Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Critical Experiments Facility; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 34770-34773 [2011-14665]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
34770
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Brief description of amendment: This
license amendment modifies the
requirements for testing control rod
scram times following fuel movement
within the reactor pressure vessel by
incorporating Nuclear Regulatory
Commission approved Technical
Specification Task Force (TSTF) change
traveler TSTF–222–A, Revision 1.
Date of issuance: May 19, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 90 days.
Amendment No.: 157.
Facility Operating License No. NPF–
58: This amendment revised the
Technical Specifications and License.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: February 22, 2011 (76 FR
9824).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendment is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 19, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
STP Nuclear Operating Company,
Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499, South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, Matagorda
County, Texas
Date of amendment request: May 18,
2010, as supplemented by letters dated
March 1 and May 2, 2011.
Brief description of amendments: The
amendments revised Technical
Specification (TS) 6.8.3.I, ‘‘Containment
Post-Tensioning System Surveillance
Program,’’ and the related TS
Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.6,
‘‘Containment Prestressing System,’’ for
consistency with the requirements of
the containment inservice inspection
program mandated by paragraph
50.55a(g)(4) of Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), for
components classified as Code Class CC.
Specifically, the amendments deleted
the reference to the specific American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code)
edition in TS 6.8.3.l and replaced it
with the requirement to use the
applicable ASME Code, Section XI
edition and addenda for successive 10year inservice inspection intervals in
accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a, ‘‘Codes
and standards.’’ The changes have no
impact on the implementation of the
Containment Post-Tensioning System
Surveillance Program or the design basis
of STP, Units 1 and 2.
Date of issuance: May 27, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–196; Unit
2–184.
Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–
76 and NPF–80: The amendments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Jun 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
revised the Facility Operating Licenses
and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 21, 2010 (75 FR
57529). The supplemental letter dated
March 1, 2011, provided additional
information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of
the application as originally noticed, but
did change the staff’s original proposed
no significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register on September 21, 2010
(75 FR 57529). The revised proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination was published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76
FR 16012).
The supplemental letter dated May 2,
2011, provided additional information
that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as
noticed on March 22, 2011, and did not
change the staff’s revised proposed no
significant hazards consideration
determination as published in the
Federal Register on March 22, 2011 (76
FR 16012).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 27, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et
al., Docket No. 50–281, Surry Power
Station, Unit 2, Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments:
December 16, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments:
These amendments revised the
inspection scope and repair
requirements of Technical Specification
(TS) Section 6.4.Q, ‘‘Steam Generator
Program,’’ and to the reporting
requirements of TS Section 6.6.A.3,
‘‘Steam Generator Tube Inspection
Report.’’ The proposed changes would
be applicable to Surry Unit 2 during
Refueling Outage 23 and the subsequent
operating cycle.
Date of issuance: May 20, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: 273.
Renewed Facility Operating License
No. DPR–37: Amendment changes the
licenses and the technical
specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: April 19, 2011 (76 FR 21923).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 20, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
PO 00000
Frm 00132
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Virginia Electric and Power Company, et
al., Docket Nos. 50–280 and 50–281,
Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2
(Surry 1 and 2), Surry County, Virginia
Date of application for amendments:
May 6, 2010.
Brief Description of amendments:
These amendments revised the licenses
and the Technical Specifications (TSs)
to provide new limits that are valid to
48 effective full-power years for Surry 1
and 2.
Date of issuance: May 31, 2011.
Effective date: As of the date of
issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment Nos.: Unit 1–274 and
Unit 2–274.
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–32 and DPR–37: Amendments
change the licenses and the TSs.
Date of initial notice in Federal
Register: September 7, 2010 (75 FR
54396).
The Commission’s related evaluation
of the amendments is contained in a
Safety Evaluation dated May 31, 2011.
No significant hazards consideration
comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day
of June 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph G. Giitter,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–14680 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[Docket No. 50–225; NRC–2008–0277]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Critical Experiments Facility;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of a renewed
Facility Operating License No. CX–22,
to be held by the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute (RPI, the licensee), which
would authorize continued operation of
the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Critical Experiments Facility (RCF),
located in Schenectady, Schenectady
County, New York. Therefore, as
required by Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section
51.21, the NRC is issuing this
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact.
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility Operating License No. CX–22
for a period of twenty years from the
date of issuance of the renewed license.
The proposed action is in accordance
with the licensee’s application dated
November 19, 2002, as supplemented by
letters dated July 21, July 28, and
September 3, 2008; June 28, August 31,
October 14, and October 28, 2010; and
February 14 and May 9, 2011. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the
existing license remains in effect until
the NRC takes final action on the
renewal application.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to
allow the continued operation of the
RCF to routinely provide teaching,
research, and services to numerous
institutions for a period of 20 years.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its safety
evaluation of the proposed action to
issue a renewed Facility Operating
License No. CX–22 to allow continued
operation of the RCF for a period of
twenty years and concludes there is
reasonable assurance that the RCF will
continue to operate safely for the
additional period of time specified in
the renewed license. The details of the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation will be
provided with the renewed license that
will be issued as part of the letter to the
licensee approving the license renewal
application. This document contains the
environmental assessment of the
proposed action.
The RCF is located on the south bank
of the Mohawk River, approximately 24
kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi))
northwest of the main RPI campus. The
building housing the RCF is a standalone concrete structure previously
owned by the American Locomotive
Company. An exhaust stack discharges
RCF ventilation 15 meters (m) (50 feet
(ft)) above ground level. A chain-link
fence and controlled access gates
enclose the exclusion area surrounding
the building. The exclusion area
measures approximately 30 m (100 ft)
by 30 m (100 ft). The nearest permanent
residence is located 350 m (1150 ft) to
the southeast.
The RCF is a light-water-moderated
critical facility licensed to operate at a
maximum steady-state power level of
100 watts thermal power (W(t)). The
core is located in a 7600 liter (l) (2000
gallon (gal)) stainless steel tank with an
inner diameter of 2.1 m (7 ft). The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Jun 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
reactor is fueled with low enriched
uranium SPERT fuel pins. Reactivity
control is provided by four Boron-10
control rods. A detailed description of
the reactor can be found in the RCF
Safety Analysis Report (SAR). There
have been no major modifications to the
facility operating license since
Amendment No. 7, dated July 7, 1987,
which ordered the licensee to convert
the reactor to use low-enriched uranium
fuel.
The licensee has not requested any
changes to the facility design or
operating conditions as part of the
application for license renewal. No
changes are being made in the types or
quantities of effluents that may be
released off site. The licensee
implements a radiation protection
program to monitor personnel exposures
and radiation dose at the site boundary.
As discussed in the NRC staff’s safety
evaluation, the radiation protection
program is appropriate for the types and
quantities of effluents expected to be
generated by continued operation of the
reactor. Accordingly, there would be no
increase in routine occupational or
public radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal. As discussed in the
NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the
proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents. Therefore, license renewal
would not change the environmental
impact of facility operation. The NRC
staff evaluated information contained in
the licensee’s application and data
reported to the NRC by the licensee for
the last five years of operation to
determine the projected radiological
impact of the facility on the
environment during the period of the
renewed license. The NRC staff finds
that releases of radioactive material and
personnel exposures were all well
within applicable regulatory limits, and
often below detection limits. Based on
this evaluation, the NRC staff concludes
that continued operation of the reactor
should not have a significant
environmental impact.
I. Radiological Impact
Environmental Effects of Reactor
Operations
Gaseous effluents are discharged from
the reactor room via the exhaust stack.
A continuous air monitor samples the
air above the reactor tank for particulate
beta-gamma activity. There are no
nuclides of detectable concentration in
the RCF gaseous effluent stream. This is
consistent with the low power and
infrequent operation of the RCF. No
radioactivity associated with gaseous
effluents was reported to the NRC
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34771
during the reporting period from
January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.
Accordingly, the licensee has
demonstrated compliance with the
limits specified in 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix B for air effluent releases. The
maximum dose rate to a member of the
general public due to gaseous effluents
is expected to be less than 0.01
milliSievert per year (mSv/yr) (1
millirem per year (mrem/yr)). This
demonstrates compliance with the
annual dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem)
set by 10 CFR 20.1301. Additionally,
this potential radiation dose
demonstrates compliance with the
annual air emissions dose constraint of
0.1 mSv (10 mrem) specified in 10 CFR
20.1101(d).
Liquid effluents are discharged to the
Mohawk River or an external holding
container. Due to low neutron flux and
limited operations, the RCF pool water
does not accumulate significant
amounts of activation products. Liquid
effluents are sampled for nuclide
activity prior to discharge. Liquid waste
that does not meet the discharge
requirements of 10 CFR 20.2003 for
disposal by release into sanitary
sewerage, is retained onsite in an
appropriate container until proper
disposal can be arranged. Liquid
radioactive releases reported to the NRC
were within the limits specified in 10
CFR part 20, Appendix B for liquid
effluents. During the reporting period
from January 1, 2005, to December 31,
2009, two discharges of liquid effluent
with no detectable activity were made to
the Mohawk River for the purpose of
flushing the storage tank.
The licensee did not package or ship
any solid low-level radioactive waste
during the reporting period from
January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009,
nor does the licensee anticipate
shipping any during the period of the
renewed license. To comply with the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, RPI
has entered into a contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that
provides that DOE retains title to the
fuel utilized at the RCF and that DOE is
obligated to take the fuel from the site
for final disposition. The licensee does
not anticipate the need to ship any highlevel radioactive waste during the 20year period of license renewal.
The RPI radiation safety officer tracks
personnel exposures, which are usually
less than 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) per year.
Personnel exposures reported to the
NRC were within the limits set by 10
CFR 20.1201, and ALARA (As Low As
is Reasonably Achievable). No changes
in reactor operation that would lead to
an increase in occupational dose are
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
34772
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices
expected as a result of the proposed
action.
The licensee conducts an
environmental monitoring program to
measure the dose rates at locations
around the RCF. Dose measurements are
made quarterly using
thermoluminescent dosimeters. The
monitoring program comprises four
measurements at the exclusion area
boundary and two measurements at the
site boundary. An additional
measurement for control purposes is
taken at the General Electric Guard
Station more than 1.6 km (1 mi) away.
During the reporting period from
January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009,
measured doses at the site boundary
were within 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr)
(the detectable limit) of the control
measurement. This demonstrates
compliance with the limits set by 10
CFR 20.1301. Based on the NRC staff’s
review of the past five years of data, the
NRC staff concludes that operation of
the RCF does not have any significant
radiological impact on the surrounding
environment. No changes in reactor
operation that would affect off-site
radiation levels are expected as a result
of license renewal.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accident scenarios are discussed in
chapter 13 of the RCF SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident (MHA)
is the failure of an experiment leading
to a release of airborne radioactive
material into the reactor room and into
the environment. The licensee
conservatively calculated doses to
facility personnel and the maximum
potential dose to a member of the
public. The NRC staff performed
independent calculations to verify that
the doses represent conservative
estimates for the MHA. As discussed in
the NRC staff’s safety evaluation, the
MHA will not result in occupational
doses or doses to members of the
general public in excess of the limits
specified in 10 CFR part 20. The
proposed action will not increase the
probability or consequences of
accidents.
II. Non-Radiological Impact
The RFC uses standard city water as
a neutron moderator and core shielding.
Water usage is minimized by draining
the reactor tank into a storage tank upon
shutdown for reuse during the following
operating period. All surfaces that come
into contact with the moderator are
stainless steel, thus eliminating the need
for routine filtration and
demineralization of the moderator to
prevent corrosion. Evaporative losses of
the moderator are minimal, and are
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Jun 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
replaced with city water when
necessary. The RCF core does not
produce sufficient power to
significantly heat the moderator. As a
result, there are no significant thermal
effluents associated with operation of
the RCF.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Considerations
NRC has responsibilities that are
derived from NEPA and from other
environmental laws, which include the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA),
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (FWCA), and Executive Order 12898
Environmental Justice. The following
presents a brief discussion of impacts
associated with these laws and other
requirements.
I. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The RCF site does not contain any
Federally- or state-protected fauna or
flora, nor do the RCF effluents impact
the habitats of any such fauna or flora,
with one possible exception. The Karner
blue butterfly is listed as endangered in
Schenectady County, New York, as well
as in numerous other counties in varied
states along the Great Lakes Region, by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
primary threats to this species are
habitat destruction and wildfire
suppression. Continued operation of the
RCF does not pose any unique or
serious threats to this species as the RCF
site is well established, has a small
footprint, and is surrounded by
developed land unsuitable for
supporting a large population of Karner
blue butterflies.
II. Costal Zone Management Act
(CZMA)
The site occupied by the RCF is not
located within any managed coastal
zones, nor do the RCF effluents impact
any managed costal zones.
III. National Historical Preservation Act
(NHPA)
The NHPA requires Federal agencies
to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. The
National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) lists several historical sites
located near the RCF. According to the
NRHP, the locations of these sites are at
least 0.5 km (0.3 mi) from the RCF.
Given the distance to these sites and
that the proposed action does not
involve any demolition, rehabilitation,
construction, changes in land use, or
significant changes in effluents from the
facility, continued operation of the RCF
will not impact any historic sites. The
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
NRC staff consulted the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the
SHPO determined that license renewal
would have no adverse effect on historic
properties in the vicinity of the RCF.
Based on this information, the NRC staff
finds that the potential impacts of
license renewal would have no adverse
effect on historic properties.
IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The licensee is not planning any
water resource development projects,
including any of the modifications
relating to impounding a body of water,
damming, diverting a stream or river,
deepening a channel, irrigation, or
altering a body of water for navigation
or drainage.
V. Executive Order 12898—
Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from the
relicensing and the continued operation
of the RCF. Such effects may include
human health, biological, cultural,
economic, or social impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of the RCF—According to 2000 census
data, 10.2 percent of the total
population (approximately 1,307,000
individuals) residing within a 50-mile
radius of RCF identified themselves as
minority individuals. The largest
minority groups were Black or African
American (approximately 73,000
persons or 5.6 percent), followed by
Hispanic or Latino (33,000 or 2.5
percent). According to the U.S. Census
Bureau, about 13.7 percent of the
Schenectady County population
identified themselves as minorities,
with persons of Black or African
American origin comprising the largest
minority group (6.8 percent). According
to the census data 3-year average
estimates for 2006–2008, the minority
population of Schenectady County, as a
percent of the total population, had
increased to 20 percent.
Low-income Populations in the
Vicinity of the RCF—According to 2000
Census data, approximately 23,000
families and 123,000 individuals
(approximately 6.9 and 9.4 percent,
respectively) residing within a 50-mile
radius of the RCF were identified as
living below the Federal poverty
threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal
poverty threshold was $17,029 for a
family of four.
According to Census data in the
2006–2008 American Community
Survey 3-Year Estimates, the median
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 14, 2011 / Notices
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
household income for New York was
$55,401, while 10.5 percent of families
and 13.8 percent of the state population
were determined to be living below the
Federal poverty threshold. Schenectady
County had the same median household
income average ($55,421) and a lower
percent of families (6.7 percent) and a
similar percentage of individuals (10.8
percent) living below the poverty level,
respectively.
Impact Analysis—Potential impacts to
minority and low-income populations
would mostly consist of radiological
effects, however radiation doses from
continued operations associated with
the license renewal are expected to
continue at current levels, and would be
well below regulatory limits. Minority
and low-income populations are subsets
of the general public residing around
the RCF, and all are exposed to the same
health and environmental effects
generated from activities at the RCF.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
environmental assessment, the license
renewal would not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations residing in the vicinity of
the RCF.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal,
the NRC staff considered denial of the
proposed action. If the Commission
denied the application for license
renewal, facility operations would end
and decommissioning would be
required. The NRC staff notes that, even
with a renewed license, the RCF will
eventually be decommissioned, at
which time the environmental effects of
decommissioning will occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted
in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would
require a separate environmental review
under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of reactor
operations would reduce or eliminate
radioactive effluents and emissions.
However, as previously discussed in
this environmental assessment,
radioactive effluents and emissions from
reactor operations constitute a small
fraction of the applicable regulatory
limits, and are often below detectable
levels. Therefore, the environmental
impacts of license renewal and the
denial of the request for license renewal
would be similar. In addition, denying
the request for license renewal would
eliminate the benefits of teaching,
research, and services provided by the
RCF.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:27 Jun 13, 2011
Jkt 223001
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve
the use of any different resources or
significant quantities of resources
beyond those previously considered in
the issuance of Amendment No. 5 to
Facility Operating License No. CX–22,
dated December, 1983, which renewed
the license for a period of twenty years,
or the issuance of Amendment No. 7
dated July 7, 1987, which ordered RPI
to convert the reactor to use lowenriched uranium fuel.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency’s stated
policy, on September 4, 2008, the NRC
staff consulted with the State Liaison
Officer regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State
official had no comments regarding the
proposed action. The NRC staff also
consulted with the SHPO regarding the
potential impact of the proposed action
on historic resources. As previously
mentioned, the SHPO determined that
license renewal would have no adverse
effect on historic properties in the
vicinity of the RCF.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s letter
dated November 19, 2002
(ML023380455 and ML072210835), as
supplemented on July 21
(ML082060048), July 28
(ML082190523), and September 3, 2008
(ML101260200); June 28
(ML101820298), August 31
(ML102790045 and ML102720039),
October 14 (ML103070074), and October
28, 2010 (ML103080207); and February
14 (ML110490531) and May 9, 2011
(ML11131A180). Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from
the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the NRC
Web site 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
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
34773
1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737, or
send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day
of June, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jessie Quichocho,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing
Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–14665 Filed 6–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2010–0282]
Final Safety Culture Policy Statement
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of final safety culture
policy statement.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is issuing this Statement of Policy to set
forth its expectation that individuals
and organizations performing or
overseeing regulated activities establish
and maintain a positive safety culture
commensurate with the safety and
security significance of their activities
and the nature and complexity of their
organizations and functions. The
Commission defines Nuclear Safety
Culture as the core values and behaviors
resulting from a collective commitment
by leaders and individuals to emphasize
safety over competing goals to ensure
protection of people and the
environment. This policy statement
applies to all licensees, certificate
holders, permit holders, authorization
holders, holders of quality assurance
program approvals, vendors and
suppliers of safety-related components,
and applicants for a license, certificate,
permit, authorization, or quality
assurance program approval, subject to
NRC authority.
DATES: This policy statement becomes
effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: You can access publicly
available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
• NRC’s Public Document Room
(PDR): The public may examine and
have copied, for a fee, publicly available
documents at the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–
F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents
created or received at the NRC are
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\14JNN1.SGM
14JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34770-34773]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14665]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
[Docket No. 50-225; NRC-2008-0277]
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Critical Experiments Facility;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) is
considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating License No. CX-22,
to be held by the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI, the licensee),
which would authorize continued operation of the Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute Critical Experiments Facility (RCF), located in Schenectady,
Schenectady County, New York. Therefore, as required by Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 51.21, the NRC is issuing
this Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact.
[[Page 34771]]
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. CX-
22 for a period of twenty years from the date of issuance of the
renewed license. The proposed action is in accordance with the
licensee's application dated November 19, 2002, as supplemented by
letters dated July 21, July 28, and September 3, 2008; June 28, August
31, October 14, and October 28, 2010; and February 14 and May 9, 2011.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the existing license remains in effect
until the NRC takes final action on the renewal application.
Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed action is needed to allow the continued operation of
the RCF to routinely provide teaching, research, and services to
numerous institutions for a period of 20 years.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed
action to issue a renewed Facility Operating License No. CX-22 to allow
continued operation of the RCF for a period of twenty years and
concludes there is reasonable assurance that the RCF will continue to
operate safely for the additional period of time specified in the
renewed license. The details of the NRC staff's safety evaluation will
be provided with the renewed license that will be issued as part of the
letter to the licensee approving the license renewal application. This
document contains the environmental assessment of the proposed action.
The RCF is located on the south bank of the Mohawk River,
approximately 24 kilometers (km) (15 miles (mi)) northwest of the main
RPI campus. The building housing the RCF is a stand-alone concrete
structure previously owned by the American Locomotive Company. An
exhaust stack discharges RCF ventilation 15 meters (m) (50 feet (ft))
above ground level. A chain-link fence and controlled access gates
enclose the exclusion area surrounding the building. The exclusion area
measures approximately 30 m (100 ft) by 30 m (100 ft). The nearest
permanent residence is located 350 m (1150 ft) to the southeast.
The RCF is a light-water-moderated critical facility licensed to
operate at a maximum steady-state power level of 100 watts thermal
power (W(t)). The core is located in a 7600 liter (l) (2000 gallon
(gal)) stainless steel tank with an inner diameter of 2.1 m (7 ft). The
reactor is fueled with low enriched uranium SPERT fuel pins. Reactivity
control is provided by four Boron-10 control rods. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found in the RCF Safety Analysis
Report (SAR). There have been no major modifications to the facility
operating license since Amendment No. 7, dated July 7, 1987, which
ordered the licensee to convert the reactor to use low-enriched uranium
fuel.
The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design
or operating conditions as part of the application for license renewal.
No changes are being made in the types or quantities of effluents that
may be released off site. The licensee implements a radiation
protection program to monitor personnel exposures and radiation dose at
the site boundary. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation,
the radiation protection program is appropriate for the types and
quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued operation
of the reactor. Accordingly, there would be no increase in routine
occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of license
renewal. As discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the
proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or
consequences of accidents. Therefore, license renewal would not change
the environmental impact of facility operation. The NRC staff evaluated
information contained in the licensee's application and data reported
to the NRC by the licensee for the last five years of operation to
determine the projected radiological impact of the facility on the
environment during the period of the renewed license. The NRC staff
finds that releases of radioactive material and personnel exposures
were all well within applicable regulatory limits, and often below
detection limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff concludes
that continued operation of the reactor should not have a significant
environmental impact.
I. Radiological Impact
Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations
Gaseous effluents are discharged from the reactor room via the
exhaust stack. A continuous air monitor samples the air above the
reactor tank for particulate beta-gamma activity. There are no nuclides
of detectable concentration in the RCF gaseous effluent stream. This is
consistent with the low power and infrequent operation of the RCF. No
radioactivity associated with gaseous effluents was reported to the NRC
during the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009.
Accordingly, the licensee has demonstrated compliance with the limits
specified in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B for air effluent releases. The
maximum dose rate to a member of the general public due to gaseous
effluents is expected to be less than 0.01 milliSievert per year (mSv/
yr) (1 millirem per year (mrem/yr)). This demonstrates compliance with
the annual dose limit of 1 mSv (100 mrem) set by 10 CFR 20.1301.
Additionally, this potential radiation dose demonstrates compliance
with the annual air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 mSv (10 mrem)
specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
Liquid effluents are discharged to the Mohawk River or an external
holding container. Due to low neutron flux and limited operations, the
RCF pool water does not accumulate significant amounts of activation
products. Liquid effluents are sampled for nuclide activity prior to
discharge. Liquid waste that does not meet the discharge requirements
of 10 CFR 20.2003 for disposal by release into sanitary sewerage, is
retained onsite in an appropriate container until proper disposal can
be arranged. Liquid radioactive releases reported to the NRC were
within the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20, Appendix B for liquid
effluents. During the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2009, two discharges of liquid effluent with no detectable
activity were made to the Mohawk River for the purpose of flushing the
storage tank.
The licensee did not package or ship any solid low-level
radioactive waste during the reporting period from January 1, 2005, to
December 31, 2009, nor does the licensee anticipate shipping any during
the period of the renewed license. To comply with the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act of 1982, RPI has entered into a contract with the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) that provides that DOE retains title to the
fuel utilized at the RCF and that DOE is obligated to take the fuel
from the site for final disposition. The licensee does not anticipate
the need to ship any high-level radioactive waste during the 20-year
period of license renewal.
The RPI radiation safety officer tracks personnel exposures, which
are usually less than 0.1 mSv (10 mrem) per year. Personnel exposures
reported to the NRC were within the limits set by 10 CFR 20.1201, and
ALARA (As Low As is Reasonably Achievable). No changes in reactor
operation that would lead to an increase in occupational dose are
[[Page 34772]]
expected as a result of the proposed action.
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to
measure the dose rates at locations around the RCF. Dose measurements
are made quarterly using thermoluminescent dosimeters. The monitoring
program comprises four measurements at the exclusion area boundary and
two measurements at the site boundary. An additional measurement for
control purposes is taken at the General Electric Guard Station more
than 1.6 km (1 mi) away. During the reporting period from January 1,
2005, to December 31, 2009, measured doses at the site boundary were
within 0.1 mSv/yr (10 mrem/yr) (the detectable limit) of the control
measurement. This demonstrates compliance with the limits set by 10 CFR
20.1301. Based on the NRC staff's review of the past five years of
data, the NRC staff concludes that operation of the RCF does not have
any significant radiological impact on the surrounding environment. No
changes in reactor operation that would affect off-site radiation
levels are expected as a result of license renewal.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
Accident scenarios are discussed in chapter 13 of the RCF SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is the failure of an experiment
leading to a release of airborne radioactive material into the reactor
room and into the environment. The licensee conservatively calculated
doses to facility personnel and the maximum potential dose to a member
of the public. The NRC staff performed independent calculations to
verify that the doses represent conservative estimates for the MHA. As
discussed in the NRC staff's safety evaluation, the MHA will not result
in occupational doses or doses to members of the general public in
excess of the limits specified in 10 CFR part 20. The proposed action
will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents.
II. Non-Radiological Impact
The RFC uses standard city water as a neutron moderator and core
shielding. Water usage is minimized by draining the reactor tank into a
storage tank upon shutdown for reuse during the following operating
period. All surfaces that come into contact with the moderator are
stainless steel, thus eliminating the need for routine filtration and
demineralization of the moderator to prevent corrosion. Evaporative
losses of the moderator are minimal, and are replaced with city water
when necessary. The RCF core does not produce sufficient power to
significantly heat the moderator. As a result, there are no significant
thermal effluents associated with operation of the RCF.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
NRC has responsibilities that are derived from NEPA and from other
environmental laws, which include the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and Executive Order
12898 Environmental Justice. The following presents a brief discussion
of impacts associated with these laws and other requirements.
I. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The RCF site does not contain any Federally- or state-protected
fauna or flora, nor do the RCF effluents impact the habitats of any
such fauna or flora, with one possible exception. The Karner blue
butterfly is listed as endangered in Schenectady County, New York, as
well as in numerous other counties in varied states along the Great
Lakes Region, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary
threats to this species are habitat destruction and wildfire
suppression. Continued operation of the RCF does not pose any unique or
serious threats to this species as the RCF site is well established,
has a small footprint, and is surrounded by developed land unsuitable
for supporting a large population of Karner blue butterflies.
II. Costal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
The site occupied by the RCF is not located within any managed
coastal zones, nor do the RCF effluents impact any managed costal
zones.
III. National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA)
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. The National Register of Historic
Places (NRHP) lists several historical sites located near the RCF.
According to the NRHP, the locations of these sites are at least 0.5 km
(0.3 mi) from the RCF. Given the distance to these sites and that the
proposed action does not involve any demolition, rehabilitation,
construction, changes in land use, or significant changes in effluents
from the facility, continued operation of the RCF will not impact any
historic sites. The NRC staff consulted the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO), and the SHPO determined that license renewal would have
no adverse effect on historic properties in the vicinity of the RCF.
Based on this information, the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of license renewal would have no adverse effect on historic
properties.
IV. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The licensee is not planning any water resource development
projects, including any of the modifications relating to impounding a
body of water, damming, diverting a stream or river, deepening a
channel, irrigation, or altering a body of water for navigation or
drainage.
V. Executive Order 12898--Environmental Justice
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
the relicensing and the continued operation of the RCF. Such effects
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the RCF--According to 2000
census data, 10.2 percent of the total population (approximately
1,307,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius of RCF
identified themselves as minority individuals. The largest minority
groups were Black or African American (approximately 73,000 persons or
5.6 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (33,000 or 2.5 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 13.7 percent of the
Schenectady County population identified themselves as minorities, with
persons of Black or African American origin comprising the largest
minority group (6.8 percent). According to the census data 3-year
average estimates for 2006-2008, the minority population of Schenectady
County, as a percent of the total population, had increased to 20
percent.
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of the RCF--According to
2000 Census data, approximately 23,000 families and 123,000 individuals
(approximately 6.9 and 9.4 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-
mile radius of the RCF were identified as living below the Federal
poverty threshold in 1999. The 1999 Federal poverty threshold was
$17,029 for a family of four.
According to Census data in the 2006-2008 American Community Survey
3-Year Estimates, the median
[[Page 34773]]
household income for New York was $55,401, while 10.5 percent of
families and 13.8 percent of the state population were determined to be
living below the Federal poverty threshold. Schenectady County had the
same median household income average ($55,421) and a lower percent of
families (6.7 percent) and a similar percentage of individuals (10.8
percent) living below the poverty level, respectively.
Impact Analysis--Potential impacts to minority and low-income
populations would mostly consist of radiological effects, however
radiation doses from continued operations associated with the license
renewal are expected to continue at current levels, and would be well
below regulatory limits. Minority and low-income populations are
subsets of the general public residing around the RCF, and all are
exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from
activities at the RCF. Based on this information and the analysis of
human health and environmental impacts presented in this environmental
assessment, the license renewal would not have disproportionately high
and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-
income populations residing in the vicinity of the RCF.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed action. If the Commission denied the application
for license renewal, facility operations would end and decommissioning
would be required. The NRC staff notes that, even with a renewed
license, the RCF will eventually be decommissioned, at which time the
environmental effects of decommissioning will occur. Decommissioning
would be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning
plan, which would require a separate environmental review under 10 CFR
51.21. Cessation of reactor operations would reduce or eliminate
radioactive effluents and emissions. However, as previously discussed
in this environmental assessment, radioactive effluents and emissions
from reactor operations constitute a small fraction of the applicable
regulatory limits, and are often below detectable levels. Therefore,
the environmental impacts of license renewal and the denial of the
request for license renewal would be similar. In addition, denying the
request for license renewal would eliminate the benefits of teaching,
research, and services provided by the RCF.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action does not involve the use of any different
resources or significant quantities of resources beyond those
previously considered in the issuance of Amendment No. 5 to Facility
Operating License No. CX-22, dated December, 1983, which renewed the
license for a period of twenty years, or the issuance of Amendment No.
7 dated July 7, 1987, which ordered RPI to convert the reactor to use
low-enriched uranium fuel.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency's stated policy, on September 4,
2008, the NRC staff consulted with the State Liaison Officer regarding
the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had
no comments regarding the proposed action. The NRC staff also consulted
with the SHPO regarding the potential impact of the proposed action on
historic resources. As previously mentioned, the SHPO determined that
license renewal would have no adverse effect on historic properties in
the vicinity of the RCF.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated November 19, 2002 (ML023380455 and
ML072210835), as supplemented on July 21 (ML082060048), July 28
(ML082190523), and September 3, 2008 (ML101260200); June 28
(ML101820298), August 31 (ML102790045 and ML102720039), October 14
(ML103070074), and October 28, 2010 (ML103080207); and February 14
(ML110490531) and May 9, 2011 (ML11131A180). Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site
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.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of June, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jessie Quichocho,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy
and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-14665 Filed 6-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
