ML20210D955
| ML20210D955 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Rolla |
| Issue date: | 07/23/1999 |
| From: | Marsh L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210D945 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907280084 | |
| Download: ML20210D955 (7) | |
Text
u g-i 7590-01-P l
i UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
1 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. ROLLA DOCKET NO. 50-123 i
NUCLEAR RESEARCH REACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering the l
issuance of a license amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-79, issued to University of Missouri, Rolla (the licensee) for operation of the University of Missouri, Rolla Research Reactor (UMRR).
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT l
Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would allow extension of the license expiration time from November 20,1999, to January 14,2005, for the UMRR as requested by the licensee on i
i May 24,1999, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90. The licensee l
submitted an Environmental Report on June 24,1999.
Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary for the continued operation of the UMRR in order to continue instruction, training, and research at the University of Missouri, Rolla, a
EnvironmentalImpact of the Proposed Action The UMRR is located at the University of Missouri, Rolla campus in a metal building on the east side of the campus near 14* Street and Pine Street.
l To07"IN P
E5kNES ,
g e
The UI inh is a low power (200 kilowatts), pool-type research reactor (200 kilowatts). The NRC licensed the facility in 1961 at 10 kilowatts and increased maximum authorized power level to 200 kilowatts in 1966. The facility license was renewed in 1985. Since about 1985, the facility has operated about 9 megawatt-hours per year on average. During that time, the gaseous radiological release has been about 100 millicuries / year of Argon-41. Liquid releases have been minimized and radiological liquid releases have been eliminated since about 1994. Solid releases of radioactive material have averaged about 70 microcuries since about 1985. Currently, there are no plans to change any operating characteristics of the reactor during the license extension period.
The Commission concludes that the radiological effects of the continued operation will be minimal based on past radiological releases. The radiological exposures for facility operations have been within regulatory limits. Conditions are not expected to change.
With regard to potential non-radiologicalimpacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological effluents and has no other environmentalimpact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
In addition, the environmentalimpact 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 environmentalimpact associated with the operation of research reactors licensed to l
7
?* >
1 .
1 .
l 3-operate at power levels up to and including 2 megawatts thermal and that an EnvironmentalImpact 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 UMRR and that there are no special or unique features that would preclude reliance on the generic evaluation.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The alternative to the proposed action for the Research Reactor Facility is to deny the application (i.e., "no action" alternative). If this were the case, the licensee has I
indicated that they would apply for license renewal and operate under the timely renewal i
provisions of 10 CFR 2.109 until the Commission renewed or denied the license renewal application. With operation under timely renewal or renewal, the actual conditions of the reactor would not change. If the Commission denied license renewal, UMRR Operations would stop and decommissioning would be required with a likely small impact on the environment.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Environmental Assessment prepared for the renewal of University of Missouri, Rolla's license in. January 1985.
t
1 -
l J
Aaencies and Persons Contacted On June 30,1999, the staff consulted with the Missouri Environmental Public
' Health Official, Gary McNutt, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action.
The state official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human .
I environment. Ace'erdingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environment .!;mpact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licent.ee's letter l dated May 24,1999, as supplemented in a letter dated J.ine 24,1999, which are l available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman l
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of July 1999.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Ledyard B. Marsh, Chief Events Assessment, Generic Communications, and I Non-Power Reactors Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
f.-
r .
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING OF RESEARCH REACTORS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction '
This^ discussion deals with research reactnrs 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 curriculur. Operation of such facilities will generally not exceed a 5-day week, 8-hour d6y, 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 placed in new buildings that are designed and constructed to blend in with existing facilities. However, the environmental considerations discussed herein are not limited to those which are part of universities.
Facility There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the facility other than for 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.
Make-up for the cooling system is readily available and usually ob'tained from the local water supply. Radioactive gaseous effluents are limited to Ar-4) 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 waste systems are similar to those existino at other similar laboratories and buildings.
E.
1 i
-?-
Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and Facility Construction Construction of such facilities invariably occurs ir aas that have already been disturbed by other building construction and, ir, .,ome cases, solely within an already existing building. Therefore, construction would not be ;
l expected to have any significant effect on the terrain, vegetation, wildlife {
or nearby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic a'nd esthetic impacts, of construction would be no greater than those associated with the construction of a large officc building or similar research facility.
i Environmental Effects of Facility Operation Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less that 2 MWt will not have l 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-tensive drift and/or fog will not occur at this low power level.
i l
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 l 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 l controlle,d in a manner that will ensure compliance with current standards. Solid '
l radioactive wastes will be shipped to an authorized disposal site in approved containers. These wastes should not require more than a few shipping containers l a year. -
Based on experient with other research reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors operating in the I 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 harmful 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' Accidents ranging from the failure of experiments up to the largest core darane 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 environnent.
. m g', - ;e i
)
- 3.-
[ .
l Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construcffon and Operation i
The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involve the materials used in construction that cannot be recovered and the fissionable material
.used in the reactor. No adverse impact on the environment is expectect from-I either of these unavoidable effects.
AlternativestoConstructionandOperationoftheFacQ1A To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of str4nts in the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
Long-Tem Effects of Facility Construction and Operation The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial as a restilt of the contribution to scientific knowledge and training. Because of the relatively small amount of capital resources involved and the small 1 impact on the environment, very little irreversible and irretrievable commit-ment is-assettated 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 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 activites.
I Concic un -
The staff concludes that there will be no significarit 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 impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities.
l l
1 i
E J