[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 77 (Friday, April 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20339-20341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-9825]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-73]


General Electric Company, Nuclear Test Reactor; Environmental 
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-33, issued 
to the General Electric Company (the licensee or GE) for operation of 
the General Electric Nuclear Test Reactor (NTR or the facility) located 
in Sunol, California.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would renew the license for the NTR for 20 
years from the date of issuance of the license amendment. The proposed 
action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment 
dated September 30, 1997, as supplemented on June 18, 1999, August 23, 
1999, June 1, 2000, and October 5, 2000. The licensee submitted an 
Environmental Report for license renewal.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow continued operation of the 
NTR beyond the current term of the license in order to continue 
research and development using neutrons for experimental purposes.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    The NTR is in Building 105 within the approximately 1600 acre (6.4 
square kilometers) Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) near Pleasanton, 
California. GE owns the VNC site for nuclear research and development. 
GE normally leases about 1500 acres (6.1 km\2\) of the site for grazing 
and for cattle feed crops. The land surrounding the site is primarily 
used for agriculture and cattle raising. Building 105 has laboratories, 
offices and workshops and is surrounded by similar facilities in the 
immediate area.
    On October 24, 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued 
Construction Permit No. CPRR-19, to GE. This permit authorized GE to 
construct the NTR at its VNC site in Southern Alameda County, 
California. On October 31, 1957, the AEC issued Facility Operating 
License No. R-33, authorizing GE to operate the reactor at steady-state 
power levels up to 30 kW(t). The reactor first reached criticality on 
November 15, 1957. On July 22, 1969, the license was amended 
authorizing GE to operate the reactor at steady-state power levels not 
in excess of 100 kW(t), and renewing the license. The facility license 
was renewed again on December 28, 1984, with an expiration date of 
October 31, 1997. The licensee applied for renewal on September 30, 
1997, and, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the license remains in 
effect. At each renewal, the facility description, organization and 
safety evaluation were updated. The reactor has operated about 139 
megawatt-days for the first 39 years since initial licensing (Safety 
Analysis Report (SAR) section 4.4.1). Facility modifications have been 
minor. The licensee has not indicated any plans to change the design or 
usage significantly. The radioactive releases from the NTR have been 
well within regulatory limits of 10 CFR Part 20. The facility typically 
has 1 liter per year of radioactive liquid waste (SAR section 11.1.1.2) 
that is due to sampling. This liquid waste is transferred to monitored 
tanks. Solid radioactive releases are estimated to be less than 3 cubic 
feet or 0.085 cubic meters per year (SAR section 11.1.1.3). The 
radioactive content of this waste is measured in the millicurie or 
108 becquerels range. Solid waste is transferred to separate 
State and NRC licenses held by the GE. Liquid and solid radioactive 
material has been transferred and disposed of in accordance with the 
requirements of the licensee's byproduct license. Any necessary 
releases will be similarly treated. Currently, the licensee has no 
plans to change any operating or radioactive 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 and are expected to remain within regulatory limits.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types 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.
    With regard to potential non radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It 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 
discussed 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 NTR and that 
there are no special or unique features that would preclude reliance on 
the generic evaluation.

[[Page 20340]]

    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, NTR operations would stop and 
decommissioning would be required with no significant benefit to the 
environment. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
alternative are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the safety analysis and evaluation for 
operating license renewal in 1984 and the ``Environmental Assessment 
for the General Electric Company--Nuclear Test Reactor License No. R-
33, Docket No. 50-73,'' dated November 9, 1984.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    On October 24 and 27, 2000, the staff consulted with the California 
Department of Health Official, Steve Hsu, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comment.

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 September 30, 1997, as supplemented on June 18, 
1999, August 23, 1999, June 1, 2000, and October 5, 2000. 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. Publicly available records will also be 
accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on 
the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 13th day of April, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Chief, Events Assessment, Generic Communications, and Non-Power 
Reactors Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, 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 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 curriculum. Operation of such facilities will 
generally not exceed a 5-day week, 8-hour day, 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, 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 accomplished 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 
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. Solid 
radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped offsite 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.

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 a large 
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.
    Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to Ar-41, 
which is generated by neutron activation of air. Even this will be 
kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for 
supporting experiments. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be 
at or below established guidelines in 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.
    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 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 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 guidelines 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.

[[Page 20341]]

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 or 
operating licenses for such facilities.

[FR Doc. 01-9825 Filed 4-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P