e: ~.- u -

- Q m. . ,,

Bureau of s,,

t Mines 'a -- 13tniStreet 9.t, a

cra,.a say . , I_

L

' 33 m -.

= l C2 M ,,,

.~a ,_ _

s...,,

=, c-3 s~~  % .. .;

3 3

3 l

v c3, ,, ... tc-~4-1 W .

0 -

H, p,= $ ry TW a ...-... .i I I

Cuawa. es fI l e -., . ,, . l

'(' tem su }

g..L...

I 10 m l F- t i i IkT..4 2

e

n. .em -u. .

j F! ure 1. University of Missouri-Rolla Campus

2. '

l i

l

.v ,

The principle activities carried on with the reactor are instruction, training and research. Typical experimental activities include nuclear engineering education experiments and demonstrations, basic research, neutron activation analysis, s';2 dent operator training, neutron radiography, prompt gamma analysis, and spectroscopy studies.

The reactor core sits near the bottom of an approximate 30,000 gallon concrete pool. The reactor is cooled by natural convection flow of pool water and thus has no se ondary cooling system or cooling tower. Heat generated by the reactor is transferred to the pool and ultimately dissipated through the pool walls and into the reactor bay.

The UMR Reactor is' typically a perated during normal working hours. Table 1 presents the annual operating history in MW-hrs back to 1984. On average, the reactor is operated about 9 MW-hrs per l l

year. Future operations are expected to follow the historical patterns.

Table 1. UMRR Annual Operating History Year MW-hours 83-84 6.3 84-85 9.4 i 85-86 5.0 86-87 12.0

]

87-88 26.0 l 88-89 6.0 89-90 11.4 ,

90-91 11.6 92 6.4 92-93 .5.8

'93-94 8.6 94-95 4.6 95-96 8.9 96-97 5.7 97-98 6.8 I QR-QQ 10 9  !

l Averate 9.0 l 3

~

The facility is equipped with a ventilation system that exhaust the attrosphere in the building through vent fans located on the reactor facility roof, approximately 10 meters above grade.

The only gaseous effluent associated with normal operations is Ar-41. Air contains a small amount of Ar-40. Ar-41 is produced when dissolved air in the pool water passes through the reactor core and becomes activated. In order to minimize Ar-41 production, the rabbit facilities are operated with nitrogen gas. Annual Ar-41 releases are minimal. Historical Ar-41 releases since 1984 are presented in Table 2. Information presented in Table 2 shows that the annual average Ar-41 release is only about 100 mci. Future releases are expected to be similar to the historical releases.

Table 2. UMRR Annual Gaseous Releases (Ar-41)

Year Activity (mci) 83-84 6.1 84-85 19.4 85-86 46.9 86-87 205.7 87-88 404.4 88-89 63.1 89-90 119.4 90-91 171.1 ,

91-92 138.7 92-93 38.9 )

93-94 60.2 l 94-95 60.0 95-96 46.1 96-97 31.7 97-98 135.6 98-99 77.3 Average 101.5 l

4 ,

l

L j

Liquid radioactive waste is produced by the regeneration of the demineralizer system, lowering of l the pool level for maintenance, and draining of the demineralizer column in order to replace resins.

The general philosophy of the facility administration has been to minimize liquid waste discharge.

In recent years, the preference has been to replace resins as they become depleted rather than regenerating in order to minimize liquid waste. Liquid waste are analyzed to assure compliance with l

regulatory requirements and then released to the sanitary sewer system. Table 3 presents the i historical annual liquid releases since 1984. Future liquid releases are expected to be minimal and are not expected to exceed the historical trends.

Table 3. UMRR Annual Liquid Releases Year Activity (mci) Volume (Gallons) 83-84 0.198 8985 -l 84-85 0.257 4650 i 85-86 0.020 3255 li 86-87 0.076 3255 87-88 0.332 6310 l 88-89 0.369 3720 h 89-90 0.014 500 90-91 1.411 38080 91-92 0.263 10678 92-93 0.761' 11122 93-94 0.004 214 94-95 0.000 55 96 0.000 0 96-97 0.000 0 97-98 0.000 0 l 9R-99 0.000 0 Average 0.232 5677 Solid radioactive waste generated during normal reactor operations typically includes ion exchange resins, peol filters, gloves, paper, and low activity samples from laboratory experiments. Solid 5

. .. . 1 l

waste is packaged in accordance with applicable NRC and DOT regulations and is transferred to the campus Materials License and then moved to the Radiation Safety Hazardous Waste Building for future disposal in accordance with applicable regulations. Table 4 presents the historical annual solid releases since 1984. As the data in Table 4 shows, the volume and gross activities associated with solid waste is minimal. Future solid releases are not expected to be significantly different from 1

the historical trends.

i Table 4. UMRR Annual Solid Waste Releases Year Volume (ft') Activity (uCi) J 83-84 0.0 0.0 ,

84-85 37.5 1.0 l 85-86 0.0 0.0 86-87 7.5 1.0 87-88 0.0 0.0 88-89 0.0 0.0 89-90 0.0 0.0  ;

I 90-91 67.5 1000.0 91-92 0.0 0.0 92-93 15.0 114.0 93-94 15.0 5.5 94-95 7.5 5.5 95-96 10.0 7.8E-03  ;

96-97 19.3 2.9 97-98 0.0 0.0 98-99 24.0 7.7F-03 Average 12.7 70.6 i

3.0 Impact Of Proposed Action On Environment There will be absolutely no impact on the environment resulting from the proposed action. The proposed action simply changes the effective expiration date of the license from November,1999 6

L

e p 6

• to January,2005.

o If the proposed action is denied, a license renewal application will be made in a timely fashion and the license will go into a status of timely renewal. It is anticipated that the license will most likely be in a status of timely renewal for several years before the license is reissued. We are confident that the relicensing process will be successful and that a new license will be issued. Therefore, normal i

reactor operations are expected to continue during this time frame (i.e.1999 to 2005) regardless of whether the proposed action is approved or not. Therefore, the impact on the environment will be I unchanged.

I The environmental impacts of normal reactor operations have been addressed above and have been shown to be insignificant.

' 4.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action The alternr.tive so the proposed action, which simply extends the license expiration date to November

-20,2004, is to not extend the expiration date. In such an instance, the facility administration would submit a license renewal application in the Fall of 1999. As such, the reactor facility would go into

" timely renewal" and the facility would continue to operate in the same mode as it has over the past many years. Therefore, the environmental impacts of the facility are identical regardless of whether or not the proposed action is implemented.

If the proposed action is denied, then an undue hardship will be imposed upon the UMRR and the NRC staff by requiring us to go through the time consuming and human resource intensive process  :

oflicense renewal only 14 years after the previous license renewal. Because the license renewal process is very resource intensive, we believe that the process should not be initiated any more frequently than necessary. The proposed action seeks to establish a time period of 20 years from the date of the last license renewal as a reasonable time before reinitiating the license renewal process. )

In fact,'it can be argued that not granting the proposed action wi'i adversely impact the environment 7

m

in terms of wasting significant amounts of paper, electricity, human resources, ink, pencils, etc. by requiring the license renewal process at intervals more frequently than necessary, i

5.0 Conclusion .

There will be no significant environmental impacts associated with granting of the proposed action.

The benefits will be significant in that the undue burden and use of resources for the license renewal process will be minimized. If the proposed action is granted, facility resources can be used towards promoting nuclear science and engineering education and research instead of on relicensing activities. This is a crucial time for the UMR Reactor Facility. It is imperative that we show strong utilization in research and education over the next few years. Granting of the proposed action will free up our resources for use on the challenges that face us without adversely effecting the environment.

i l

i 8 )

l 1

)

p