[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 82 (Tuesday, April 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23280-23282]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-10973]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-297]


Environmental Assessment and Notice of Finding of No Significant 
Environmental Impact Regarding Proposed Renewal of Facility License No. 
R-120, North Carolina State University

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to renew for 20 years Facility 
License No. R-120 for the North Carolina State University (NCSU or the 
licensee) PULSTAR Research Reactor located on the NCSU campus in 
Raleigh, North Carolina.

Environmental Assessment

    This environmental assessment is written in connection with the 
proposed renewal for 20 years of the facility license of the NCSU 
PULSTAR Research Reactor (PULSTAR) at Raleigh, North Carolina, in 
response to a timely application from the licensee dated August 19, 
1988; as supplemented on January 2, April 17, and December 18, 1989; 
April 17 and July 18, 1990; January 25, 1991; November 30, 1992; 
September 15, 1995; and October 4, November 25, and December 30, 1996. 
The proposed action would authorize continued operation of the reactor. 
The facility has been in operation since Facility License No. R-120 was 
issued in 1972. 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.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is required to authorize continued operation of 
the reactor so that the facility can continue to be used in the 
licensee's mission of research.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since we have concluded that there is no significant environmental 
impact associated with this license renewal, any alternatives will 
either have no

[[Page 23281]]

significant impact or greater impact than the proposed action.
    An alternative to the proposed action that was considered was not 
renewing the operating license. This alternative would have led to 
cessation of operations, and decommissioning of the facility, with a 
resulting change in status and a likely small impact on the 
environment.
    Another alternative is to take no action on the request for 
extension. The facility license would not be deemed to have expired 
until the application has been finally processed (10 CFR 2.109). To 
take no action on the applicant's request would not be responsive; 
therefore, this alternative is rejected.

Environmental Impact

    The PULSTAR 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.
    On the basis of 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) 
for this action, ``Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Renewal of 
the Operating License for the Research Reactor at North Carolina State 
University'' (NUREG-1572), it is concluded that renewal of this 
facility license will have an insignificant environmental impact. 
Although judged insignificant, operating features with the greatest 
potential environmental impact are summarized below.
    Argon-41, a product from neutron irradiation of air during 
operation, is the principal airborne radioactive effluent from the 
PULSTAR during routine operations. Conservative calculations by the 
staff, based on the average total amount of argon-41 released from the 
reactor during the last several years, predict a maximum potential 
annual whole-body dose of less than 1 millirem in unrestricted areas. 
Radiation exposure rates measured outside the reactor facility building 
are consistent with this computation. For continuous reactor operation, 
the licensee conservatively estimates a maximum potential annual whole-
body dose of about 25 millirem in unrestricted areas.
    The staff has considered hypothetical credible accidents at the 
PULSTAR 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 (less than 1 mrem for the maximum hypothetical 
accident) to the environment or the public.
    This conclusion is based on the following:

    (a) The maximum reactivity for any single experiment allowed 
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 1000 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 three 
fuel pins will not lead to radiation exposures in the unrestricted 
environment that exceed guideline values 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 at power levels up to and 
including 2 MW(t) and that an environmental impact 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 PULSTAR 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 to perform the safety evaluation of 
continued operation of the PULSTAR. The staff consulted with the North 
Carolina State official regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the foregoing environmental assessment, the 
Commission 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 August 19, 1988, as supplemented. 
These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20037.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of April 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, 
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.

Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research 
Reactors and Critical Facilities

Introduction

    This discussion deals with research reactors and critical 
facilities that 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 and experiments 
associated with nuclear engineering, training, and as a part of a 
nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will generally 
not exceed a 5-day week of 8-hour days, or about 2000 hours 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, these 
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 
facilities that 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, that are similar to those 
required in other similar facilities, specifically laboratories. Heat 
dissipation, if required, is generally accomplished by use of a cooling 
tower located next to or on the roof of the building. These cooling 
towers typically are on the order of 10 by 10 by 10 feet 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. Makeup for the cooling 
system is readily available and

[[Page 23282]]

usually obtained from the local water supply.
    Radioactive gaseous effluents during normal operations are limited 
to argon-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 before 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 packed and shipped offsite for disposal or 
storage at NRC-approved sites. The transportation of such waste is done 
in accordance with existing NRC and Department of Transportation 
regulations in approved shipping containers.
    Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those 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 a similar research facility.

Environmental Effects of Facility Operation

    Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 Mw(t) 
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 generated by neutron activation of air. In most cases, this 
release 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 
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 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.
    On the basis of experience with other research reactors, 
specifically TRIGA reactors operating in the 1-to-2-Mw(t) range, the 
annual release of gaseous 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 aesthetics, noise, 
or societal effects 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 their 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 or irretrievable commitment is associated with such 
facilities.

Costs and Benefits of Facility Alternatives

    The costs of facility alternatives are on the order of several 
millions of dollars and have 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 a power level of 2 Mw(t) or lower and 
that no environmental impact statements must be written for the 
issuance of construction permits, operating licenses, or license 
renewals for such facilities.

    Dated: December 3, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-10973 Filed 4-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P