ML20246M709
| ML20246M709 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dow Chemical Company |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1989 |
| From: | Chris Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246M650 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905190223 | |
| Download: ML20246M709 (8) | |
Text
. _ _
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE OF FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REGARDING PROPOSED RENEWAL OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-108 DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-264 s
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance I
of an amendment to facility Operating License No. R-108 for the Dow Chemical Company TRIGA Mark I research reactor located on the Dow Chemical Company site (thelicensee)inMidland, Michigan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This Environmental Assessment is written in connection with the proposed renewal for 20 years of the facility operating license of the Dow Chemical Company TRIGA Mark I research reactor (DTRR) at Midland, Michigan, in response to a timely application from the licensee dated November 14, 1986, as supplemented on June 2, 1987, August 14, 1987, April 29, 1988, and January 10, 1989. The proposed action would authorize continued operation of the reactor with an increase in authorized power level from 100 to 300 kilowatts (thermal). The facility has been in operation since Facility Operating License No. R-108 was issued in 1967. 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 power level will not require any additional equipment.
g51Q Q $$
4 P
. Need for the Proposed Action The operating license for the facility was due to expire in December 1986.
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 operat'ing license. This alternative would have led to cessation of operations, with a resulting chinge 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 identical impact on the environment as the proposed action.
Environmental Impact The DTRR operates in an existing shielded pool of water inside an existing multiple-purpose building, so this licensing action would lead to no change in the physical environment.
Based on the review of the specific facility operating characteristics that'are considered for potential impact on the environment, as set forth in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER)I for this action, it is concluded that renewal of this facility operating license at an increased power level
, ill have an insignificant environmental impact. Although tiged insignificant, w
operating features with the greatest potential environmental impact are summarized below.
I NUREG-1312, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of the Facility Operating License for the Research Reactor at the Dow Chemical Company.
4, e
, Argon-41, a product from neutron irradiation of air during operation, is the principal airborne radioactive effluent from the DTRR during routine operations. 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 Radiation exposure rates measured outside of the reactor facility areas.
building are consistent with this computation.
The staff has considered hyp'othetical credible accidents at the DTRR 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:
a) the excess reactivity available under the technical specifications 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 300 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 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 guide-line valuas of 10 CFR Part 20.
In addition to the analyses in the SER summarized above, the environmental impact 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
i f
a
,. I atpowerlevelsuptoandincluding2MW(t)andthatanEnvironmentalImpact Statement is not required for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities. We have determined that this generic evaluation 1
is applicable to operation of the DTRR 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 DTRR facility.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon foregoing environmental assessment, the Comission 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 November 14, 1986, as supplemented on June 2, 1987, August 14, 1987, April 29, 1988, and January 10, 1989.
These documents are available for public inspection at the Comission's j
1
- s 5-l 9
Public Document Room, 21.20 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555.
Dated at Rockville, Marylan( this 20th day of April 1989.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
UW Charics L. Miller Director Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III IV, s
V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9
i i
_m._-_---_
__..-.-mm____.__
- L,*,,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE LICENSING OF RESEARCH REACTORS AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Introduction i
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 research in neutron physics, neutron radiography, isotope production, experiments associated with nuclear engineering, training and as a part of a nuclear physics curriculuin. 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 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 herela 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, if required, is generally accomplished by use of a ecoling tower located next to or 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. Heat dissipation may also be accomplished by transfer through a heat exchanger to water flowing directly to a sewer or a chilled water system. 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 sanitary sewer system. This liquid waste may also be solidifi.ed and disposed of as solid waste. 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 existing at other similar laboratories and buildings.
- A,*
a.
2 Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and Facility Construction Construction of such facilitie: invariably occur in arcas that have already been disturbed by other building construction and, in some cases, solely within an already existing building. Therefore, construction would not be expected to have any significant effects on tha terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nurby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and esthetic irnpacts of construction would be no greater than those associated with the construction of a large office building or similar research facility.
Envir_onmental Effects of Facility Operation Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less that 2 W(t) will not have a significant effect on the environtrant. This'small amount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by means of small cooling tnwers.
Extentive drift and/or fog will not. occur at this low powar level. The small 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 f
by neutron activation of air.
In most cases, this will be kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for supporting experiments.
Experiments that_are supported by air are designed to minimize production of Ar-41. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established guidelines in 10 CFR 20 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 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 W(t) range, the annual release of gasecus and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curie, 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 damage 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.
i
- . Lie.
o l 1
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 material 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 accomplish the objectives' associated with research reactors, there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of students in the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
Logg-Term Effects of Fac_ility Construction and Operation The long-term effects of research faci 11 tics 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 corraitment is associated with such facilities.
Costs and Benefit's of Facility Alternatives
'The costs are on the order of several milli.as 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 those 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 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 MW(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.
Dated: August 8, 1988 l
l
)
___--.__.-_.___________,,m.
_ _ _ _. _ _. _