[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34770-34773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14665]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[Docket No. 50-225; NRC-2008-0277]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Critical Experiments Facility;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating License No. CX-22,
to be held by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI, the licensee),
which would authorize continued operation of the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute Critical Experiments Facility (RCF), located in Schenectady,
Schenectady County, New York. Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 51.21, the NRC is issuing
this Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact.
[[Page 34771]]
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. CX-
22 for a period of twenty years from the date of issuance of the
renewed license. The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's application dated November 19, 2002, as supplemented by
letters dated July 21, July 28, and September 3, 2008; June 28, August
31, October 14, and October 28, 2010; and February 14 and May 9, 2011.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the existing license remains in effect
until the NRC takes final action on the renewal application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of
the RCF to routinely provide teaching, research, and services to
numerous institutions for a period of 20 years.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed
action to issue a renewed Facility Operating License No. CX-22 to allow
continued operation of the RCF for a period of twenty years and
concludes there is reasonable assurance that the RCF will continue to
operate safely for the additional period of time specified in the
renewed license. The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will
be provided with the renewed license that will be issued as part of the
letter to the licensee approving the license renewal application. This
document contains the environmental assessment of the proposed action.
The RCF is located on the south bank of the Mohawk River,
approximately 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) northwest of the main
RPI campus. The building housing the RCF is a stand-alone concrete
structure previously owned by the American Locomotive Company. An
exhaust stack discharges RCF ventilation 15 meters (m) (50 feet (ft))
above ground level. A chain-link fence and controlled access gates
enclose the exclusion area surrounding the building. The exclusion area
measures approximately 30 m (100 ft) by 30 m (100 ft). The nearest
permanent residence is located 350 m (1150 ft) to the southeast.
The RCF is a light-water-moderated critical facility licensed to
operate at a maximum steady-state power level of 100 watts thermal
power (W(t)). The core is located in a 7600 liter (l) (2000 gallon
(gal)) stainless steel tank with an inner diameter of 2.1 m (7 ft). The
reactor is fueled with low enriched uranium SPERT fuel pins. Reactivity
control is provided by four Boron-10 control rods. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found in the RCF Safety Analysis
Report (SAR). There have been no major modifications to the facility
operating license since Amendment No. 7, dated July 7, 1987, which
ordered the licensee to convert the reactor to use low-enriched uranium
fuel.
The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design
or operating conditions as part of the application for license renewal.
No changes are being made in the types or quantities of effluents that
may be released off site. The licensee implements a radiation
protection program to monitor personnel exposures and radiation dose at
the site boundary. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation,
the radiation protection program is appropriate for the types and
quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued operation
of the reactor. Accordingly, there would be no increase in routine
occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of license
renewal. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the
proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. Therefore, license renewal would not change
the environmental impact of facility operation. The NRC staff evaluated
information contained in the licensee's application and data reported
to the NRC by the licensee for the last five years of operation to
determine the projected radiological impact of the facility on the
environment during the period of the renewed license. The NRC staff
finds that releases of radioactive material and personnel exposures
were all well within applicable regulatory limits, and often below
detection limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff concludes
that continued operation of the reactor should not have a significant
environmental impact.
I. Radiological Impact
Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations
Gaseous effluents are discharged from the reactor room via the
exhaust stack. A continuous air monitor samples the air above the
reactor tank for particulate beta-gamma activity. There are no nuclides
of detectable concentration in the RCF gaseous effluent stream. This is
consistent with the low power and infrequent operation of the RCF. No
radioactivity associated with gaseous effluents was reported to the NRC
during the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.
Accordingly, the licensee has demonstrated compliance with the limits
specified in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B for air effluent releases. The
maximum dose rate to a member of the general public due to gaseous
effluents is expected to be less than 0.01 milliSievert per year (mSv/
yr) (1 millirem per year (mrem/yr)). This demonstrates compliance with
the annual dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) set by 10 CFR 20.1301.
Additionally, this potential radiation dose demonstrates compliance
with the annual air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem)
specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
Liquid effluents are discharged to the Mohawk River or an external
holding container. Due to low neutron flux and limited operations, the
RCF pool water does not accumulate significant amounts of activation
products. Liquid effluents are sampled for nuclide activity prior to
discharge. Liquid waste that does not meet the discharge requirements
of 10 CFR 20.2003 for disposal by release into sanitary sewerage, is
retained onsite in an appropriate container until proper disposal can
be arranged. Liquid radioactive releases reported to the NRC were
within the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B for liquid
effluents. During the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2009, two discharges of liquid effluent with no detectable
activity were made to the Mohawk River for the purpose of flushing the
storage tank.
The licensee did not package or ship any solid low-level
radioactive waste during the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2009, nor does the licensee anticipate shipping any during
the period of the renewed license. To comply with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, RPI has entered into a contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that provides that DOE retains title to the
fuel utilized at the RCF and that DOE is obligated to take the fuel
from the site for final disposition. The licensee does not anticipate
the need to ship any high-level radioactive waste during the 20-year
period of license renewal.
The RPI radiation safety officer tracks personnel exposures, which
are usually less than 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) per year. Personnel exposures
reported to the NRC were within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, and
ALARA (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable). No changes in reactor
operation that would lead to an increase in occupational dose are
[[Page 34772]]
expected as a result of the proposed action.
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to
measure the dose rates at locations around the RCF. Dose measurements
are made quarterly using thermoluminescent dosimeters. The monitoring
program comprises four measurements at the exclusion area boundary and
two measurements at the site boundary. An additional measurement for
control purposes is taken at the General Electric Guard Station more
than 1.6 km (1 mi) away. During the reporting period from January 1,
2005, to December 31, 2009, measured doses at the site boundary were
within 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr) (the detectable limit) of the control
measurement. This demonstrates compliance with the limits set by 10 CFR
20.1301. Based on the NRC staff's review of the past five years of
data, the NRC staff concludes that operation of the RCF does not have
any significant radiological impact on the surrounding environment. No
changes in reactor operation that would affect off-site radiation
levels are expected as a result of license renewal.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accident scenarios are discussed in chapter 13 of the RCF SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is the failure of an experiment
leading to a release of airborne radioactive material into the reactor
room and into the environment. The licensee conservatively calculated
doses to facility personnel and the maximum potential dose to a member
of the public. The NRC staff performed independent calculations to
verify that the doses represent conservative estimates for the MHA. As
discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the MHA will not result
in occupational doses or doses to members of the general public in
excess of the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. The proposed action
will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents.
II. Non-Radiological Impact
The RFC uses standard city water as a neutron moderator and core
shielding. Water usage is minimized by draining the reactor tank into a
storage tank upon shutdown for reuse during the following operating
period. All surfaces that come into contact with the moderator are
stainless steel, thus eliminating the need for routine filtration and
demineralization of the moderator to prevent corrosion. Evaporative
losses of the moderator are minimal, and are replaced with city water
when necessary. The RCF core does not produce sufficient power to
significantly heat the moderator. As a result, there are no significant
thermal effluents associated with operation of the RCF.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
NRC has responsibilities that are derived from NEPA and from other
environmental laws, which include the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and Executive Order
12898 Environmental Justice. The following presents a brief discussion
of impacts associated with these laws and other requirements.
I. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The RCF site does not contain any Federally- or state-protected
fauna or flora, nor do the RCF effluents impact the habitats of any
such fauna or flora, with one possible exception. The Karner blue
butterfly is listed as endangered in Schenectady County, New York, as
well as in numerous other counties in varied states along the Great
Lakes Region, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary
threats to this species are habitat destruction and wildfire
suppression. Continued operation of the RCF does not pose any unique or
serious threats to this species as the RCF site is well established,
has a small footprint, and is surrounded by developed land unsuitable
for supporting a large population of Karner blue butterflies.
II. Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The site occupied by the RCF is not located within any managed
coastal zones, nor do the RCF effluents impact any managed costal
zones.
III. National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA)
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. The National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) lists several historical sites located near the RCF.
According to the NRHP, the locations of these sites are at least 0.5 km
(0.3 mi) from the RCF. Given the distance to these sites and that the
proposed action does not involve any demolition, rehabilitation,
construction, changes in land use, or significant changes in effluents
from the facility, continued operation of the RCF will not impact any
historic sites. The NRC staff consulted the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the SHPO determined that license renewal would have
no adverse effect on historic properties in the vicinity of the RCF.
Based on this information, the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of license renewal would have no adverse effect on historic
properties.
IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The licensee is not planning any water resource development
projects, including any of the modifications relating to impounding a
body of water, damming, diverting a stream or river, deepening a
channel, irrigation, or altering a body of water for navigation or
drainage.
V. Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
the relicensing and the continued operation of the RCF. Such effects
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the RCF--According to 2000
census data, 10.2 percent of the total population (approximately
1,307,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of RCF
identified themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority
groups were Black or African American (approximately 73,000 persons or
5.6 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (33,000 or 2.5 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 13.7 percent of the
Schenectady County population identified themselves as minorities, with
persons of Black or African American origin comprising the largest
minority group (6.8 percent). According to the census data 3-year
average estimates for 2006-2008, the minority population of Schenectady
County, as a percent of the total population, had increased to 20
percent.
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of the RCF--According to
2000 Census data, approximately 23,000 families and 123,000 individuals
(approximately 6.9 and 9.4 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-
mile radius of the RCF were identified as living below the Federal
poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was
$17,029 for a family of four.
According to Census data in the 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-Year Estimates, the median
[[Page 34773]]
household income for New York was $55,401, while 10.5 percent of
families and 13.8 percent of the state population were determined to be
living below the Federal poverty threshold. Schenectady County had the
same median household income average ($55,421) and a lower percent of
families (6.7 percent) and a similar percentage of individuals (10.8
percent) living below the poverty level, respectively.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations would mostly consist of radiological effects, however
radiation doses from continued operations associated with the license
renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well
below regulatory limits. Minority and low-income populations are
subsets of the general public residing around the RCF, and all are
exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from
activities at the RCF. Based on this information and the analysis of
human health and environmental impacts presented in this environmental
assessment, the license renewal would not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations residing in the vicinity of the RCF.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action. If the Commission denied the application
for license renewal, facility operations would end and decommissioning
would be required. The NRC staff notes that, even with a renewed
license, the RCF will eventually be decommissioned, at which time the
environmental effects of decommissioning will occur. Decommissioning
would be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning
plan, which would require a separate environmental review under 10 CFR
51.21. Cessation of reactor operations would reduce or eliminate
radioactive effluents and emissions. However, as previously discussed
in this environmental assessment, radioactive effluents and emissions
from reactor operations constitute a small fraction of the applicable
regulatory limits, and are often below detectable levels. Therefore,
the environmental impacts of license renewal and the denial of the
request for license renewal would be similar. In addition, denying the
request for license renewal would eliminate the benefits of teaching,
research, and services provided by the RCF.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources or significant quantities of resources beyond those
previously considered in the issuance of Amendment No. 5 to Facility
Operating License No. CX-22, dated December, 1983, which renewed the
license for a period of twenty years, or the issuance of Amendment No.
7 dated July 7, 1987, which ordered RPI to convert the reactor to use
low-enriched uranium fuel.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency's stated policy, on September 4,
2008, the NRC staff consulted with the State Liaison Officer regarding
the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had
no comments regarding the proposed action. The NRC staff also consulted
with the SHPO regarding the potential impact of the proposed action on
historic resources. As previously mentioned, the SHPO determined that
license renewal would have no adverse effect on historic properties in
the vicinity of the RCF.
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 19, 2002 (ML023380455 and
ML072210835), as supplemented on July 21 (ML082060048), July 28
(ML082190523), and September 3, 2008 (ML101260200); June 28
(ML101820298), August 31 (ML102790045 and ML102720039), October 14
(ML103070074), and October 28, 2010 (ML103080207); and February 14
(ML110490531) and May 9, 2011 (ML11131A180). Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jessie Quichocho,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy
and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-14665 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P