[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 69 (Friday, April 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18988-18990]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-8046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-284]
Idaho State University Research Reactor Facility Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the
issuance of an amendment for Facility Operating License No. R-110,
issued to the Idaho State University (the licensee or ISU) for
operation of the Idaho State University Reactor Facility (ISURF)
located in Pocatello, Bannock County, Idaho.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
Renewal of the license (the proposed action) would allow an
additional 20 years of operation for the Idaho State University Reactor
Facility (ISURF). The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's application for amendment dated November 21, 1995, as
supplemented on January 31, 2003 and July 10, 2003. The licensee
submitted an Environmental Report for license renewal. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental
assessment and finding of no significant impact.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow continued operation of the
ISURF to continue educational training and academic research beyond the
current term of the license.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The research reactor is on the campus of the Idaho State University
in the Lillibridge Engineering Laboratory. Lillibridge Engineering
Laboratory has research and teaching laboratories, lecture halls,
classrooms, library/study room, offices, and workshops. It is
surrounded by similar facilities in the immediate area.
The ISURF is authorized by an NRC license to operate at steady-
state thermal power levels up to a maximum of 5 watts(t). The operating
license was issued on October 11, 1967. Facility modifications have
been minor as outlined in the SAR. The licensee has not indicated any
plans to significantly change the design or usage. Since initial
operation, the gaseous Argon-41 radiological release has been
conservatively estimated to be less than 185,000 becquerels per year (5
microcuries per year). Average concentrations of Argon-41 are
conservatively estimated to be less than 1.0 x 10-12
microcuries/milliliter. This concentration is well below the 10 CFR 20,
Appendix B, Table 2 limit of 1.0 x 10\8\ microcuries/milliliter. Since
1992, the facility has had no radiological liquid or solid radiological
releases. Material has been stored as required. Radioactive waste has
been transferred and disposed of following the requirements of the
licensee's byproduct license. Currently, there are no plans to change
any operating or radiological release practices or characteristics of
the reactor during the license renewal period.
The NRC concludes that conditions are not expected to change and
that the radiological effects of the continued operation will continue
to be minimal. The radiological exposures for facility operations have
been within regulatory limits and should remain so.
Currently, there are no plans to change any operating or
radiological release practices or characteristics of the reactor during
the license renewal period. The NRC concludes that conditions are not
expected to change and that the radiological effects of operation
during the renewal period will continue to be minimal.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or
amounts of any effluents that may be released off-site, and there is no
significant increase to occupational or public radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
Potential non-radiological impacts related to the proposed action
were evaluated. The license renewal does not involve any historic
sites. The facility is wholly located within the Lillibridge building
on the campus of Idaho State University. The licensee does not plan any
major refurbishment activities, therefore, there will be no new
[[Page 18989]]
construction or ground disturbance. The proposed license renewal does
not affect non-radiological facility effluents and has no other
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
In addition, the environmental impact associated with operation of
research reactors has been generically evaluated by the staff and is
given in the attached generic evaluation. This evaluation concludes
that no significant environmental impact is associated with the
operation of research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up
to and including 2 megawatts thermal. The NRC staff has determined that
this generic evaluation is applicable to operation of the ISURF and,
that there are no special or unique features that would preclude
reliance on the generic evaluation.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). If
the NRC denied license renewal, ISURF operations would stop with no
change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed action and alternative action are similar.
Agencies and Persons Contacted
On November 13, 2003, the staff consulted with the Idaho State
official, Mr. Doug Walker, Senior Health Physicist, Department of
Environmental Quality, 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 NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 21, 1995, as amended on January 31,
2003, and July 10, 2003. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The NRC
maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS),
which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
Documents from November 24, 1999, may be accessed through the NRC's
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the
NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-
415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of March 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Marvin M. Mendonca,
Acting Chief, Research and Test Reactors Section, New, Research and
Test Reactors Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Attachment to Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research
Reactors and Critical Facilities
Introduction
This discussion deals with research reactors and critical
facilities designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MWt and lower.
These small research reactors 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. Generally, these facilities are operated
less than 8 hours per day and fewer than 5 days per week, or about 2000
hours per year. These reactors are located adjacent to technical
service support facilities with convenient access for students and
faculty.
These reactors are usually housed in appropriately modified
existing structures, or placed in new buildings that are designed and
constructed to blend in with existing facilities on the campuses of
large universities. However, the environmental considerations discussed
herein are not limited to those facilities 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 a heat exchanger
whose secondary side includes a cooling tower located on the roof of or
nearby the reactor building. The size of these cooling towers typically
are on the order of 10 ft by 10 ft by 10 ft (3 m by 3 m by 3 m) 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 during normal operations are usually
limited to argon-41. 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 or the environment. This liquid
waste may also be solidified and disposed of as solid waste. Solid
radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped offsite for storage or
disposal 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.
Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and Facility Construction
Construction of such facilities invariably occurs in areas 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 effect on
the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The
societal, economic and aesthetic impacts of construction would be no
greater than those associated with the construction of an office
building or similar research facility.
Environmental Effects of Facility Operation
Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 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. Extensive drift and/or fog will not occur at this low
power 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 argon-41,
which is
[[Page 18990]]
generated 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 argon-41. Yearly doses to persons in
unrestricted areas will be at or below established 10 CFR part 20
limits. Routine releases of radioactive liquid effluents can be
carefully monitored and controlled in a manner that will ensure
compliance with the regulations. Solid radioactive wastes will be
shipped in approved containers to an authorized disposal site or to a
facility licensed to treat and consolidate radioactive waste. 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 (1,110,000 MBq) and 0.01 curies (370 MBq), 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. The quality of secondary cooling water may be maintained
using biocides, corrosion inhibitors and pH control chemicals. The use
of these chemicals for this purpose is approved by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The small amounts of laboratory chemicals that
may be used in research laboratories are disposed of in accordance with
EPA and state requirements.
Other potential effects of the facility, such as aesthetics, 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 limits and are considered
negligible with respect to the environment.
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.
Long-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Operation
The long-term effects of research facilities 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 commitment is associated 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 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 levels of 2 MWt or lower and
that no environmental impact statements are required to be written for
the issuance of construction permits, operating licenses or license
renewals for such facilities.
Revised: March 30, 2004.
[FR Doc. 04-8046 Filed 4-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P