ML20235N857
| ML20235N857 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute |
| Issue date: | 07/07/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235N799 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707200252 | |
| Download: ML20235N857 (6) | |
Text
. . l
% 1 ,
[ #
UNITED STATES i Ek 3 ksg! i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASWNGTON, D. C 20555
- y..v...f o
b rf !
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CRITICAL EXPERIMENT FACILITY OF l
RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE LICENSE NO. CX-22 DOCKET NO. 50-225 l
l Description of Proposed Action -
This Environmental Assessment is written in connection with the proposed Order j to modify the license to convert from high-enriched uranium (HEU) to lov-i enriched uranium (LEU) fuel at the Rensselaer Critical Experiment Facility l (RCF) of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) of Troy, New York. _
The RCF reactor operates in an existing water tank inside an existing single-purpose building, so this Order would lead to no change in the physical <
environment. The RCF reactor has been operating on an intermittent schedule at power levels not exceeding 100 watts since the initial construction in 1956, and under RPI management since initial licensing in 1964.
..._q Need for the Proposed Action The Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 50.64, requires that non-power reactors ._5 convert to an LEU fuel except under certain conditions, which do not apply in this case. --
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The licensee has the funding for conversion and the appropriate LEU fuel is
! available. The only other alternative is for the licensee to seek another type of LEU fuel; however, the fuel selection meets the license.e's needs and is environmentally acceptable.
Environmental Impact of Conversion to LEU Fuel e
Although judged insignificant, operating features with the greatest potential environmental impact are summarized below.
l Argon-41, produced by neutron irradiation of air dur'ing operation, is the principal airborne radioactive effluent from the RCF reactor 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 areas, The -
radiation exposure rates measured by environmental monitors located near the fence of the exclusion area of the reacter facility are consistent with this.
8707200252 ADOCK 870707 0500 , 5 DR
4 .
% a .
1 The staff has considered hypothetical credible accidents at the RCF 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.
This conclusion is cased on the following: ,
(1) The excess reactivity available under the Technical Specifications l is insufficient to support a reactor transient generating enough !
energy to cause overheating of the fuel or loss of integrity of the .l cladding. e (2) The analysis of the maximum hypothetical accident, which is the fuel i handling accident, indicates that evera if the cladding of several fuel pins failed simultaneously, the potential dose equivalents in restricted ,
and unrestricted areas would be significantly below the guideline values _
of 10.CFR Part 20. _.
(3) Becaus[trf the low (100 watt) power level and the intermittent operation, the inventory of radioactive fission products in the fuel is never sufficient to cause offsite radiation exposures exceeding the guideline limits of 10 CFR 20, even 1,f sone release should occur.
In addition to the analysis in the safety evaluation 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 5 evaluation. This evaluaticn concludes that there will be no significant "
environmental impact associated with the operation of research reactors licensed -.
to operate at power levels up to and including 2 MWt and that an environmental impact statement is not required for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such facilities. The staff has determined that this !
generic evaluation is applicable to operation of the RCF reactor with LEU fuel, ,
and that there are no special or unique features that would preclude reliance l on the generic evaluation. J Agencies and Persens Consulted The staff has obtained the technical assistance of the Ideho National I Engineering Laboratory in performing the safety evaluation of the conversion from HEU to LEU fuel at the RCF.
I Conclusion and Basis for No Significant Impact Finding On the basis of the foregoing considerations, the staff has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to the conversion from -
Principal Contributor: T. S. Michaels Dated: July 7,1987
Enclosure:
As rtated e
s a .
dC E. 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 pcwer 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 j s a part of the nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will 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 sbout 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year.
I Such reartors are located adjacent to technical service support facilities i
i with convenient access for students and faculty. .4 Sited most frequently on the campus of large universities, the reactors are ,
usually housed in already existing structures, appropriately modified, or j
placed in new buildings that are designed 'and constructed to blend in with i existing facilities.
1 Facilitv -
+ I I There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures i
or transmission lines attached to or adjacent to the facility other than l
utility service facilities which are similar to tnose required in other campus )
facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat, dissipation is generally accom-i i
plished by use of a cooling tower located on the roof of the building. These cooling to'.ers are on the order o' 10' x 10' x 10' and are comparable to teoling.
towers associated vith the air-conditioning system of large office buildings.
Make up for this 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. These liquid wastes are collected in storage tanks 2 to allow for decay and monitoring prior to dilution and release to the 1
?
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3__. . _ _ _ _ _ _
s s .
'l i* ;
1 1
sanitary sewer systems. . Solid radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped I off-site for storage at NRC approved sites. The transportation of sucn, waste f is done in accordance with existing NRC-DOT regulations in approved shipping containers. I
~'
Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those existing at other university laboratories and buildings. . !
Environmental Effects of Site Precar'ation and Facility Construction !
Construction of such facilities invariably cccurs in areas that have already -
been disturbed by other uni'versity building construction and in some cases
'\ solely within an already existing building. Therefore, construction would not be expected to have any significant affect on the terrain, vegetation, j wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The societal, economic and esthetic impacts of construction would be no greater than that associated with the' construction of a large office building or similar university facility.
EnvironmentalEffectsofFacilityOceration Release of thermal effluents from" a reactor of less than 2 MWt sill not have a significant effect on the environment. This small amount of waste heat is j
l' 1
generally rejected to the atmosphere by means of small ecoling towers.
) Extensive drift and/or fog will not occur at this low power level.
l l
l Release of routine gaseous .ef fluent can be limited to Ar 41 which is generated by neutron activation of air. This will be kept as low as practicable by l minimum air ventilation of the tubes. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be at or below established limits. Routine releaseslof radioactive I
liquid ef fluents can be carefully monitored and controlled in a manner that will ensure compliance with current standards. Sclid radioactive wastes will be shipped to an authorized disposal site in approvec containers. These wastes should not amount to more than a few shipping containers a year.
Based on experience with other research reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors, [
operating in the 1 to 2 HWt range, the annual release of gaseous and liquid s
2
?
e , e~e
t 4 .
2 effluents to unrestricted areas should be less than 30 curies and 0.01 curies )
re sr.ecti ve ly. .,
No release of potent' ally harmful chemical substances will occur during normal
~
operation. Saa11 cmounts of chemica1s and/or high-solid content water may be _
released from the f acility through the sanitary sewer during periodic blowdown of cooling tower or from laboratory experiments.
- l Other potential ef fects of the facility, such as esthetics, noise, societal l
or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to be too small to measure. i l
i Environmental Effects of Accident:5 i
I l
Accicents ranging from the failure of experiments up to the largest core damage and fission product release consicered possible result in doses of _i I
1 only a.small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and are considered -
i negligible with respect to the environment. ,
i Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction and Ooeration e
The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involves the materials ,
used in construction that cannot be recovered .end the fissionable material f5 used in the reactor. He adverse impact on thb environment is expected from _
either of these unavoidable effects.
Alternatives to Construction and Ooeration of the Facility To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, there are no suittble alternatives. Some of these objectives are training of student: in I
j ,
the operation of reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct experiments.
( Leno-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Ooeration
} -
i The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to be beneficial $
l as a result of the centributinn to scientific knowledge and training, d
~
s s
. l e
l t Because of the relatively low amount of capital resources involved and the -'
small impact on the environment very little irreversible and irretrievable commitment is associated with such facilities.
Costs and Berg. fits of Tacility and 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
{
j combination of the following: conduct of activation analyses, gonduct of 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 more costly and less efficient. There is no reasonable alternative to a nuclear research reactor for conoucting this' spectrum of activities. '
Conclusion The staff concludes that there.will be no significant environmental impact associated with the licensing of research'reectors or critical facilities designed to operate at power leysis of 2 MWt or icwer and that no environmental 1 impact statements are required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for such f acilities. --
l 1
e O
il k
l
~4 :
- 1
== 7