Missouri University of Science and Technology Nuclear Research Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 14163-14165 [E9-6997]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Notices
9:45 a.m.–3:30 p.m. Closed—Executive
Session, Draft and Review Report.
Reason for Closing: The work being
reviewed may include information of a
proprietary or confidential nature, including
technical information; financial data, such as
salaries and personal information concerning
individuals associated with the proposals.
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552
b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the
Sunshine Act.
Dated: March 24, 2009.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–6931 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD
Sunshine Act Meeting
9:30 a.m., April 7, 2009.
NTSB Conference Center, 429
L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC
20594.
STATUS: The one item is open to the
public.
MATTER TO BE CONSIDERED:
8087 Aviation Accident Report—InFlight Left Engine Fire, American
Airlines Flight 1400, McDonnell
Douglas DC–9–82, N454AA, St. Louis,
Missouri, September 28, 2007.
NEWS MEDIA CONTACT: Telephone: (202)
314–6100.
The press and public may enter the
NTSB Conference Center one hour prior
to the meeting for set up and seating.
Individuals requesting specific
accommodations should contact
Rochelle Hall at (202) 314–6305 by
Friday, April 3, 2009.
The public may view the meeting via
a live or archived Webcast by accessing
a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the
NTSB home page at https://
www.ntsb.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Vicky D’Onofrio, (202) 314–6410.
TIME AND DATE:
PLACE:
Dated: March 26, 2009.
Vicky D’Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9–7181 Filed 3–26–09; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
[NRC–2009–0136]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Mar 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to
submit an information collection
request to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and solicitation of public
comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC invites public
comment about our intention to request
the OMB’s approval for renewal of an
existing information collection that is
summarized below. We are required to
publish this notice in the Federal
Register under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the
requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information
collection: NRC Form 244, Registration
Certificate—Use of Depleted Uranium
under General License.
2. Current OMB approval number:
3150–0031.
3. How often the collection is
required: On occasion. NRC Form 244 is
submitted when depleted uranium is
received or transferred under general
license. Information on NRC Form 244
is collected and evaluated on a
continuing basis as events occur.
4. Who is required or asked to report:
Persons receiving, possessing, using, or
transferring depleted uranium under the
general license established in 10 CFR
40.25(a).
5. The number of annual respondents:
23 (4 NRC Licensees and 19 Agreement
State licensees).
6. The number of hours needed
annually to complete the requirement or
request: 23 (1 hour per response—4
hours for NRC licensees and 19 hours
for Agreement State licensees).
7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 40 establishes
requirements for licenses for the receipt,
possession, use and transfer of
radioactive source and byproduct
material. NRC Form 244 is used to
report receipt and transfer of depleted
uranium under general license, as
required by section 40.25. The
registration certification information
required by NRC Form 244 is necessary
to permit the NRC to make a
determination on whether the
possession, use, and transfer of depleted
uranium source and byproduct material
is in conformance with the
Commission’s regulations for protection
of public health and safety.
Submit, by May 29, 2009, comments
that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of
information necessary for the NRC to
properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility?
2. Is the burden estimate accurate?
3. Is there a way to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected?
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
14163
4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized,
including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology?
A copy of the draft supporting
statement may be viewed free of charge
at the NRC Public Document Room, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Room O–1 F21, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. OMB clearance
requests are available at the NRC
worldwide Web site: https://
www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doccomment/omb/. The
document will be available on the NRC
home page site for 60 days after the
signature date of this notice. Comments
submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public
inspection. Because your comments will
not be edited to remove any identifying
or contact information, the NRC
cautions you against including any
information in your submission that you
do not want to be publicly disclosed.
Comments submitted should reference
Docket No. NRC–2009–0136. You may
submit your comments by any of the
following methods. Electronic
comments: Go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
Docket No. NRC–2009–0136. Mail
comments to NRC Clearance Officer,
Gregory Trussell (T–5 F53), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001. Questions
about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the
NRC Clearance Officer, Gregory Trussell
(T–5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, by telephone at 301–415–6445, or
by e-mail to
INFOCOLLECTS.Resource@NRC.GOV.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
of March, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Gregory Trussell,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E9–6996 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–123; NRC–2009–0139]
Missouri University of Science and
Technology Nuclear Research Reactor;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuance of a renewed
Facility Operating License No. R–79,
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
14164
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Notices
held by the Missouri University of
Science and Technology (the licensee or
MST), which would authorize
continued operation of the Missouri
University of Science and Technology
Research Reactor (MSTR), located in
Rolla City, Phelps County, Missouri.
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21,
the NRC is issuing this Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility Operating License No. R–79 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 August
20, 2004, as supplemented on November
16, November 27, and December 26,
2007, and January 17, March 6, June 26,
September 16, and November 7, 2008. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the
existing license remains in effect until
the NRC takes final action on the
application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the continued operation of the
MSTR to routinely provide teaching,
research, and services to numerous
institutions for a period of twenty years.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action to
issue a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R–79 to allow continued
operation of the MSTR for a period of
twenty years and concludes there is
reasonable assurance that the MSTR
will continue to operate safely for the
additional period of time. The details of
the staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided with the renewed license that
will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving its license renewal
application.
The MSTR is located in a separated
building on the east side of the main
campus of the MST. The reactor is
housed in a steel frame structure with
insulated metal walls. The reactor
building footprint is 49 feet x 33 feet
(approximately 15 meters x 10 meters).
Utilities such as electrical supply,
sewage, and water are provided by the
main campus systems. There are no
nearby industrial, transportation, or
military facilities that could pose a
threat to the MSTR.
In December 1961, the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) issued an
operating license to the University of
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Mar 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
Missouri—Rolla (renamed Missouri
University of Science and Technology)
for operation of a research reactor on its
campus. The MSTR is based on the
design of the bulk shielding reactor
(BSR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
which was a materials testing reactor
(MTR). Reactors of this type have
common features, such as light-water
moderation, natural convection cooling,
open pools, and plate-type fuel. This
license, R–79, authorized the facility to
operate at steady-state power levels up
to 10 kW(t). In 1967, the license was
amended to allow operation up to its
current power level of 200 kW(t). In
1992, the fuel was converted from highenriched uranium (HEU) to lowenriched uranium (LEU). The low
power level of the core allows for
sufficient cooling by natural convection.
The reactor’s experimental facilities
include a pneumatic transfer system, incore irradiation tube, a beam tube, and
a thermal column. There are four
control rods loaded in any particular
core configuration to allow the MSTR to
routinely operate with various powers
and experiments. The MSTR has no
pulse capability. The sum of the
absolute values of all experiments is
limited to a maximum reactivity of 1.2%
Dk/k by technical specification, which is
well below the maximum reactivity
limit of 1.5% Dk/k established in the
safety analysis. The licensee’s analysis
in Chapter 13 of the safety analysis
report (SAR) shows that a stepwise
reactivity insertion of 1.5% Dk/k does
not adversely affect the health and
safety of public and the reactor staff.
The licensee has not requested any
changes to the facility design or
operating conditions as part of the
renewal request. Therefore, the license
renewal should not change the
environmental impact of facility
operation.
I. Radiological Impact
Gaseous effluents are discharged by
the reactor ventilation fan at a
volumetric flow rate of approximately
140 m3/min (5 × 103 ft3/min). Other
release pathways exist; however, they
are normally secured during reactor
operation and have insignificant
volumetric flow rates compared to the
ventilation fan. The dose rate at the
reactor bridge with the reactor operating
at 200 kW is less than 5 mrem/hr.
Nitrogen-16, argon-41, and direct
radiation from the reactor core
contribute to this dose rate. Nitrogen-16
has a very short half-life (7.13 sec), and
the reactor has a core diffuser system
which creates a water circulation
pattern designed to suppress nitrogen16 transported to the surface of the pool
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
and reduce the reactor pool surface dose
rate. Because of the short half-life of
nitrogen-16 compared to the transit
time, exposure to the public is
negligible. Analysis of effluent samples
has found only argon-41. The licensee
measured the dose from normal
operations to a person in the
unrestricted area. The concentration of
argon-41 leaving the reactor roof fan
exhaust where argon-41 is released to
the general public was measured at 4.24
× 10¥10 microcuries per milliliter (μCi/
ml). The calculations very
conservatively assume that the reactor
operates continuously for a year and
that the member of the public stands at
the point of maximum exposure
continuously for the entire year. Using
the conservative assumption above, the
measured result was 2 mrem. This is
below the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B,
Table 2, limit of 50 mrem for
submersion. The licensee also measured
occupational exposure to argon-41 in
the reactor bay. Using the worst-case
conditions, the conservative
measurement of argon-41 concentration
in the reactor building from pool release
was 1.80 10¥7 μCi/ml, more than a
factor of 10 below the regulatory limit
of 3.0 × 10¥6 μCi/ml (10 CFR Part 20,
Appendix B). These calculations
demonstrate that routine airborne
effluents released from the MSTR are
well within 10 CFR Part 20 criteria for
occupational workers and members of
the public, and are therefore acceptable
to the staff.
Pool water activity is monitored
monthly to ensure that no gross pool
contamination or fuel cladding rupture
has occurred. Liquid effluents are
analyzed for radioactive contamination
and approved by the MSTR Radiation
Safety Office before discharge.
Un-compacted solid low-level
radioactive waste consists of gloves,
pads, used resins, filters, and various
activation products from experiments
conducted using the MSTR. This
radioactive waste is transferred to the
MSTR Dangerous Materials Storage
Facility (DMSF) for future shipment to
a commercial burial site, in accordance
with the requirements of applicable
NRC and Department of Transportation
regulations, including 10 CFR Part 61,
10 CFR Part 71, and 49 CFR Part 170
through 178.
Facility personnel, staff, and students
involved with the operation of the
MSTR are assigned dosimeters.
Personnel exposures reported to the
NRC were within the limits set by 10
CFR 20.1201, and were as low as
reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Visitors are also monitored with direct
reading dosimeters. No visitors received
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 59 / Monday, March 30, 2009 / Notices
any reportable or significant exposure in
the past 20 years. No changes in reactor
operation that would lead to an increase
in occupational doses are expected as a
result of license renewal.
The environmental impacts of the fuel
cycle and transportation of fuels and
wastes are described in Tables S–3 and
S–4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 10 CFR 51.52,
respectively. An additional NRC generic
environmental assessment (53 FR
30355, dated August 11, 1988, as
corrected by 53 FR 32322, dated August
24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of
Tables S–3 and S–4 to higher burn-up
cycle and concluded that there is no
significant change in environmental
impact from the parameters evaluated in
Tables S–3 and S–4 for fuel cycles with
uranium enrichments up to 5 weight
percent uranium-235 and burn-ups less
than 60,000 MWt days per metric ton of
uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). The MSTR
uranium enrichment limit and the burnup limit would stay within the 5 percent
and the 60,000 MWd/MTU limits.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of
the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels
and wastes, to and from the site, would
not be significant.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
II. Non-Radiological Impact
The MSTR core is submerged in an
open pool containing 30,000 gallons
(113,560 liters) of demineralized light
water. The core is cooled by natural
convection. Heat from the water pool is
dissipated primarily by evaporation into
the reactor bay and discharged to the
environment by the ventilation system.
The auxiliary cooling system with a heat
exchanger is also available to reduce the
water temperature if needed. Release of
thermal effluents from the MSTR will
not have a significant effect on the
environment. The small amount of
waste heat, approximately 200 kW at
full power operation, is released to the
atmosphere by means of the dry cooler,
and therefore will not lead to the
creation of fog. Extensive drift will not
occur at this heat dissipation rate.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
The maximum hypothetical accident
(MHA) scenario is discussed in Chapter
13 of the MSTR SAR. The accident
scenario assumes that a capsule,
containing fissile material after
irradiation in the fuel experiment,
breaks and releases all gaseous fission
products in the reactor building and
uncontrolled environment. In analyzing
the MHA, occupational doses resulting
from this accident would be 410 mrem
(4.10 mSV), which is more than a factor
of ten below 10 CFR Part 20 limits of
5000 mrem (50 mSV). Maximum doses
for members of the general public were
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:33 Mar 27, 2009
Jkt 217001
conservatively calculated to be 46 mrem
(0.46 mSv), and are below the 10 CFR
Part 20 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv). The
analysis shows that the failure of an
irradiated fueled experiment will not
exceed 10 CFR Part 20 limits. Therefore,
it is acceptable to the staff.
14165
March 5, 1991, for the HEU to LEU
conversion.
Finding of No Significant Impact
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Considerations
I. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The site occupied by the MSTR does
not contain any Federally- or Stateprotected fauna or flora, nor do the
MSTR effluents impact the habitats of
any such fauna or flora.
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.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
II. Costal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
The site occupied by the MSTR is not
located within any managed coastal
zones, nor do the MSTR effluents
impact any managed coastal zones.
III. National Historical Preservation Act
(NHPA)
The National Register Information
System lists several historical sites
located around the Missouri University
of Science and Technology, but
operation of the MSTR will not impact
any historical sites.
IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(FWCA)
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.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal,
the 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 with no significant impact on
the environment. The environmental
impacts of license renewal and this
alternative action are similar. However,
the benefits of teaching, research, and
services provided by facility operation
would be lost.
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. 9 to
Facility Operating License No. R–79 for
the Missouri University of Science and
Technology Research Reactor dated
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In accordance with its stated policy,
on February 14, 2008, the NRC staff
consulted with the Missouri State
official, Floyd Gilzow, of the State
Liaison Office, Department of Natural
Resources, regarding the environmental
impacts of the proposed action. The
State official had no comments.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated August 30, 2004 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML042820116), as
supplemented by letters dated
November 16, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML073240523), November 27, 2007
(ADAMS Accession No. ML073320467),
December 26, 2007 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML080070088), January 17, 2008
(ADAMS Accession No. ML080240307),
March 6, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML080930439), June 26, 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML081820410),
September 16, 2008 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML 082630565), and November 7,
2008 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML083190529), and 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, https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of March, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn Brock,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch
A, Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9–6997 Filed 3–27–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 59 (Monday, March 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14163-14165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-6997]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-123; NRC-2009-0139]
Missouri University of Science and Technology Nuclear Research
Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is
considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating License No. R-79,
[[Page 14164]]
held by the Missouri University of Science and Technology (the licensee
or MST), which would authorize continued operation of the Missouri
University of Science and Technology Research Reactor (MSTR), located
in Rolla City, Phelps County, Missouri. Therefore, as required by 10
CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this Environmental Assessment and Finding
of No Significant Impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. R-79
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 August 20, 2004, as supplemented on November 16,
November 27, and December 26, 2007, and January 17, March 6, June 26,
September 16, and November 7, 2008. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109,
the existing license remains in effect until the NRC takes final action
on the application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of
the MSTR to routinely provide teaching, research, and services to
numerous institutions for a period of twenty years.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action
to issue a renewed Facility Operating License No. R-79 to allow
continued operation of the MSTR for a period of twenty years and
concludes there is reasonable assurance that the MSTR will continue to
operate safely for the additional period of time. The details of the
staff's safety evaluation will be provided with the renewed license
that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving its
license renewal application.
The MSTR is located in a separated building on the east side of the
main campus of the MST. The reactor is housed in a steel frame
structure with insulated metal walls. The reactor building footprint is
49 feet x 33 feet (approximately 15 meters x 10 meters). Utilities such
as electrical supply, sewage, and water are provided by the main campus
systems. There are no nearby industrial, transportation, or military
facilities that could pose a threat to the MSTR.
In December 1961, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued an
operating license to the University of Missouri--Rolla (renamed
Missouri University of Science and Technology) for operation of a
research reactor on its campus. The MSTR is based on the design of the
bulk shielding reactor (BSR) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which
was a materials testing reactor (MTR). Reactors of this type have
common features, such as light-water moderation, natural convection
cooling, open pools, and plate-type fuel. This license, R-79,
authorized the facility to operate at steady-state power levels up to
10 kW(t). In 1967, the license was amended to allow operation up to its
current power level of 200 kW(t). In 1992, the fuel was converted from
high-enriched uranium (HEU) to low-enriched uranium (LEU). The low
power level of the core allows for sufficient cooling by natural
convection. The reactor's experimental facilities include a pneumatic
transfer system, in-core irradiation tube, a beam tube, and a thermal
column. There are four control rods loaded in any particular core
configuration to allow the MSTR to routinely operate with various
powers and experiments. The MSTR has no pulse capability. The sum of
the absolute values of all experiments is limited to a maximum
reactivity of 1.2% [Delta]k/k by technical specification, which is well
below the maximum reactivity limit of 1.5% [Delta]k/k established in
the safety analysis. The licensee's analysis in Chapter 13 of the
safety analysis report (SAR) shows that a stepwise reactivity insertion
of 1.5% [Delta]k/k does not adversely affect the health and safety of
public and the reactor staff.
The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design
or operating conditions as part of the renewal request. Therefore, the
license renewal should not change the environmental impact of facility
operation.
I. Radiological Impact
Gaseous effluents are discharged by the reactor ventilation fan at
a volumetric flow rate of approximately 140 m\3\/min (5 x 10\3\ ft\3\/
min). Other release pathways exist; however, they are normally secured
during reactor operation and have insignificant volumetric flow rates
compared to the ventilation fan. The dose rate at the reactor bridge
with the reactor operating at 200 kW is less than 5 mrem/hr. Nitrogen-
16, argon-41, and direct radiation from the reactor core contribute to
this dose rate. Nitrogen-16 has a very short half-life (7.13 sec), and
the reactor has a core diffuser system which creates a water
circulation pattern designed to suppress nitrogen-16 transported to the
surface of the pool and reduce the reactor pool surface dose rate.
Because of the short half-life of nitrogen-16 compared to the transit
time, exposure to the public is negligible. Analysis of effluent
samples has found only argon-41. The licensee measured the dose from
normal operations to a person in the unrestricted area. The
concentration of argon-41 leaving the reactor roof fan exhaust where
argon-41 is released to the general public was measured at 4.24 x
10-10 microcuries per milliliter ([mu]Ci/ml). The
calculations very conservatively assume that the reactor operates
continuously for a year and that the member of the public stands at the
point of maximum exposure continuously for the entire year. Using the
conservative assumption above, the measured result was 2 mrem. This is
below the 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, limit of 50 mrem for
submersion. The licensee also measured occupational exposure to argon-
41 in the reactor bay. Using the worst-case conditions, the
conservative measurement of argon-41 concentration in the reactor
building from pool release was 1.80 10-7 [mu]Ci/ml, more
than a factor of 10 below the regulatory limit of 3.0 x 10-6
[mu]Ci/ml (10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B). These calculations demonstrate
that routine airborne effluents released from the MSTR are well within
10 CFR Part 20 criteria for occupational workers and members of the
public, and are therefore acceptable to the staff.
Pool water activity is monitored monthly to ensure that no gross
pool contamination or fuel cladding rupture has occurred. Liquid
effluents are analyzed for radioactive contamination and approved by
the MSTR Radiation Safety Office before discharge.
Un-compacted solid low-level radioactive waste consists of gloves,
pads, used resins, filters, and various activation products from
experiments conducted using the MSTR. This radioactive waste is
transferred to the MSTR Dangerous Materials Storage Facility (DMSF) for
future shipment to a commercial burial site, in accordance with the
requirements of applicable NRC and Department of Transportation
regulations, including 10 CFR Part 61, 10 CFR Part 71, and 49 CFR Part
170 through 178.
Facility personnel, staff, and students involved with the operation
of the MSTR are assigned dosimeters. Personnel exposures reported to
the NRC were within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, and were as low
as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Visitors are also monitored with
direct reading dosimeters. No visitors received
[[Page 14165]]
any reportable or significant exposure in the past 20 years. No changes
in reactor operation that would lead to an increase in occupational
doses are expected as a result of license renewal.
The environmental impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of
fuels and wastes are described in Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51
and 10 CFR 51.52, respectively. An additional NRC generic environmental
assessment (53 FR 30355, dated August 11, 1988, as corrected by 53 FR
32322, dated August 24, 1988) evaluated the applicability of Tables S-3
and S-4 to higher burn-up cycle and concluded that there is no
significant change in environmental impact from the parameters
evaluated in Tables S-3 and S-4 for fuel cycles with uranium
enrichments up to 5 weight percent uranium-235 and burn-ups less than
60,000 MWt days per metric ton of uranium-235 (MWd/MTU). The MSTR
uranium enrichment limit and the burn-up limit would stay within the 5
percent and the 60,000 MWd/MTU limits. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of the fuel cycle and transportation of fuels and wastes, to
and from the site, would not be significant.
II. Non-Radiological Impact
The MSTR core is submerged in an open pool containing 30,000
gallons (113,560 liters) of demineralized light water. The core is
cooled by natural convection. Heat from the water pool is dissipated
primarily by evaporation into the reactor bay and discharged to the
environment by the ventilation system. The auxiliary cooling system
with a heat exchanger is also available to reduce the water temperature
if needed. Release of thermal effluents from the MSTR will not have a
significant effect on the environment. The small amount of waste heat,
approximately 200 kW at full power operation, is released to the
atmosphere by means of the dry cooler, and therefore will not lead to
the creation of fog. Extensive drift will not occur at this heat
dissipation rate.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) scenario is discussed in
Chapter 13 of the MSTR SAR. The accident scenario assumes that a
capsule, containing fissile material after irradiation in the fuel
experiment, breaks and releases all gaseous fission products in the
reactor building and uncontrolled environment. In analyzing the MHA,
occupational doses resulting from this accident would be 410 mrem (4.10
mSV), which is more than a factor of ten below 10 CFR Part 20 limits of
5000 mrem (50 mSV). Maximum doses for members of the general public
were conservatively calculated to be 46 mrem (0.46 mSv), and are below
the 10 CFR Part 20 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv). The analysis shows that
the failure of an irradiated fueled experiment will not exceed 10 CFR
Part 20 limits. Therefore, it is acceptable to the staff.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
I. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The site occupied by the MSTR does not contain any Federally- or
State-protected fauna or flora, nor do the MSTR effluents impact the
habitats of any such fauna or flora.
II. Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The site occupied by the MSTR is not located within any managed
coastal zones, nor do the MSTR effluents impact any managed coastal
zones.
III. National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA)
The National Register Information System lists several historical
sites located around the Missouri University of Science and Technology,
but operation of the MSTR will not impact any historical sites.
IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
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.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the 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 with no significant impact on the environment. The
environmental impacts of license renewal and this alternative action
are similar. However, the benefits of teaching, research, and services
provided by facility operation would be lost.
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. 9 to Facility
Operating License No. R-79 for the Missouri University of Science and
Technology Research Reactor dated March 5, 1991, for the HEU to LEU
conversion.
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.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on February 14, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the Missouri State official, Floyd Gilzow, of the
State Liaison Office, Department of Natural Resources, regarding the
environmental impacts of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated August 30, 2004 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML042820116), as supplemented by letters dated November 16, 2007 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML073240523), November 27, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML073320467), December 26, 2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080070088),
January 17, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML080240307), March 6, 2008
(ADAMS Accession No. ML080930439), June 26, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML081820410), September 16, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML 082630565),
and November 7, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083190529), and 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, https://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 pdr@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of March, 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kathryn Brock,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch A, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-6997 Filed 3-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P