Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 61220-61225 [2010-24809]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
61220
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
repair and corrective action function is
currently filled by I&C technicians,
additional actions will be taken to
ensure basic electrical/l&C tasks can be
performed by Mechanical Maintenance
personnel. Mechanical Maintenance
personnel will receive training in basic
electrical and I&C tasks to ensure that
tasks related to these disciplines can be
performed if needed in the first 90
minutes of an event. The proposed
change will reduce the burden related to
scheduling of only selected
maintenance technicians on shift.
The NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed change will provide greater
initial coverage than the NUREG–0654/
FEMA–REP–1, Table B–1 requirement
and will continue to provide
maintenance support capability in the
early stages of an event. Based on the
on-shift staffing complement designated
in the proposed E-Plan change for
Repair and Corrective Actions (which is
in excess of Table B–1 of NUREG–0654/
FEME–REP–1) and the training that will
be provided to the Mechanical
Maintenance personnel in basic
electrical and I&C tasks, the NRC staff
believes that adequate on-shift resources
exist to support Repair and Corrective
Actions within 90 minutes of an event,
prior to being relieved by the
augmenting Emergency Response
Organization.
In addition, the proposed changes to
the on-shift and 90-minute augmented
I&C Maintenance staffing result in a
total of nine personnel designated for
Repair and Corrective actions which is
in excess of NUREG–0654/FEMA–REP–
1, Table B–1’s minimum staffing
guidance. This will increase the
licensee’s capability to perform the
Repair and Corrective actions during an
event.
Based on the above, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed changes to
the E-Plan meet the standards of 10 CFR
50.47(b) and the requirements of
Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and
provide reasonable assurance that the
licensee will take adequate protective
measures in a radiological emergency.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed changes to the RBS E-Plan.
The staff has concluded that the changes
would not significantly affect plant
safety and would not have a significant
adverse effect on the probability of an
accident occurring. The proposed action
would not result in an increased
radiological hazard beyond those
previously analyzed in the Updated
Safety Analysis Report. There will be no
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
change to radioactive effluents that
affect radiation exposures to plant
workers and members of the public. No
changes will be made to plant buildings
or the site property. Therefore, no
changes or different types of
radiological impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed changes.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The details of the NRC staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided with the
license amendment that will be issued
to the licensee approving the E-Plan
changes.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for the RBS,
dated January 1985.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on September 21, 2010, the NRC staff
consulted with the Louisiana State
official, Ms. Ji Wiley, of the Louisiana
Emergency and Radiological Services
Division, Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 January 28, 2010. Documents may
be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at
the NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR), located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading
Room on the Internet at 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 by telephone
at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day
of September 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alan B. Wang,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010–24808 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–020; NRC–2010–0313]
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology Research Reactor
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. R–37, to
be held by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT, the licensee), which
would authorize continued operation of
the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Research Reactor (MITR–II,
the facility), located in Cambridge,
Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR)
51.21, the NRC is issuing this
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility Operating License No. R–37 for
a period of twenty years from the date
of issuance of the renewed license and
increase the maximum licensed power
level from 5 megawatts thermal (MW(t))
to 6 MW(t). The proposed action is in
accordance with the licensee’s
application dated July 8, 1999, as
supplemented by letters dated February
10 and May 8, 2000, January 29, 2004,
July 5 and October 11, 2006, January 26,
2007, February 22, May 29, August 15,
August 21, August 26, October 6,
October 7 and December 1, 2008, May
26, August 27, October 5, October 9 and
November 19, 2009, and March 30,
August 6 and August 26, 2010. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the
existing license remains in effect until
the NRC takes final action on the
renewal application.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the continued operation of the
MITR–II to routinely provide teaching,
research, and services to numerous
institutions for a period of twenty years.
The proposed action is also needed to
enhance the facility’s experiment
capabilities by increasing the maximum
neutron flux in the experiment facilities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action to
issue a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R–37 to allow continued
operation of the MITR for a period of
twenty years at an increased power level
of 6 MW(t) and concludes there is
reasonable assurance that the MITR–II
will continue to operate safely for the
additional period of time at the
increased licensed power level. 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 MITR–II is located on the MIT
campus and is a part of the MIT Nuclear
Reactor Laboratory. The reactor is
housed in a dedicated building
constructed primarily of reinforced
concrete and steel which serves as a
containment. The reactor site comprises
the reactor building and a small area
immediately surrounding it, bounded by
a chain-link fence, and a portion of an
attached multipurpose academic
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
building. Adjacent to the site are an
industrial building to the north, a
parking lot and warehouse building to
the east, a warehouse building to the
south, and academic and dormitory
buildings to the west. According to the
licensee, the nearest point of normal
public occupancy is on Albany Street,
approximately 21 meters (68 feet)
northwest of the reactor building, the
nearest dormitories are located
approximately 100 meters (330 feet)
west of the reactor, and the nearest nonMIT residence is approximately 250
meters (820 feet) from the reactor
building.
The MITR–II is a tank-type, lightwater-cooled and heavy-watermoderated research reactor that will be
licensed to operate at a maximum
steady-state power level of 6 MW(t). The
core is located at the bottom of an
aluminum tank surrounded by a heavy
water reflector tank and a concrete
biological shield. The reactor is fueled
with plate-type, aluminum-clad fuel
arranged in a compact core. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found
in the MITR–II Safety Analysis Report
(SAR).
There have been no major
modifications to the Facility Operating
License since Amendment No. 10, dated
July 23, 1975, which approved
operation of a modified reactor core at
a maximum power level of 5 MW(t). In
connection with Amendment No. 10,
the NRC staff evaluated the potential for
environmental impacts associated with
operation of the MITR–II. Based on that
evaluation, the NRC staff concluded that
there would be no significant
environmental impact associated with
licensing the MITR–II to operate at a
maximum power level of 5 MW(t).
The licensee requested a change in
the facility operating conditions as part
of the renewal request. Specifically, the
licensee requested an increase in the
licensed maximum steady-state power
level. This change should not affect the
types of effluents released off site. There
may be an increase in the quantity of
gaseous effluents released offsite due to
the increase in maximum power level.
As discussed in this EA, off site
concentrations of airborne radioactive
material and potential radiation doses
should continue to be a small fraction
of the limits established in 10 CFR Part
20. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61221
and quantities of effluents expected to
be generated by continued operation of
the reactor at the increased power level.
Accordingly, there should be no
significant increase in routine
occupational or public radiation
exposure as a result of license renewal
or the increase in maximum power
level. As discussed in the NRC staff’s
safety evaluation, the proposed action
will not significantly increase the
probability of accidents. The proposed
action may increase the consequences of
accidents. Specifically, the increase in
maximum steady-state power level may
increase the fission product source term
and potential occupational and public
accident doses for the maximum
hypothetical accident. As discussed in
the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the
worst case fission product source term
will not result in occupational doses or
doses to members of the general public
in excess of the limits specified by 10
CFR part 20. Therefore, the proposed
action should not significantly 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 at the
increased power level. 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 and the increase
in the licensed maximum steady-state
power level 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 a stack adjacent to the reactor
building, at a volumetric flow rate of
approximately 3.5 cubic meters per
second (7,500 cubic feet per second).
The only significant nuclide found in
the gaseous effluent stream is Argon-41.
The licensee performs continuous
measurements of Argon-41 at the point
of release. Argon-41 releases reported in
the licensee’s annual reports average
approximately 1445 Curies (Ci) for a
typical year. According to the licensee’s
annual reports, these releases resulted
in an annual average effluent
concentration of 0.386E–8 microCuries
per milliliter (mCi/ml). The NRC staff
performed check calculations of Argon-
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61222
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
41 releases and found the licensee’s
calculations to be reasonable. The
calculated value is based on a dilution
factor of 3,000 for gaseous effluents
released from the facility exhaust stack.
The licensee’s application for license
renewal contains a more realistic, and
still conservative, dilution factor of
50,000. Based on this dilution factor, the
annual average effluent concentration of
Argon-41 would be 0.023E–8 ûCi/ml.
This concentration is less than three
percent of the air effluent concentration
limit of 1E–8 ûCi/ml set by 10 CFR part
20, appendix B, Table 2. The potential
annual radiation dose to a member of
the general public resulting from this
concentration is approximately 0.012
milliSieverts (mSv) (1.2 millirems
(mrem)). As discussed later in this EA,
the licensee’s off-site dose
measurements show a potential annual
radiation dose from gaseous effluents of
less than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem). These
potential radiation doses demonstrate
compliance with the dose limit of 1 mSv
(100 mrem) set by 10 CFR 20.1301, and
the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1
mSv (10 mrem) specified in 10 CFR
20.1101(d). The increase in maximum
steady-state power level may increase
the production of Argon-41 by 20
percent. Calculations by the licensee
predict a maximum potential annual
radiation dose to a member of the public
of less than 0.02 mSv (2 mrem) given a
20 percent increase in Argon-41
production. The NRC staff performed
check calculations of the maximum
potential dose and found the licensee’s
calculations to be reasonable. The
calculated potential dose is a small
fraction of the regulatory limits
discussed above. Because the licensee
performs continuous monitoring of all
airborne releases, the effluent
concentrations at the increased power
level will be measured to ensure that
releases remain below the regulatory
limits and as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA).
Liquid wastes are generated at the
MITR–II primarily as a result of
sampling of the coolant,
decontamination activities, and routine
cleaning of the facility. Liquid wastes
are stored in two above-ground tanks
located in a dedicated structure
equipped with leak detection and leak
containment capabilities. The licensee
disposes of liquid radioactive wastes
primarily by discharge to the sanitary
sewer. Liquid wastes may also be
disposed of by use of ion exchangers,
decay in storage, solidification, or
transfer to an appropriate waste
management facility. Discharge of liquid
waste to the sanitary sewer requires the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
approval of the Reactor Radiation
Protection Office (RRPO) to ensure that
discharges meet the requirements of 10
CFR 2.2003. Prior to discharge, a waste
sample is analyzed for gross alpha-beta,
tritium, and isotopic content to ensure
the concentrations of radionuclides in
the liquid meet the limits in 10 CFR Part
20, Appendix B, Table 3 for releases to
sewers. A sewer discharge pump is
located within the restricted area for the
discharge of liquid waste to the sewer
system. The discharge path is from the
liquid waste storage tanks into a
filtration system, through a radiation
monitor for continuous monitoring, and
then to the sewer. Discharges reported
in the licensee’s annual reports indicate
an annual average release of 0.08
milliCuries (mCi) of radionuclides other
than tritium. Reported annual releases
have not exceeded 0.21 mCi. This
demonstrates compliance with the
annual release limit of 1 Ci specified in
10 CFR 20.2003(a)(4) for radionuclides
other than tritium. These radionuclides
were discharged at an annual average
concentration of 0.54E-8 ûCi/ml, with
no monthly average concentration
exceeding 9.3E-8 ûCi/ml. As mentioned
above, the licensee performs appropriate
sampling to ensure releases of liquid
mixtures of radionuclides meet the
release criteria in 10 CFR 20.2003.
Tritium discharges reported in the
licensee’s annual reports indicate an
annual average release of 240
milliCuries (mCi) at an average
concentration of 1.91E-5 ûCi/ml. The
maximum monthly concentration
released during the past 5 years was
2.19E-4 ûCi/ml. These releases
demonstrate compliance with the
annual limit of 5 Ci specified in 10 CFR
20.2003(a)(4) and the monthly average
concentration limit of 1.0E-2 ûCi/ml for
disposal of tritium by releases to sewers
specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B,
Table 3. Due to the nature of the liquid
waste sources, quantities of liquid
wastes should not increase significantly
as a result of the increase in maximum
steady-state power level. Because the
licensee samples all liquid wastes prior
to discharge and continuously monitors
the wastes during discharge, the
licensee’s liquid waste discharge
program is adequate to ensure that all
releases will remain within the
applicable regulatory limits.
The licensee classifies solid low-level
radioactive wastes generated at the
MITR–II as either wet or dry waste. Wet
waste includes filters and ion exchange
resins. Dry waste includes ventilation
filters and contaminated materials such
as paper, cloth, metals, and other items
used for routine facility operations.
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Solid waste may also include reactor
components and experiment materials.
Solid waste management is divided into
four processes: Collection, pretreatment,
solidification, and packing. According
to the licensee, volume reduction
methodologies are applied to all
processes and solid wastes are stored
onsite for decay. After solid waste is
processed, it is sent to a designated
waste facility in accordance with all
applicable regulations. Solid radioactive
releases reported in the licensee’s
annual reports for the last 5 years
totaled 1127 mCi.
The reactor fuel and heavy-water are
supplied by the Department of Energy
(DOE). The DOE is responsible for
disposing of the spent fuel and the
heavy-water. To comply with the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, MIT
has entered into a contract with DOE
that provides that DOE retain title to the
fuel utilized at the MITR–II and that
DOE is obligated to take the fuel from
the site for final disposition. The
licensee prepares the spent fuel for
shipment in accordance with the
applicable regulations in 10 CFR parts
71 and 73, and U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations. Heavy-water
is likewise treated and stored in the
facility until DOE transfers it to a DOE
storage facility or to a processing
facility.
Personnel exposures at the facility are
well within the limits set by 10 CFR
20.1201, and ALARA. Doses to
personnel are monitored under a
program that meets the requirements of
10 CFR 20.1501. The RRPO records and
tracks all personnel radiation exposures.
Data reported in the licensee’s annual
reports indicates that most personnel
receive an annual dose of less than 1
mSv (100 mrem), with many of the
personnel doses being below the
detectable level. Data reported in the
licensee’s annual reports indicates that
the maximum personnel dose is
typically less than 7.5 mSv (750 mrem)
per year, and no personnel have
received a dose greater than half the
occupational limit of 50 mSv (5,000
mrem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The
licensee maintains air sampling, area
radiation monitoring, and bioassay
programs to further monitor potential
radiation hazards and exposures to
personnel. The licensee does not expect
the increase in reactor power level to
cause a proportional increase in
personnel doses. However, even with a
20 percent increase, personnel doses
will remain well below the regulatory
limit and the licensee’s radiation
protection program should continue to
keep personnel doses ALARA.
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
The licensee conducts an
environmental monitoring program to
record and track the potential
radiological impact of MITR–II
operation on the surrounding
environment. The RRPO administers the
program and maintains the appropriate
records in accordance with 10 CFR
20.2103. The program includes monthly
exposure measurements at locations on
the restricted area boundary and control
locations. The program also includes
quarterly exposure measurements and
continuous monitoring using GeigerMueller tube detectors at five locations
approximately 0.40 kilometers (0.25
miles) from the site boundary. The
measurements are representative of
potential public radiation doses from
the release of gaseous effluents from the
facility. Over the past five years, the
environmental monitoring program
indicated that radiation exposures at the
monitoring locations were less than 0.01
mSv (1 mrem) per year. Based on the
NRC staff’s review of the past five years
of data, the NRC staff concludes that the
potential radiological impact of
operation of the MITR–II on the
surrounding environment is a small
fraction of the regulatory limits. Any
changes in radiological impact due to
the increase in reactor power are
expected to be minimal, and the
potential radiological impact will
remain a small fraction of the regulatory
limits.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accident scenarios are discussed in
Chapter 13 of the MITR–II SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident is the
release of the fission products contained
in four fuel plates to the reactor coolant,
the containment building, and
ultimately the uncontrolled
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. As discussed in
the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the
worst case fission product source term
will not result in occupational doses or
doses to members of the general public
in excess of the limits specified by 10
CFR part 20.
II. Non-Radiological Impacts
The MITR–II core is cooled by a light
water primary system consisting of the
reactor tank, a heat removal system, and
a coolant cleanup system. Cooling
occurs by forced or natural convection,
with the heated coolant rising out of the
core and into the bulk tank water. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
primary system transfers heat to the
secondary system via heat exchangers.
The secondary system also contains heat
exchangers to remove heat from other
reactor systems at the MITR–II. The
secondary system coolant is
continuously monitored for
radioactivity using redundant radiation
detectors, and the coolant is sampled for
radioactivity daily during reactor
operation.
Losses of secondary coolant due to
evaporation and system discharge to the
sewer (blowdown) are replaced using
water from the local city water supply.
According to the licensee, daily
secondary coolant losses are
approximately 7,000 gallons due to
system blowdown and an average of
30,000 gallons due to evaporation
during reactor operation. This is a small
percentage of the approximate 2.7
million gallons used campus-wide by
MIT per day. The increase in licensed
power level may proportionally increase
the facility water usage, but the total
facility water usage will remain a small
percentage of the campus-wide water
usage. Given that the proposed action
does not involve a significant increase
in water usage, the NRC staff concludes
that the proposed action will not have
a significant impact on the local water
supply.
Heat is transferred from the secondary
system to the atmosphere via cooling
towers rated at 10 MW(t) total heat
dissipation capacity. During reactor
operation at 6 MW(t), the heat
dissipation would be comparable to that
at local factories and other MIT
laboratories. Neither extensive heat drift
nor fog will occur at this heat
dissipation rate. A small amount of heat
may be discharged to the sewer during
blowdown of the cooling towers.
However, the small amount of heat
dissipated in this manner is insufficient
to raise average water temperatures in
the surrounding environment. Based on
the above considerations, the NRC staff
concludes that the proposed action will
not have a significant thermal impact on
the surrounding environment.
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61223
I. Endangered Species Act
Federally- or State-protected species
have not been found in the vicinity of
the MITR–II. Effluents and emissions
from the MITR–II have not had an
impact on critical habitat.
II. Coastal Zone Management Act
The MITR–II is not located within any
managed coastal zones, nor would the
MITR–II effluents and emissions 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 two historical sites located
near the MIT campus, the North Avenue
Congregational Church and the New
England Confectionery Company
Factory. According to the NRHP, the
locations of these sites are
approximately 100 meters (300 feet)
from the MITR–II. 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 MITR–II will not
impact any historic sites. Based on this
information, the NRC finds that the
potential impacts of license renewal
would have no adverse effect on historic
properties. The NRC staff informed the
State Historic Preservation Officer
(SHPO) of this finding, and the SHPO
concurred with the NRC finding.
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 MITR–II. Such effects may
include human health, biological,
cultural, economic, or social impacts.
Minority and low-income populations
are subsets of the general public
residing in the vicinity of the research
reactor, and all are exposed to the same
health and environmental effects
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
61224
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
generated from activities at the MITR–
II.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of the MITR–II—According to 2000
census data, 18.1 percent of the
population (approximately 6,472,000
individuals) residing within a 50-mile
radius of the MITR–II identified
themselves as minority individuals. The
largest minority group was Hispanic or
Latino (approximately 438,000 persons
or 6.8 percent), followed by Black or
African American (approximately
397,000 persons or about 6.1 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
about 16.4 percent of the Middlesex
County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons
of Asian origin comprising the largest
minority group (6.9 percent). According
to census data 3-year average estimates
for 2006–2008, the minority population
of Middlesex County, as a percent of
total population, had increased to 20.1
percent.
Low-Income Populations in the
Vicinity of the MITR–II—According to
2000 census data, approximately
106,300 families and 575,000
individuals (6.6 and 8.9 percent,
respectively) residing within a 50-mile
radius of the MITR–II 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
household income for Massachusetts
was $64,684, while 10.0 percent of the
state population and 7.1 percent of
families were determined to be living
below the Federal poverty threshold.
Middlesex County had a higher median
household income average ($77,373)
and lower percentages (7.4 percent) of
individuals and families (4.9 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 near 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
EA, the proposed relicensing would not
have disproportionately high and
adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations residing in the
vicinity of the MITR–II.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
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 MITR–II
will eventually be decommissioning, 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. 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
MITR–II. If the Commission denied the
request for an increase in the licensed
maximum steady-state power level,
effluent releases and emissions would
remain at the current levels. As
discussed in this EA, the increase in
power level should not result in a
significant increase in effluent releases,
and all releases will remain a small
fraction of the applicable regulatory
limits. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of the increase in the licensed
maximum steady-state power level and
denial of the request are similar.
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. 10 to
Facility Operating License No. R–37 for
the MITR–II dated July 23, 1975, which
approved operation of a modified
reactor core at a maximum power level
of 5 MW(t).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency’s stated
policy, on July 22, 2010, the NRC 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
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
staff’s findings. The State official stated
the he understood the NRC review and
had no comments regarding the
proposed action. The NRC staff also
informed the SHPO of the potential
impact of the proposed action on
historic resources. As previously
mentioned, the SHPO concurred with
the NRC determination that license
renewal and the increase in licensed
power level would have no adverse
effect on historic properties in the
vicinity of the MITR–II.
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 July 8, 1999 (ML080950435), as
supplemented by letters dated February
10 (ML003683419, ML052900533,
ML053190234, and ML053190384), and
May 8, 2000 (ML081000625), January
29, 2004 (ML081000626), July 5
(ML061930319) and October 11, 2006
(ML063340716), January 26, 2007
(ML070320555), February 22
(ML081000627), May 29
(ML081560246), August 15
(ML082350069), August 21
(ML082401050), August 26
(ML082470562), October 6
(ML082900488), October 7
(ML082910241), and December 1, 2008
(ML083430006), May 26
(ML091540202), August 27
(ML092450427), October 5
(ML092930273), October 9
(ML092930278), and November 19, 2009
(ML093290155), and March 30
(ML100970368), August 6
(ML102310032), and August 26, 2010
(ML102440122). 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.
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 191 / Monday, October 4, 2010 / Notices
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of September 2010.
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. 2010–24809 Filed 10–1–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
April 28, 2010 (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS) Accession No.
ML101250340), as supplemented by
letter dated August 9, 2010 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML102300537).
The Need for the Proposed Action
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–397; NRC–2010–0029]
Energy Northwest; Columbia
Generating Station Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
changes to the Emergency Plan,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54, ‘‘Conditions
of licenses,’’ paragraph (q), for Facility
Operating License No. NPF–21, issued
to Energy Northwest (EN, the licensee)
for operation of the Columbia
Generating Station (CGS), located in
Benton County, Washington. Therefore,
as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would revise the
Emergency Plan to support U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) nonintrusive surveillance and
characterization activities within the
618–11 High-Level Waste Burial Ground
(618–11). The 618–11 site is an 8-acre
parcel located on DOE property that is
directly adjacent to land leased by EN
from the DOE, and is located wholly
within CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary.
The site was used from 1962 through
1967 and contains low- to high-activity
waste, fission products, some
plutonium-contaminated waste, and
toxicological waste. The DOE intends to
remediate 618–11 and other waste
burial ground locations on the Hanford
Site. The licensee proposes to modify
the Emergency Plan to address interagency coordination, cooperation, and
responsibilities for potential 618–11 site
events and to add specific emergency
action level criteria and actions
associated with any potential toxic,
flammable, or radioactive material
release from an abnormal event at the
618–11 site that could pose a threat to
the health and safety of licensee staff or
visitors within the CGS exclusion area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:23 Oct 01, 2010
Jkt 223001
The 618–11 site is an 8-acre parcel
located on DOE property that is directly
adjacent to land leased by EN from the
DOE, and is located wholly within
CGS’s Exclusion Area Boundary. The
site was used from 1962 through 1967
and contains low- to high-activity waste,
fission products, some plutoniumcontaminated waste, and toxicological
waste. The Hanford Federal Facility
Agreement and Consent Order between
the DOE, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the State of
Washington, is the legal document that
binds DOE to milestones to remediate
the 618–11 site, among other waste
burial ground locations, on the Hanford
Site. The non-intrusive surveillance and
characterization activities will obtain
data and information necessary for
planning future intrusive activities and
remediation strategies. The licensee
proposes to modify the Emergency Plan
to address inter-agency coordination,
cooperation, and responsibilities for
potential 618–11 site events during the
DOE’s non-intrusive surveillance and
characterization activities and to add
specific emergency action level criteria
and actions associated with any
potential toxic, flammable, or
radioactive material release from an
abnormal event at the 618–11 site that
could pose a threat to the health and
safety of licensee staff or visitors within
the CGS exclusion area.
The NRC has completed its evaluation
of the proposed action and concludes
that the proposed changes to the CGS
Emergency Plan meet the standards of
10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of
Appendix E to 10 CFR part 50 and
provide reasonable assurance that the
licensee will take adequate protective
measures in a radiological emergency.
The NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided with the license amendment
that will be issued to the licensee
approving the changes to the Emergency
Plan.
In its application, the licensee also
requested changes to the CGS Final
Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The
NRC staff’s determination regarding the
proposed changes to the FSAR will be
provided by separate correspondence.
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
61225
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed Emergency Plan changes to
CGS. The staff has concluded that the
changes would not significantly affect
plant safety and would not have a
significant adverse effect on the
probability of an accident occurring.
The proposed action would not result in
an increased radiological hazard beyond
those previously analyzed in the Final
Safety Analysis Report. There will be no
change to radioactive effluents that
affect radiation exposures to plant
workers and members of the public. No
changes will be made to plant buildings
or the site property. Therefore, no
changes or different types of
radiological impacts are expected as a
result of the proposed changes.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’
alternative). Denial of the application
would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
action and the alternative action are
similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the Final
Environmental Statement for CGS dated
December 1981.
E:\FR\FM\04OCN1.SGM
04OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 191 (Monday, October 4, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61220-61225]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24809]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-020; NRC-2010-0313]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Research Reactor 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. R-37,
to be held by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT, the
licensee), which would authorize continued operation of the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor (MITR-II, the
facility), located in Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts.
Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) 51.21, the NRC is issuing this Environmental Assessment (EA)
and Finding of No Significant Impact.
[[Page 61221]]
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. R-37
for a period of twenty years from the date of issuance of the renewed
license and increase the maximum licensed power level from 5 megawatts
thermal (MW(t)) to 6 MW(t). The proposed action is in accordance with
the licensee's application dated July 8, 1999, as supplemented by
letters dated February 10 and May 8, 2000, January 29, 2004, July 5 and
October 11, 2006, January 26, 2007, February 22, May 29, August 15,
August 21, August 26, October 6, October 7 and December 1, 2008, May
26, August 27, October 5, October 9 and November 19, 2009, and March
30, August 6 and August 26, 2010. 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 MITR-II to routinely provide teaching, research, and services to
numerous institutions for a period of twenty years. The proposed action
is also needed to enhance the facility's experiment capabilities by
increasing the maximum neutron flux in the experiment facilities.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed
action to issue a renewed Facility Operating License No. R-37 to allow
continued operation of the MITR for a period of twenty years at an
increased power level of 6 MW(t) and concludes there is reasonable
assurance that the MITR-II will continue to operate safely for the
additional period of time at the increased licensed power level. 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 MITR-II is located on the MIT campus and is a part of the MIT
Nuclear Reactor Laboratory. The reactor is housed in a dedicated
building constructed primarily of reinforced concrete and steel which
serves as a containment. The reactor site comprises the reactor
building and a small area immediately surrounding it, bounded by a
chain-link fence, and a portion of an attached multipurpose academic
building. Adjacent to the site are an industrial building to the north,
a parking lot and warehouse building to the east, a warehouse building
to the south, and academic and dormitory buildings to the west.
According to the licensee, the nearest point of normal public occupancy
is on Albany Street, approximately 21 meters (68 feet) northwest of the
reactor building, the nearest dormitories are located approximately 100
meters (330 feet) west of the reactor, and the nearest non-MIT
residence is approximately 250 meters (820 feet) from the reactor
building.
The MITR-II is a tank-type, light-water-cooled and heavy-water-
moderated research reactor that will be licensed to operate at a
maximum steady-state power level of 6 MW(t). The core is located at the
bottom of an aluminum tank surrounded by a heavy water reflector tank
and a concrete biological shield. The reactor is fueled with plate-
type, aluminum-clad fuel arranged in a compact core. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found in the MITR-II Safety Analysis
Report (SAR).
There have been no major modifications to the Facility Operating
License since Amendment No. 10, dated July 23, 1975, which approved
operation of a modified reactor core at a maximum power level of 5
MW(t). In connection with Amendment No. 10, the NRC staff evaluated the
potential for environmental impacts associated with operation of the
MITR-II. Based on that evaluation, the NRC staff concluded that there
would be no significant environmental impact associated with licensing
the MITR-II to operate at a maximum power level of 5 MW(t).
The licensee requested a change in the facility operating
conditions as part of the renewal request. Specifically, the licensee
requested an increase in the licensed maximum steady-state power level.
This change should not affect the types of effluents released off site.
There may be an increase in the quantity of gaseous effluents released
offsite due to the increase in maximum power level. As discussed in
this EA, off site concentrations of airborne radioactive material and
potential radiation doses should continue to be a small fraction of the
limits established in 10 CFR Part 20. 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 at the increased power
level. Accordingly, there should be no significant increase in routine
occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of license
renewal or the increase in maximum power level. As discussed in the NRC
staff's safety evaluation, the proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability of accidents. The proposed action may increase
the consequences of accidents. Specifically, the increase in maximum
steady-state power level may increase the fission product source term
and potential occupational and public accident doses for the maximum
hypothetical accident. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety
evaluation, the worst case fission product source term will not result
in occupational doses or doses to members of the general public in
excess of the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20. Therefore, the
proposed action should not significantly 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 at the increased power level. 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 and the increase in the licensed maximum steady-state power
level 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 a stack adjacent to the reactor building, at a
volumetric flow rate of approximately 3.5 cubic meters per second
(7,500 cubic feet per second). The only significant nuclide found in
the gaseous effluent stream is Argon-41. The licensee performs
continuous measurements of Argon-41 at the point of release. Argon-41
releases reported in the licensee's annual reports average
approximately 1445 Curies (Ci) for a typical year. According to the
licensee's annual reports, these releases resulted in an annual average
effluent concentration of 0.386E-8 microCuries per milliliter (mCi/ml).
The NRC staff performed check calculations of Argon-
[[Page 61222]]
41 releases and found the licensee's calculations to be reasonable. The
calculated value is based on a dilution factor of 3,000 for gaseous
effluents released from the facility exhaust stack. The licensee's
application for license renewal contains a more realistic, and still
conservative, dilution factor of 50,000. Based on this dilution factor,
the annual average effluent concentration of Argon-41 would be 0.023E-8
[mnplus]Ci/ml. This concentration is less than three percent of the air
effluent concentration limit of 1E-8 [mnplus]Ci/ml set by 10 CFR part
20, appendix B, Table 2. The potential annual radiation dose to a
member of the general public resulting from this concentration is
approximately 0.012 milliSieverts (mSv) (1.2 millirems (mrem)). As
discussed later in this EA, the licensee's off-site dose measurements
show a potential annual radiation dose from gaseous effluents of less
than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem). These potential radiation doses demonstrate
compliance with the dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) set by 10 CFR
20.1301, and the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem)
specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d). The increase in maximum steady-state
power level may increase the production of Argon-41 by 20 percent.
Calculations by the licensee predict a maximum potential annual
radiation dose to a member of the public of less than 0.02 mSv (2 mrem)
given a 20 percent increase in Argon-41 production. The NRC staff
performed check calculations of the maximum potential dose and found
the licensee's calculations to be reasonable. The calculated potential
dose is a small fraction of the regulatory limits discussed above.
Because the licensee performs continuous monitoring of all airborne
releases, the effluent concentrations at the increased power level will
be measured to ensure that releases remain below the regulatory limits
and as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Liquid wastes are generated at the MITR-II primarily as a result of
sampling of the coolant, decontamination activities, and routine
cleaning of the facility. Liquid wastes are stored in two above-ground
tanks located in a dedicated structure equipped with leak detection and
leak containment capabilities. The licensee disposes of liquid
radioactive wastes primarily by discharge to the sanitary sewer. Liquid
wastes may also be disposed of by use of ion exchangers, decay in
storage, solidification, or transfer to an appropriate waste management
facility. Discharge of liquid waste to the sanitary sewer requires the
approval of the Reactor Radiation Protection Office (RRPO) to ensure
that discharges meet the requirements of 10 CFR 2.2003. Prior to
discharge, a waste sample is analyzed for gross alpha-beta, tritium,
and isotopic content to ensure the concentrations of radionuclides in
the liquid meet the limits in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 3 for
releases to sewers. A sewer discharge pump is located within the
restricted area for the discharge of liquid waste to the sewer system.
The discharge path is from the liquid waste storage tanks into a
filtration system, through a radiation monitor for continuous
monitoring, and then to the sewer. Discharges reported in the
licensee's annual reports indicate an annual average release of 0.08
milliCuries (mCi) of radionuclides other than tritium. Reported annual
releases have not exceeded 0.21 mCi. This demonstrates compliance with
the annual release limit of 1 Ci specified in 10 CFR 20.2003(a)(4) for
radionuclides other than tritium. These radionuclides were discharged
at an annual average concentration of 0.54E-8 [mnplus]Ci/ml, with no
monthly average concentration exceeding 9.3E-8 [mnplus]Ci/ml. As
mentioned above, the licensee performs appropriate sampling to ensure
releases of liquid mixtures of radionuclides meet the release criteria
in 10 CFR 20.2003. Tritium discharges reported in the licensee's annual
reports indicate an annual average release of 240 milliCuries (mCi) at
an average concentration of 1.91E-5 [mnplus]Ci/ml. The maximum monthly
concentration released during the past 5 years was 2.19E-4 [mnplus]Ci/
ml. These releases demonstrate compliance with the annual limit of 5 Ci
specified in 10 CFR 20.2003(a)(4) and the monthly average concentration
limit of 1.0E-2 [mnplus]Ci/ml for disposal of tritium by releases to
sewers specified in 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table 3. Due to the nature
of the liquid waste sources, quantities of liquid wastes should not
increase significantly as a result of the increase in maximum steady-
state power level. Because the licensee samples all liquid wastes prior
to discharge and continuously monitors the wastes during discharge, the
licensee's liquid waste discharge program is adequate to ensure that
all releases will remain within the applicable regulatory limits.
The licensee classifies solid low-level radioactive wastes
generated at the MITR-II as either wet or dry waste. Wet waste includes
filters and ion exchange resins. Dry waste includes ventilation filters
and contaminated materials such as paper, cloth, metals, and other
items used for routine facility operations. Solid waste may also
include reactor components and experiment materials. Solid waste
management is divided into four processes: Collection, pretreatment,
solidification, and packing. According to the licensee, volume
reduction methodologies are applied to all processes and solid wastes
are stored onsite for decay. After solid waste is processed, it is sent
to a designated waste facility in accordance with all applicable
regulations. Solid radioactive releases reported in the licensee's
annual reports for the last 5 years totaled 1127 mCi.
The reactor fuel and heavy-water are supplied by the Department of
Energy (DOE). The DOE is responsible for disposing of the spent fuel
and the heavy-water. To comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, MIT has entered into a contract with DOE that provides that DOE
retain title to the fuel utilized at the MITR-II and that DOE is
obligated to take the fuel from the site for final disposition. The
licensee prepares the spent fuel for shipment in accordance with the
applicable regulations in 10 CFR parts 71 and 73, and U.S. Department
of Transportation regulations. Heavy-water is likewise treated and
stored in the facility until DOE transfers it to a DOE storage facility
or to a processing facility.
Personnel exposures at the facility are well within the limits set
by 10 CFR 20.1201, and ALARA. Doses to personnel are monitored under a
program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1501. The RRPO records
and tracks all personnel radiation exposures. Data reported in the
licensee's annual reports indicates that most personnel receive an
annual dose of less than 1 mSv (100 mrem), with many of the personnel
doses being below the detectable level. Data reported in the licensee's
annual reports indicates that the maximum personnel dose is typically
less than 7.5 mSv (750 mrem) per year, and no personnel have received a
dose greater than half the occupational limit of 50 mSv (5,000 mrem)
specified in 10 CFR 20.1201. The licensee maintains air sampling, area
radiation monitoring, and bioassay programs to further monitor
potential radiation hazards and exposures to personnel. The licensee
does not expect the increase in reactor power level to cause a
proportional increase in personnel doses. However, even with a 20
percent increase, personnel doses will remain well below the regulatory
limit and the licensee's radiation protection program should continue
to keep personnel doses ALARA.
[[Page 61223]]
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to record
and track the potential radiological impact of MITR-II operation on the
surrounding environment. The RRPO administers the program and maintains
the appropriate records in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2103. The program
includes monthly exposure measurements at locations on the restricted
area boundary and control locations. The program also includes
quarterly exposure measurements and continuous monitoring using Geiger-
Mueller tube detectors at five locations approximately 0.40 kilometers
(0.25 miles) from the site boundary. The measurements are
representative of potential public radiation doses from the release of
gaseous effluents from the facility. Over the past five years, the
environmental monitoring program indicated that radiation exposures at
the monitoring locations were less than 0.01 mSv (1 mrem) per year.
Based on the NRC staff's review of the past five years of data, the NRC
staff concludes that the potential radiological impact of operation of
the MITR-II on the surrounding environment is a small fraction of the
regulatory limits. Any changes in radiological impact due to the
increase in reactor power are expected to be minimal, and the potential
radiological impact will remain a small fraction of the regulatory
limits.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accident scenarios are discussed in Chapter 13 of the MITR-II SAR.
The maximum hypothetical accident is the release of the fission
products contained in four fuel plates to the reactor coolant, the
containment building, and ultimately the uncontrolled 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. As discussed in the NRC staff's
safety evaluation, the worst case fission product source term will not
result in occupational doses or doses to members of the general public
in excess of the limits specified by 10 CFR part 20.
II. Non-Radiological Impacts
The MITR-II core is cooled by a light water primary system
consisting of the reactor tank, a heat removal system, and a coolant
cleanup system. Cooling occurs by forced or natural convection, with
the heated coolant rising out of the core and into the bulk tank water.
The primary system transfers heat to the secondary system via heat
exchangers. The secondary system also contains heat exchangers to
remove heat from other reactor systems at the MITR-II. The secondary
system coolant is continuously monitored for radioactivity using
redundant radiation detectors, and the coolant is sampled for
radioactivity daily during reactor operation.
Losses of secondary coolant due to evaporation and system discharge
to the sewer (blowdown) are replaced using water from the local city
water supply. According to the licensee, daily secondary coolant losses
are approximately 7,000 gallons due to system blowdown and an average
of 30,000 gallons due to evaporation during reactor operation. This is
a small percentage of the approximate 2.7 million gallons used campus-
wide by MIT per day. The increase in licensed power level may
proportionally increase the facility water usage, but the total
facility water usage will remain a small percentage of the campus-wide
water usage. Given that the proposed action does not involve a
significant increase in water usage, the NRC staff concludes that the
proposed action will not have a significant impact on the local water
supply.
Heat is transferred from the secondary system to the atmosphere via
cooling towers rated at 10 MW(t) total heat dissipation capacity.
During reactor operation at 6 MW(t), the heat dissipation would be
comparable to that at local factories and other MIT laboratories.
Neither extensive heat drift nor fog will occur at this heat
dissipation rate. A small amount of heat may be discharged to the sewer
during blowdown of the cooling towers. However, the small amount of
heat dissipated in this manner is insufficient to raise average water
temperatures in the surrounding environment. Based on the above
considerations, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will
not have a significant thermal impact on the surrounding environment.
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
Federally- or State-protected species have not been found in the
vicinity of the MITR-II. Effluents and emissions from the MITR-II have
not had an impact on critical habitat.
II. Coastal Zone Management Act
The MITR-II is not located within any managed coastal zones, nor
would the MITR-II effluents and emissions 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 two historical sites located near the MIT campus,
the North Avenue Congregational Church and the New England
Confectionery Company Factory. According to the NRHP, the locations of
these sites are approximately 100 meters (300 feet) from the MITR-II.
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 MITR-II will not impact any historic sites. Based on
this information, the NRC finds that the potential impacts of license
renewal would have no adverse effect on historic properties. The NRC
staff informed the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of this
finding, and the SHPO concurred with the NRC finding.
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 MITR-II. Such
effects may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or
social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the
general public residing in the vicinity of the research reactor, and
all are exposed to the same health and environmental effects
[[Page 61224]]
generated from activities at the MITR-II.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the MITR-II--According to
2000 census data, 18.1 percent of the population (approximately
6,472,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of the MITR-II
identified themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority
group was Hispanic or Latino (approximately 438,000 persons or 6.8
percent), followed by Black or African American (approximately 397,000
persons or about 6.1 percent). According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
about 16.4 percent of the Middlesex County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons of Asian origin comprising the
largest minority group (6.9 percent). According to census data 3-year
average estimates for 2006-2008, the minority population of Middlesex
County, as a percent of total population, had increased to 20.1
percent.
Low-Income Populations in the Vicinity of the MITR-II--According to
2000 census data, approximately 106,300 families and 575,000
individuals (6.6 and 8.9 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-
mile radius of the MITR-II 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 household income for Massachusetts was
$64,684, while 10.0 percent of the state population and 7.1 percent of
families were determined to be living below the Federal poverty
threshold. Middlesex County had a higher median household income
average ($77,373) and lower percentages (7.4 percent) of individuals
and families (4.9 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 near 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 EA, the proposed relicensing
would not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing
in the vicinity of the MITR-II.
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 MITR-II will eventually be decommissioning, 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. 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 MITR-II. If the Commission denied the
request for an increase in the licensed maximum steady-state power
level, effluent releases and emissions would remain at the current
levels. As discussed in this EA, the increase in power level should not
result in a significant increase in effluent releases, and all releases
will remain a small fraction of the applicable regulatory limits.
Therefore, the environmental impacts of the increase in the licensed
maximum steady-state power level and denial of the request are similar.
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. 10 to Facility
Operating License No. R-37 for the MITR-II dated July 23, 1975, which
approved operation of a modified reactor core at a maximum power level
of 5 MW(t).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency's stated policy, on July 22, 2010,
the NRC 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 NRC staff also informed the SHPO of
the potential impact of the proposed action on historic resources. As
previously mentioned, the SHPO concurred with the NRC determination
that license renewal and the increase in licensed power level would
have no adverse effect on historic properties in the vicinity of the
MITR-II.
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 July 8, 1999 (ML080950435), as supplemented by
letters dated February 10 (ML003683419, ML052900533, ML053190234, and
ML053190384), and May 8, 2000 (ML081000625), January 29, 2004
(ML081000626), July 5 (ML061930319) and October 11, 2006 (ML063340716),
January 26, 2007 (ML070320555), February 22 (ML081000627), May 29
(ML081560246), August 15 (ML082350069), August 21 (ML082401050), August
26 (ML082470562), October 6 (ML082900488), October 7 (ML082910241), and
December 1, 2008 (ML083430006), May 26 (ML091540202), August 27
(ML092450427), October 5 (ML092930273), October 9 (ML092930278), and
November 19, 2009 (ML093290155), and March 30 (ML100970368), August 6
(ML102310032), and August 26, 2010 (ML102440122). 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.
[[Page 61225]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 2010.
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. 2010-24809 Filed 10-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
