Pennsylvania State University: Penn State Breazeale Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 58319-58322 [E9-27282]

Agencies

• NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 217 (Thursday, November 12, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58319-58322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27282]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-005; NRC-2009-0495]


Pennsylvania State University: Penn State Breazeale 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-2, 
to be held by Pennsylvania State University (PSU or the licensee), 
which would authorize continued operation of the Penn State Breazeale 
Reactor (PSBR), located in University Park, Centre County, 
Pennsylvania. Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (10 CFR) Section 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-2 
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 December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated 
October 31, 2008, and April 2, June 11, September 1, and October 21, 
2009. 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 PSBR 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-2 to allow 
continued operation of the PSBR for a period of twenty years and 
concludes there is reasonable assurance that the PSBR will continue to 
operate safely for the additional period of time. The details of the 
NRC staff's safety evaluation will be

[[Page 58320]]

provided with the renewed license that will be issued as part of the 
letter to the licensee approving its license renewal application. This 
document contains the environmental assessment of the proposed action.
    The PSBR is located on the main campus of PSU and is a part of the 
Radiation Science and Engineering Center. The reactor is housed in a 
multipurpose building constructed primarily of concrete, brick, steel, 
and aluminum which serves as a confinement. The reactor site comprises 
the reactor building and a small area immediately surrounding it, 
bounded by a chain-link fence. Adjacent to the site are athletic 
facilities to the north and west, fields and parking lots to the east, 
and academic and research buildings to the south. The nearest permanent 
residences are located approximately 360 meters (390 yards) from the 
site boundary. The nearest dormitories are located approximately 130 
meters (120 yards) south of the reactor.
    The PSBR is a pool-type, light water moderated and cooled research 
reactor licensed to operate at a steady-state power level of 1 megawatt 
thermal power (MW(t)). The reactor is also licensed to operate in a 
pulse mode. The fuel is located at the bottom of a polyurea-lined 
concrete pool with a volume of approximately 270,000 liters (71,000 
gallons) and a depth of 7.3 meters (24 feet). The reactor is fueled 
with standard low-enriched uranium TRIGA fuel. A detailed description 
of the reactor can be found in the PSBR Safety Analysis Report (SAR). 
There have been no major modifications to the Facility Operating 
License since renewal of the license on January 27, 1986.
    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 has systems in place for 
controlling the release of radiological effluents and implements a 
radiation protection program to monitor personnel exposures and 
releases of radioactive effluents. As discussed in the NRC staff's 
safety evaluation, the systems and radiation protection program are 
appropriate for the types and quantities of effluents expected to be 
generated by continued operation of the reactor. Accordingly, there 
should 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 should 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 found that releases of 
radioactive material and personnel exposures were all well within 
applicable regulatory limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff 
concluded that continued operation of the reactor should not have a 
significant environmental impact.

I. Radiological Impact

Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations

    Gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged by the facility 
exhaust system via vents located on the roof of the reactor building, 
at a volumetric flow rate of approximately 1.4 cubic meters per second 
(3000 cubic feet per second). Other release pathways do exist, however 
they are normally secured during reactor operation and have 
insignificant volumetric flow rates compared to the facility exhaust 
system. The only significant nuclide found in the gaseous effluent 
stream is Argon-41. The licensee performed measurements of Argon-41 
production for conditions of low-power and high-power reactor 
operation. Licensee calculations, based on those measurements, indicate 
that annual Argon-41 releases result in an offsite concentration of 
3.2E-10 microCuries per milliliter (mCi/ml), which is below 
the limit of 1.0E-8 mCi/ml specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix 
B for air effluent releases. The NRC staff performed an independent 
calculation and found the licensee's calculation to be reasonable. The 
licensee also performed measurements and calculations to estimate the 
potential release of tritium resulting from evaporation of the reactor 
pool water. The NRC staff performed independent calculations and found 
the licensee's calculations to be reasonable and the potential airborne 
tritium concentration to be a small fraction of the air effluent 
concentration limit specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. Total gaseous 
radioactive releases reported to the NRC in the licensee's annual 
reports were less than four percent of the air effluent concentration 
limits set by 10 CFR 20, Appendix B. The potential radiation dose to a 
member of the general public resulting from this concentration is 
approximately 0.02 milliSieverts (mSv) (2 millirems (mrem)) and this 
demonstrates compliance with the dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) set by 
10 CFR 20.1301. Additionally, this potential radiation dose 
demonstrates compliance with the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 
mSv (10 mrem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
    The licensee disposes of liquid radioactive wastes by evaporation, 
discharge to the sanitary sewer, or transfer to the Radiation 
Protection Office (RPO) which is a part of the PSU Department of 
Environmental Health and Safety. Disposal by evaporation removes the 
liquid from the liquid radioactive waste, creating demineralized water 
and traces of solid radioactive waste that remain in the evaporator 
tank for decay. Discharge of liquid waste to the sanitary sewer 
requires the use of procedures and RPO approval to ensure that 
discharges meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2003 for disposal by 
release into sanitary sewerage. The licensee also transfers small 
quantities of liquid radioactive waste to the RPO for proper disposal 
under the University's broad scope byproduct material license. During 
the past five years, the licensee reported no routine releases of 
liquid radioactive waste by any of the disposal methods. One unplanned 
release occurred as a result of leakage of reactor pool water through 
the reactor pool liner to the earthen backfill surrounding the reactor 
pool. According to the licensee, the leakage resulted in the release of 
approximately 1.3 milliCuries of tritium, at a concentration of 2.8E-5 
Ci/ml. This concentration is a fraction of the limit of 1E-
3 Ci/ml specified in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B for liquid 
effluents. Offsite groundwater sampling conducted by the licensee 
showed no detectable elevation in tritium levels. The NRC inspection 
report related to the reactor pool leakage identified no findings of 
significance.
    The RPO oversees the handling of solid low-level radioactive waste 
generated at the PSBR. The bulk of the waste consists of gloves, paper, 
plastic, and small pieces of metal. Upon removal from the facility by 
the RPO, the waste enters the campus-wide radioactive waste stream 
covered by the University's broad scope byproduct material license. The 
RPO disposes of the waste by decay in storage or shipment to a low 
level waste broker in accordance with all applicable regulations for 
transportation of radioactive materials. According to the licensee, no 
spent nuclear fuel has been shipped from the site to date. To comply 
with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of

[[Page 58321]]

1982, PSU 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 PSBR and that DOE is obligated to take the fuel from the site 
for final disposition.
    As described in Chapter 11 of the PSBR SAR, personnel exposures are 
well within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, and as low as is 
reasonably achievable (ALARA). The RPO tracks personnel exposures, 
which are usually less than 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) per year. The PSU ALARA 
program requires the RPO to investigate any annual personnel exposures 
greater than 10 percent of the limit of 50 mSv (5000 mrem) specified in 
10 CFR 20.1201. Personnel dosimeters mounted in the control room and 
reactor bay provide a quarterly measurement of total radiation 
exposures at those locations. These dosimeters typically measure annual 
doses of less than 0.5 mSv (50 mrem) in the control room and less than 
2 mSv (200 mrem) in the reactor bay. No changes in reactor operation 
that would lead to an increase in occupational dose are expected as a 
result of the proposed action.
    The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to record 
and track the radiological impact of PSBR operation on the surrounding 
unrestricted area. The program consists of quarterly exposure 
measurements at four locations on the site boundary and at two control 
locations away from any direct influence from the reactor. The RPO 
administers the program and maintains the appropriate records. Over the 
past five years, the survey program indicated that radiation exposures 
at the monitoring locations were not significantly higher than those 
measured at the control locations. Year-to-year trends in exposures are 
consistent between monitoring locations. Also, no correlation exists 
between total annual reactor operation and annual exposures measured at 
the monitoring locations. Based on the NRC staff's review of the past 
five years of data, the NRC staff concludes that operation of the PSBR 
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 PSBR SAR. The 
maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is the uncontrolled release of the 
gaseous fission products contained in the gap between the fuel and the 
fuel cladding in one fuel element to the reactor building and into the 
environment. The licensee conservatively calculated doses to facility 
personnel and the maximum potential dose to a member of the public. NRC 
staff performed independent calculations to verify that the doses 
represent conservative estimates for the MHA. Occupational doses 
resulting from this accident would be well below 10 CFR Part 20 limit 
of 50 mSv (5000 mrem). Maximum doses for members of the public 
resulting from this accident would be well below 10 CFR Part 20 limit 
of 1 mSv (100 mrem). The proposed action will not increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents.

II. Non-Radiological Impacts

    The PSBR core is cooled by a light water primary system consisting 
of the reactor pool, a heat removal system, and a processing system. 
Cooling occurs by natural convection, with the heated coolant rising 
out of the core and into the bulk pool water. The large heat sink 
provided by the volume of primary coolant allows several hours of full-
power operation without any secondary cooling. The heat removal system 
transfers heat to the secondary system via a 1-MW heat exchanger. The 
secondary system uses water pumped from the nearby Thompson Pond. 
During operation, the secondary system is maintained at a higher 
pressure than the primary system to minimize the likelihood of primary 
system contamination entering the secondary system, and ultimately the 
environment. The licensee conducts periodic leak tests of the heat 
exchanger to further reduce the likelihood of secondary system 
contamination.
    Release of thermal effluents from the PSBR will not have a 
significant effect on the environment. A storm sewer returns the heated 
secondary coolant to Thompson Pond. According to the licensee, the 
University maintains and complies with the appropriate Pennsylvania 
Department of Environmental Protection permit for secondary water 
discharge, and no violations of the permit have occurred. Given that 
the proposed action does not involve any change in the operation of the 
reactor and the heat load dissipated to the environment, the NRC staff 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant impact 
on the local water supply.

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

    The site occupied by the PSBR does not contain any Federally- or 
State-protected fauna or flora, nor do the PSBR effluents impact the 
critical habitats of any such fauna or flora.

II. Coastal Zone Management Act

    The site occupied by the PSBR is not located within any managed 
coastal zones, nor do the PSBR effluents impact any managed coastal 
zones.

III. National Historic Preservation Act

    The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their 
undertakings on historic properties. The National Register of Historic 
Places (NRHP) lists one historical site located on the PSU campus, the 
Ag Hill Complex. The location of the Ag Hill Complex is approximately 1 
km (0.6 Miles) East of the PSBR. Given the distance between the 
facility and the Ag Hill Complex, continued operation of the PSBR will 
not impact any historical sites. In 1991, the PSBR received the 
American Nuclear Society Nuclear (ANS) Historic Landmark Award, 
commemorated by a plaque located at the site. Continued operation of 
the PSBR will not affect this historic designation. During a telephone 
conversation between the NRC staff and the licensee on October 2, 2009, 
the licensee stated that PSU has no plans to apply to have the PSBR 
listed in the NRHP. Additionally, the licensee stated that any 
modifications to the facility exterior must go through Campus Planning 
and Design in the PSU Office of Physical Plant. This provides assurance 
that any modifications would be made only after an appropriate review 
by the University. Based on this information, the NRC finds that the 
potential impacts of license renewal would have no adverse effect on 
historic and archaeological resources at PSBR.

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.

[[Page 58322]]

IV. 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 PSBR. Such effects 
may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or social 
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general 
public residing around the PSBR, and all are exposed to the same health 
and environmental effects generated from activities at the PSBR.
    Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the PSBR--According to 2000 
census data, 4.3 percent of the population (approximately 634,000 
individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of PSBR identified 
themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority group was 
Black or African American (12,000 persons or 1.9 percent), followed by 
Asian (7,700 or 1.2 percent). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 
about 9.4 percent of Centre County population identified themselves as 
minorities, with persons of Asian origin comprising the largest 
minority group (4.4 percent). According to census data 3-year average 
estimates for 2005-2007, the minority population of Centre County, as a 
percent of total population, had increased to 11.4 percent.
    Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of the PSBR--According to 
2000 census data, approximately 13,000 families and 78,000 individuals 
(approximately 7.9 and 12.4 percent, respectively) residing within a 
50-mile radius of the PSBR 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 2005-2007 American Community Survey 
3-Year Estimates, the median household income for Pennsylvania was 
$47,913, while 11.9 percent of the state population was determined to 
be living below the Federal poverty threshold. Centre County had a 
lower median household income average ($42,976) and higher percentages 
(18.5 percent) of individuals 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.
    Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the 
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would not have 
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the vicinity 
of the PSBR.

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 PSBR will eventually require decommissioning, at which 
time the environmental effects of decommissioning will occur. 
Decommissioning will be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved 
decommissioning plan which will require a separate environmental review 
under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of facility operations would reduce 
radioactive effluents. However, as previously discussed in this 
environmental assessment, radioactive effluents resulting from facility 
operations constitute only a small fraction of the applicable 
regulatory limits. Therefore, the environmental impacts of license 
renewal and denial of the application for license renewal are similar. 
In addition, denial of the application for license renewal would cause 
the benefits of teaching, research, and services provided by facility 
operation to 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. 23 to Facility 
Operating License No. R-2 for the Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated 
January 27, 1986, which renewed the Facility Operating License for a 
period of 20 years.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with the agency's stated policy, on September 28, 
2009, the staff consulted with the State Liaison Officer regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The consultation involved 
a thorough explanation of the environmental review, the details of this 
environmental assessment, and the NRC staff's findings. The State 
official stated the he understood the NRC review and had no comments 
regarding the proposed action. The State official did comment on the 
designation of the PSBR as an ANS Nuclear Historic Landmark. The 
comment was informational in nature and the NRC staff responded by 
including this information in this environmental assessment and noting 
that continued operation of the facility will not adversely impact the 
ANS Nuclear Historic Landmark designation.

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 December 6, 2005 (ML091250487), as supplemented 
by letters dated October 31, 2008 (ML092650603); and April 2 
(ML093030395), June 11 (ML092030312), September 1 (ML092580215), and 
October 21, 2009 (ML092990409). 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 4th day of November 2009.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Linh Tran,
Senior Project Manager, Research and Test Reactors Branch A, Division 
of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E9-27282 Filed 11-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P