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

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