University of Maryland; Maryland University Training Reactor, 93969-93974 [2016-30863]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
a hearing was published in the Federal
Register on June 18, 2014 (79 FR 34787).
For further details with respect to this
action, see: (1) DTE Electric Company
license renewal application for Fermi 2,
dated April 24, 2014, as supplemented
by letters dated through July 6, 2016; (2)
the NRC’s safety evaluation report dated
July 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16190A241); (3) the NRC’s final
environmental impact statement
(NUREG–1437, Supplement 56), for
Fermi 2, published in September 2016
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16259A103
for Volume 1 and ML16259A109 for
Volume 2); and (4) the NRC’s ROD
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16270A567).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15 day
of December, 2016.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission,
Benjamin G. Beasley,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of License
Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–30862 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–166; NRC–2010–0250]
University of Maryland; Maryland
University Training Reactor
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License
No. R–70, held by the University of
Maryland (UMD or the licensee) for the
operation of the Maryland University
Training Reactor (MUTR) for an
additional 20 years. The NRC is issuing
an environmental assessment (EA) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
associated with the proposed renewal of
the license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this document is available on December
22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2010–0250 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2010–0250. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the
convenience of the reader, the ADAMS
accession numbers are provided in a
table in the ‘‘Availability of Documents’’
section of this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eben S. Allen, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001; telephone: 301–415–4246; email:
Eben.Allen@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering renewal of
Facility License No. R–70, held by the
UMD, which would authorize continued
operation of the MUTR, located in
College Park, Prince George’s County,
Maryland. Therefore, as required by
section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ the NRC
performed an EA. Based on the results
of the EA that follows, the NRC has
determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
renewed license and is issuing a FONSI.
The renewed license will be issued
following the publication of this notice.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew
Facility License No. R–70 for a period
of 20 years from the date of issuance of
the renewed license. The proposed
action is in accordance with the
licensee’s application dated May 12,
2000, as supplemented by letters dated
June 7, August 4, September 17, and
October 7, 2004; April 18, 2005; April
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
93969
25, (two letters), August 28 (two letters),
September 7, November 9, and
December 18, 2006; May 27, July 28,
and September 22, 2010; January 31,
February 2, May 2, July 5, July 29,
September 26, September 28, and
October 12, 2011; February 9, March 14,
May 22, and August 29, 2012; March 21,
2013; April 10, June 18, and November
25 (two letters), 2014; December 2, 2015;
and January 5, February 18, February
29, and November 17, 2016. In
accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, ‘‘Effect
of timely renewal application,’’ 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
MUTR to routinely provide teaching,
research, and services to numerous
institutions for a period of 20 years.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC is preparing its safety
evaluation (SE) of the proposed action
to issue a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R–70 to allow continued
operation of the MUTR for a period of
20 years and concludes there is
reasonable assurance that the MUTR
will continue to operate safely for the
additional period of time. The details of
the NRC staff’s SE will be provided with
the renewed license that will be issued
as part of the letter to the licensee
approving its license renewal
application. This document contains the
EA of the proposed action.
The MUTR is located on the
northeastern quadrant of UMD campus
in a dedicated building connected to the
Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
Building. The reactor is housed in a
building constructed primarily of
concrete, brick, and steel which serves
as a confinement. The reactor site
comprises the reactor building and a
small area immediately surrounding it.
Adjacent to the reactor site are three
buildings: The J.M. Patterson Building;
the Asphalt Institute, and the Animal
and Avian Sciences building. The
nearest permanent residences are
located approximately 370 meters (1,200
feet) from the site boundary. The nearest
dormitories are located approximately
230 meters (750 feet) from the reactor.
The MUTR is a light water open pool
type reactor licensed for a maximum
250 kilowatt (thermal) steady state
power using low-enriched uranium (less
than 20 percent) TRIGA (Training,
Research, Isotope Production, General
Atomics) fuel. The reactor is not
licensed to operate in a pulse mode. The
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
93970
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
fuel is located at the bottom of an
aluminum tank with a volume of
approximately 22,700 liters (6,000
gallons) and a depth of 6.5 meters (21.25
feet). The pool tank is surrounded by at
least 2.0 meters (6.5 feet) of concrete
and 0.6 meters (2 feet) of water. A
detailed description of the reactor can
be found in the MUTR Safety Analysis
Report (SAR).
The licensee has not requested any
changes to the facility design or
operating conditions as part of the
application for license renewal. No
changes are being made in the types or
quantities of effluents that may be
released off site. The licensee has
systems in place for controlling the
release of radiological effluents and
implements a radiation protection
program to monitor personnel exposures
and releases of radioactive effluents. As
discussed in the NRC staff’s SE, the
systems and radiation protection
program are appropriate for the types
and quantities of effluents expected to
be generated by continued operation of
the reactor. Accordingly, there would be
no increase in routine occupational or
public radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal. A separate SE to
determine the probability and
consequence of accidents of the
proposed action is being drafted by NRC
staff. If the NRC staff concludes in the
SE that the probability and consequence
of accidents are within NRC
requirements, then the proposed license
renewal will not have a significant
environmental impact with respect to
accidents.
Therefore, with the exception of the
impacts associated with accidents
which the NRC staff is evaluating
separately from this EA, 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 5 years of operation to
determine the projected radiological
impact of the facility on the
environment during the period of the
renewed license. The NRC staff found
that releases of radioactive material and
personnel exposures were all well
within applicable regulatory limits.
Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff
concluded that continued operation of
the reactor would not have a significant
environmental impact.
A. Radiological Impacts
Environmental Effects of Reactor
Operations
Gaseous radioactive effluents are
discharged by the facility exhaust
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
system via vents located on the roof of
the reactor building, through a rollup
door, and personnel door located on the
north side of the facility. The current
primary path for gaseous effluents is
through those two doors. The only
significant nuclide found in the gaseous
effluent stream is argon-41. The licensee
estimates argon-41 releases from a
calculated release of argon-41 based on
hours of reactor operation. Licensee
calculations indicate that annual argon41 releases result in an offsite
concentration of argon-41 which is
below the limit of 1.0E–8 microcuries
per milliliter specified in 10 CFR part
20, Appendix b, ‘‘Annual Limits on
Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air
Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides
for Occupational Exposure; Effluent
Concentrations; Concentrations for
Release to Sewerage,’’ for air effluent
releases. The NRC staff reviewed the
licensee’s calculations and found them
to be reasonable. Total gaseous
radioactive releases reported to the NRC
in the licensee’s annual reports were
less than the air effluent concentration
limits set by 10 CFR part 20, Appendix
b. The potential radiation dose to a
member of the general public resulting
from this concentration is less than 2
millirem (0.02 milliSieverts) and
complies with the dose limit of 100
millirem (1 milliSievert) set by 10 CFR
20.1301, ‘‘Dose limits for individual
members of the public.’’ Additionally,
this potential radiation dose complies
with the air emissions dose constraint of
0.1 milliSievert (10 millirem) specified
in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
The licensee disposes of liquid
radioactive wastes by discharge to the
sanitary sewer, in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 20.2003(a).
During the past 5 years, the licensee has
reported in its annual reports, no
routine releases of liquid radioactive
waste. No significant solid low-level
radioactive waste was generated at the
MUTR. According to the licensee, no
spent nuclear fuel has been shipped
from the site to date. To comply with
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,
UMD 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 MUTR and that
DOE is obligated to take the fuel from
the site for final disposition.
Data reported to the NRC by the
licensee shows that personnel exposures
are well within the total effective dose
equivalent limit of 5,000 millirem (50
milliSievert) set by 10 CFR 20.1201,
‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults,’’
and as low as reasonably achievable.
Fixed mounted dosimeters are mounted
on the east and west exterior walls of
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the reactor building and provide gross
quarterly readings (not adjusted for
background) of total radiation exposures
at those locations. These dosimeters
typically measure average annual doses
of approximately 87 millirem (0.87
milliSievert). No changes in reactor
operation that would lead to an increase
in occupational dose are expected as a
result of the proposed action.
The licensee conducts an
environmental monitoring program to
record and track the radiological impact
of MUTR operation on the surrounding
unrestricted area. The program consists
of quarterly exposure measurements at
four locations on the site boundary and
at two control locations away from any
direct influence from the reactor. The
Radiation Protection Officer administers
the program and maintains the
appropriate records. Over the past 5
years, the survey program indicated that
radiation exposures at the monitoring
locations were not significantly higher
than those measured at the control
locations. Year-to-year trends in
exposures are consistent between
monitoring locations. Also, no
correlation exists between total annual
reactor operation and annual exposures
measured at the monitoring locations.
Based on the NRC staff’s review of the
past 5 years of the licensee’s annual
reports, the NRC staff concludes that
continued operation of the MUTR
would not have a 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 MUTR SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident is the
uncontrolled release of the gaseous
fission products contained in the gap
between the fuel and the fuel cladding
in one fuel element to the reactor
confinement and into the environment.
The licensee conservatively calculated
doses to facility personnel, the
maximum potential dose to a member of
the public, and the dose at the nearest
residence. The NRC staff checked the
licensee’s calculations to verify that the
doses represent conservative estimates
for the maximum hypothetical accident.
Occupational doses resulting from this
accident would be 12 millirem (0.12
milliSievert), below the 10 CFR part 20,
‘‘Standards for Protection Against
Radiation,’’ annual limit of 5,000
millirem (50 mSievert). Maximum doses
for members of the public resulting from
this accident would be 99 millirem (0.99
mSievert), below the 10 CFR part 20
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
annual limit of 100 millirem (1.0
mSievert). The proposed action will not
increase the probability or consequences
of accidents.
B. Non-Radiological Impacts
The MUTR core is located near the
bottom of the reactor pool. The pool
contains approximately 22.7 m3 (6,000
gallons) of water which acts as a coolant
for the reactor core and provides a large
heat sink. The water in the pool is
cooled by a primary cooling system
consisting of a primary pump, a heat
exchanger, a filtration and
demineralizer water processing system,
and associated piping. Cooling of the
reactor core is by natural convection of
the water through the reactor core. The
water enters the cooling channels at the
bottom of the core, warms as heat from
the fission process is transferred to the
water, and rises out of the core and into
the bulk pool water. The reactor can run
for several hours without operating the
primary cooling system to remove heat
from the reactor pool because of the
large heat sink provided by the volume
of water in the pool. When heat needs
to be removed from the reactor pool the
primary cooling system is operated. The
primary coolant is cooled by secondary
coolant in the heat exchanger, the
secondary coolant is an open loop of
city water that is discharged to the
sanitary sewer. The MUTR facility
annual usage of city water is minimal,
less than 1 percent of the total
University consumption. During
operation, the secondary system is
maintained at a higher pressure than the
primary system to minimize the
likelihood of primary system
contamination entering the secondary
system, and ultimately the environment.
Additional controls are included in the
facility design, as indicated in the
MUTR Environmental Report, included
in the licensee’s application, ‘‘. . . to
preclude the contamination of the city
water supply by the reactor facility, the
city water supply passes through a
backflow prevention valve after entering
the reactor pump room before it is
distributed to the make-up water and
cooling systems.’’
The reactor’s low power level results
in a small amount of heat that is
released to the environment. Release of
this heat (thermal effluent) from the
MUTR facility will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
As stated above, minimal amounts of
secondary water discharges to the
sanitary sewer system after passing
through the primary heat exchanger.
The Department of Environmental
Safety, Sustainability, and Risk provides
the University of Maryland community
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
with information to comply with
Federal, State, local and university
requirements for managing hazardous
and other regulated wastes. Because
there is no cooling tower, secondary
water treatment chemicals are not used
at the MUTR facility. Small amounts of
chemicals may be used at the MUTR
facility that are typical of what is used
in a university research environment.
What chemicals or hazardous waste that
is produced in conjunction with
operation of the facility is disposed of
in accordance with campus hazardous
waste procedures maintained by the
Department of Environmental Safety,
Sustainability, and Risk.
Because the proposed action does not
involve any change in the operation of
the reactor, water use at the reactor is a
small percentage of the university’s
water use, chemical use is small and
disposal complies with all
requirements, and the heat dissipated to
the environment is minimal, the NRC
staff concludes that the non-radiological
impacts from proposed action will not
have a significant impact on the
environment.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) Considerations
The NRC has responsibilities that are
derived from NEPA and from other
environmental laws, which include the
Endangered Species Act, Coastal Zone
Management Act, National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA), Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and
Executive Order 12898, Environmental
Justice. The following presents a brief
discussion of impacts associated with
these laws and other requirements.
1. Endangered Species Act
The Wildlife and Heritage Service of
the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources has stated that there are no
State or Federal records documenting
rare, threatened, or endangered species
within the boundaries of the MUTR site.
Based on this information, the NRC staff
finds that the potential impacts of the
proposed action would have no adverse
effect on rare, threatened, or endangered
species within the MUTR site boundary.
2. Coastal Zone Management Act
The MUTR is not located within any
managed coastal zones; nor would the
MUTR effluents and emissions impact
any managed coastal zones. Based on
this information, the NRC staff finds
that the potential impacts of the
proposed action would not adversely
affect managed coastal zones.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
93971
3. 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 lists
historic properties in the vicinity of the
MUTR and the UMD. The State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was
contacted and a project review form was
submitted. The SHPO determined that
license renewal would have no adverse
effect on historic properties in the
vicinity of the MUTR. Based on this
information, the NRC staff finds that the
potential impacts of the proposed action
would have no adverse effect on historic
and archaeological resources.
4. 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. Based on this information,
the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of the proposed action would
not adversely affect water resource near
the MUTR site boundary.
5. 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 MUTR. Such effects may include
human health, biological, cultural,
economic, or social impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity
of the MUTR—According to the 2010
Census, approximately 49 percent of the
total population (total of approximately
7,900,000 individuals) residing within a
50-mile radius of MUTR identified
themselves as minority. The largest
minority population were Black or
African American (2,172,000 persons or
27 percent), followed by Hispanic,
Latino, or Spanish origin of any race
(approximately 871,000 persons or 11
percent). According to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2010 Census, about 85.1
percent of the Prince George’s County
population identified themselves as
minorities, with persons of Black or
African American origin comprising the
largest minority group (64.5 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s
2014 American Community Survey 1Year Estimates, the minority population
of Prince George’s County, as a percent
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
93972
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
of the total population, had increased to
85.9 percent.
Low-income Populations in the
Vicinity of the MUTR—According to the
U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010–2014
American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 124,000
families and 736,000 individuals (6.4
and 9.2 percent, respectively) residing
within a 50-mile radius of the MUTR
were identified as living below the
Federal poverty threshold. The 2014
Federal poverty threshold was $24,230
for a family of four.
According to the U.S. Census
Bureau’s 2014 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, the median
household income for Maryland was
$73,971, while 7.1 percent of families
and 10.1 percent of the state population
were found to be living below the
Federal poverty threshold. Prince
George’s County had a lower median
household income average ($72,290)
and a similar percentage of families (7.0
percent) and individuals (10.2 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
below regulatory limits.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
environmental assessment, the NRC
staff concludes that the proposed
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 MUTR.
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal,
the NRC considered denying the
proposed action. If the NRC denied the
request for license renewal, reactor
operations would cease and
decommissioning would be required.
The NRC staff notes that, even with a
renewed license, the MUTR will
eventually require decommissioning, at
which time the environmental effects of
decommissioning will occur.
Decommissioning will be conducted in
accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan which would
require a separate environmental review
under 10 CFR 51.21. Cessation of
facility 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 only 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 MUTR.
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. 7 to
Facility Operating License No. R–70 for
the MUTR, dated August 7, 1984, which
renewed the Facility Operating License
for a period of 20 years.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency’s stated
policy, on December 9, 2016, the NRC
staff provided the Maryland State
Nuclear Emergency Preparedness
Coordinator an email of the staff’s
environmental assessment for
publishing in the Federal Register
regarding the environmental impact of
the proposed action. The
correspondence involved a thorough
explanation of the environmental
review, the details of this environmental
assessment, and the NRC staff’s
findings. The State official responded by
email December 16, 2016 and indicated
the state of Maryland had no comments
with this action.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA as
part of its review of the proposed action.
On the basis of the EA included in
Section II above and incorporated by
reference in this finding, the NRC finds
that there are no significant
environmental impacts from the
proposed action, and the proposed
action will not have a significant effect
on the quality of the human
environment. The NRC staff has
determined that a FONSI is appropriate,
and decided not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following table identifies the
environmental and other documents
cited in this document and related to
the NRC’s FONSI. These documents are
available for public inspection online
through ADAMS at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html or in person at
the NRC’s PDR as described previously.
ADAMS Accession
No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Document
University of Maryland, Request for Renewal of Class 104 Operating License R–70., May 12, 2000 .....................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: Renewal of License R–70, October 10, 2002 ......................
Transmittal of the University of Maryland’s Response to the Request for Additional Information Pertaining to Sections Six
through Ten of the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), June 7, 2004 ...........................................................................................
University of Maryland’s Response to the Request for Additional Information Re: Environmental Report for Training Reactor, August 4, 2004 ..................................................................................................................................................................
Submittal of Additional Information as it Pertains to Section Eleven of the Safety Analysis Report for the Maryland University Training Reactor, September 17, 2004 .............................................................................................................................
Response to the Request for Additional Information as it Pertains to Section Twelve of the Safety Analysis Report for the
Maryland University Training Reactor, October 7, 2004 .........................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Response to RAI Regarding the Technical Specifications for the Maryland University Training Reactor, April 18, 2005 .................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland’s Response to Request for Additional Information, as it Pertains to Section Two of Safety Analysis
Report for Maryland University Training Reactor, April 25, 2006 ...........................................................................................
University of Maryland’s Response to Request for Additional Information, as it Pertains to Section Two of Safety Analysis
Report for Maryland University Training Reactor, April 25, 2006 ...........................................................................................
University of Maryland Responses to RAIs on the SAR, August 28, 2006 ................................................................................
University of Maryland’s Response to Request for Additional Information, September 7, 2006 ...............................................
University of Maryland’s Responses to RAIs on the SAR, November 9, 2006 ..........................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
ML052910399
ML022690533
ML041800348
ML042240227
ML042940317
ML042940408
ML051160054
ML061250233
ML061280383
ML101970209
ML16083A222
ML101970210
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
ADAMS Accession
No.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
Document
University of Maryland’s Response to Request for Additional Information as it Pertains to Technical Specifications for Maryland University Training Reactor, December 18, 2006 ...........................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Maryland University
Training and Research Reactor, December 10, 2009 .............................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Technical Matters (TAC ME1592),
April 6, 2010 .............................................................................................................................................................................
University of MD Training Reactor (MUTR)—Submitting Responses to NRC 12/10/09 Request for Additional Information
Regarding Financial Qualifications for Renewal of License, May 27, 2010 ............................................................................
University of Maryland Responses Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for Maryland University Training Reactor, July 28, 2010 ........................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland Training Reactor, Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Revised Technical
Specifications dated December 18, 2006 (TAC No. ME1592), August 20, 2010 ...................................................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Maryland University
Training Reactor, September 22, 2010 ...................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training Reactor (MUTRA), Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Remaining Technical Specifications, January 31, 2011 ....................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training Reactor, Response to Request No. #2 to the NRC’s April 6, 2010 Request for Additional Information, February 2, 2011 .................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training Reactor (‘‘MUTR’’), Technical Specifications, Response to February
18, 2011, Request for Additional Information (‘‘RAI’’) Regarding Remaining Technical Specifications, May 2, 2011 ...........
University of Maryland, NRC Response to Letter Dated May 2, 2011, June 22, 2011 .............................................................
University of Maryland, Maryland, Response to Request for Additional Information in Regard to Remaining Technical Specifications, July 5, 2011 .............................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Dose to General Public in the Event of
Maximum Hypothetical Accident (MHA), July 29, 2011 ..........................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Maryland University
Training Reactor (Related to May 2, 2011) (TAC No. ME1592), August 26, 2011 ................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Regarding Dose Calculations, September 8, 2011 .....................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal for Maryland University Training
Reactor (TAC No. ME1592), September 28, 2011 .................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Maryland University
Training Reactor, October 12, 2011 ........................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training Reactor, February 9, 2012 ........................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: Reactor Operator Requalification Program, February 15,
2012 .........................................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: Reactor Operator Requalification Program (TAC No.
ME2431), March 14, 2012 .......................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Maryland University
Training Reactor (‘‘MUTR’’), May 22, 2012 .............................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information, Re: Reactor Operator Requalification Program (TAC ME2431),
July 16, 2012 ............................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal for the Training
Reactor (‘‘MUTR’’), August 29, 2012 .......................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Review and Approval of the Requalification Training Program for Licensed Operators (TAC No.
ME1592), November 15, 2012 .................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—License Renewal for the Maryland University Training Reactor (MUTR), TAC ME1592), March 21,
2013 .........................................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland, College Park Request for Additional Information Re: Financial Update for License Renewal for the
University of Maryland (TAC ME1592), June 2, 2014 .............................................................................................................
University of Maryland Training Reactor—Report on AR–41 Mitigation, June 18, 2014 ...........................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: Review of the Argon–41 Radiological Dose Assessment for
License Renewal (TAC ME1592), September 25, 2014 .........................................................................................................
University of Maryland, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Financial Update for License Renewal,
November 25, 2014 .................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: Review of the ARGON–41 Radiological Dose Assessment
for License Renewal of the Maryland University Training Reactor (TAC No. ME1592), November 25, 2014 .......................
University of Maryland—Revised Physical Security Plan For License Renewal of The Maryland University Training Reactor
(TAC ME1592) License No. 70; Docket No. 50–166, December 19, 2014 ............................................................................
Letter Request for Additional Information RE: Physical Security Plan Review for License Renewal (TAC No. ME1592),
March 12, 2015 ........................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information for License Renewal of the Maryland University Training Reactor (TAC No. ME1592), August 21, 2015 ................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information for License Renewal of the Maryland University Training Reactor Pertaining to Thermal Hydraulics, September 10, 2015 ....................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information for License Renewal Pertaining to Thermal Hydraulics, December 2, 2015 ...............................................................................................................................................................................
University of Maryland—Response to Request for Additional Information for License Renewal, January 5, 2016 ..................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: For the Renewal of Facility Operating License No. R–70
the Maryland University Training Reactor Docket No. 50–166, February 29, 2016 ...............................................................
University of Maryland—Request for Additional Information Re: For the Renewal of Facility Operating License No. R–70
the Maryland University Training Reactor Docket No. 50–166, November 17, 2016 .............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
93973
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
ML101480913
ML093420068
ML100840239
ML101670413
ML102110049
ML102230338
ML102710556
ML110320459
ML110350175
ML11124A124
ML11171A566
ML11189A065
ML11215A130
ML112130086
ML112380621
ML11277A026
ML11286A337
ML12060A344
ML102660113
ML12081A017
ML12172A139
ML121870709
ML12255A400
ML12306A112
ML13095A006
ML14141A630
ML14176A078
ML14266A658
ML14342A563
ML14332A300
ML14364A086
ML15058A276
ML15083A383
ML15219A471
ML15349A894
ML16008A072
ML16061A003
ML16323A447
93974
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 246 / Thursday, December 22, 2016 / Notices
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day
of December 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing
Branch, Division of Policy and Rulemaking,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016–30863 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. MC2017–54 and CP2017–80;
MC2017–55 and CP2017–81; MC2017–56
and CP2017–82; MC2017–57 and CP2017–
83; CP2017–84; CP2016–32; CP2016–35]
New Postal Products
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission is noticing
recent Postal Service filings for the
Commission’s consideration concerning
negotiated service agreements. This
notice informs the public of the filing,
invites public comment, and takes other
administrative steps.
DATES: Comments are due: December
23, 2016 (Comment due date applies to
Docket Nos. MC2017–54 and CP2017–
80; Docket Nos. MC2017–55 and
CP2017–81; Docket Nos. MC2017–56
and CP2017–82); and December 27,
2016 (Comment due date applies to
Docket Nos. MC2017–57 and CP2017–
83; Docket No. CP2017–84; Docket No.
CP2016–32; Docket No. CP2016–35).
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
electronically via the Commission’s
Filing Online system at https://
www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit
comments electronically should contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section by
telephone for advice on filing
alternatives.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at
202–789–6820.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES
I. Introduction
The Commission gives notice that the
Postal Service filed request(s) for the
Commission to consider matters related
to negotiated service agreement(s). The
request(s) may propose the addition or
removal of a negotiated service
agreement from the market dominant or
the competitive product list, or the
modification of an existing product
currently appearing on the market
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:40 Dec 21, 2016
Jkt 241001
dominant or the competitive product
list.
Section II identifies the docket
number(s) associated with each Postal
Service request, the title of each Postal
Service request, the request’s acceptance
date, and the authority cited by the
Postal Service for each request. For each
request, the Commission appoints an
officer of the Commission to represent
the interests of the general public in the
proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505
(Public Representative). Section II also
establishes comment deadline(s)
pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal
Service’s request(s) can be accessed via
the Commission’s Web site (https://
www.prc.gov). Non-public portions of
the Postal Service’s request(s), if any,
can be accessed through compliance
with the requirements of 39 CFR
3007.40.
The Commission invites comments on
whether the Postal Service’s request(s)
in the captioned docket(s) are consistent
with the policies of title 39. For
request(s) that the Postal Service states
concern market dominant product(s),
applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39
U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3010, and 39
CFR part 3020, subpart B. For request(s)
that the Postal Service states concern
competitive product(s), applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements
include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633,
39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and
39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comment
deadline(s) for each request appear in
section II.
II. Docketed Proceeding(s)
1. Docket No(s).: MC2017–54 and
CP2017–80; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail Contract 277 to
Competitive Product List and Notice of
Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted
Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance
Date: December 15, 2016; Filing
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative:
Jennaca D. Upperman; Comments Due:
December 23, 2016.
2. Docket No(s).: MC2017–55 and
CP2017–81; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
First-Class Package Service Contract 70
to Competitive Product List and Notice
of Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted
Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance
Date: December 15, 2016; Filing
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative:
Erin Mahagan; Comments Due:
December 23, 2016.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
3. Docket No(s).: MC2017–56 and
CP2017–82; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail & First-Class Package
Service Contract 42 to Competitive
Product List and Notice of Filing (Under
Seal) of Unredacted Governors’
Decision, Contract, and Supporting
Data; Filing Acceptance Date: December
15, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 U.S.C.
3642 and 39 CFR 3020.30 et seq.; Public
Representative: Erin Mahagan;
Comments Due: December 23, 2016.
4. Docket No(s).: MC2017–57 and
CP2017–83; Filing Title: Request of the
United States Postal Service to Add
Priority Mail Contract 278 to
Competitive Product List and Notice of
Filing (Under Seal) of Unredacted
Governors’ Decision, Contract, and
Supporting Data; Filing Acceptance
Date: December 15, 2016; Filing
Authority: 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 39 CFR
3020.30 et seq.; Public Representative:
Max E. Schnidman; Comments Due:
December 27, 2016.
5. Docket No(s).: CP2017–84; Filing
Title: Notice of United States Postal
Service of Filing a Functionally
Equivalent Global Expedited Package
Services 3 Negotiated Service
Agreement and Application for NonPublic Treatment of Materials Filed
Under Seal; Filing Acceptance Date:
December 15, 2016; Filing Authority: 39
CFR 3015.5; Public Representative: Max
E. Schnidman; Comments Due:
December 27, 2016.
6. Docket No(s).: CP2016–32; Filing
Title: Notice of United States Postal
Service of Amendment to Priority Mail
Express & Priority Mail Contract 23,
with Portions Filed Under Seal; Filing
Acceptance Date: December 15, 2016;
Filing Authority: 39 CFR 3015.5; Public
Representative: Christopher C. Mohr;
Comments Due: December 27, 2016.
7. Docket No(s).: CP2016–35; Filing
Title: Notice of United States Postal
Service of Amendment to Priority Mail
Contract 160, with Portions Filed Under
Seal; Filing Acceptance Date: December
15, 2016; Filing Authority: 39 CFR
3015.5; Public Representative:
Christopher C. Mohr; Comments Due:
December 27, 2016.
This notice will be published in the
Federal Register.
Ruth Ann Abrams,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016–30797 Filed 12–21–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P
E:\FR\FM\22DEN1.SGM
22DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 246 (Thursday, December 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 93969-93974]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30863]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-166; NRC-2010-0250]
University of Maryland; Maryland University Training Reactor
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-70, held by the University
of Maryland (UMD or the licensee) for the operation of the Maryland
University Training Reactor (MUTR) for an additional 20 years. The NRC
is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed renewal of the
license.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on
December 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0250 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-0250. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For
the convenience of the reader, the ADAMS accession numbers are provided
in a table in the ``Availability of Documents'' section of this
document.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eben S. Allen, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-4246; email: Eben.Allen@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering renewal of Facility License No. R-70, held
by the UMD, which would authorize continued operation of the MUTR,
located in College Park, Prince George's County, Maryland. Therefore,
as required by section 51.21 of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ``Criteria for and identification of licensing
and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,'' the NRC
performed an EA. Based on the results of the EA that follows, the NRC
has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
renewed license and is issuing a FONSI. The renewed license will be
issued following the publication of this notice.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would renew Facility License No. R-70 for a
period of 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed license.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application
dated May 12, 2000, as supplemented by letters dated June 7, August 4,
September 17, and October 7, 2004; April 18, 2005; April 25, (two
letters), August 28 (two letters), September 7, November 9, and
December 18, 2006; May 27, July 28, and September 22, 2010; January 31,
February 2, May 2, July 5, July 29, September 26, September 28, and
October 12, 2011; February 9, March 14, May 22, and August 29, 2012;
March 21, 2013; April 10, June 18, and November 25 (two letters), 2014;
December 2, 2015; and January 5, February 18, February 29, and November
17, 2016. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, ``Effect of timely renewal
application,'' 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 MUTR to routinely provide teaching, research, and services to
numerous institutions for a period of 20 years.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC is preparing its safety evaluation (SE) of the proposed
action to issue a renewed Facility Operating License No. R-70 to allow
continued operation of the MUTR for a period of 20 years and concludes
there is reasonable assurance that the MUTR will continue to operate
safely for the additional period of time. The details of the NRC
staff's SE will be provided with the renewed license that will be
issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving its license
renewal application. This document contains the EA of the proposed
action.
The MUTR is located on the northeastern quadrant of UMD campus in a
dedicated building connected to the Chemical and Nuclear Engineering
Building. The reactor is housed in a building constructed primarily of
concrete, brick, and steel which serves as a confinement. The reactor
site comprises the reactor building and a small area immediately
surrounding it. Adjacent to the reactor site are three buildings: The
J.M. Patterson Building; the Asphalt Institute, and the Animal and
Avian Sciences building. The nearest permanent residences are located
approximately 370 meters (1,200 feet) from the site boundary. The
nearest dormitories are located approximately 230 meters (750 feet)
from the reactor.
The MUTR is a light water open pool type reactor licensed for a
maximum 250 kilowatt (thermal) steady state power using low-enriched
uranium (less than 20 percent) TRIGA (Training, Research, Isotope
Production, General Atomics) fuel. The reactor is not licensed to
operate in a pulse mode. The
[[Page 93970]]
fuel is located at the bottom of an aluminum tank with a volume of
approximately 22,700 liters (6,000 gallons) and a depth of 6.5 meters
(21.25 feet). The pool tank is surrounded by at least 2.0 meters (6.5
feet) of concrete and 0.6 meters (2 feet) of water. A detailed
description of the reactor can be found in the MUTR Safety Analysis
Report (SAR).
The licensee has not requested any changes to the facility design
or operating conditions as part of the application for license renewal.
No changes are being made in the types or quantities of effluents that
may be released off site. The licensee has systems in place for
controlling the release of radiological effluents and implements a
radiation protection program to monitor personnel exposures and
releases of radioactive effluents. As discussed in the NRC staff's SE,
the systems and radiation protection program are appropriate for the
types and quantities of effluents expected to be generated by continued
operation of the reactor. Accordingly, there would be no increase in
routine occupational or public radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal. A separate SE to determine the probability and
consequence of accidents of the proposed action is being drafted by NRC
staff. If the NRC staff concludes in the SE that the probability and
consequence of accidents are within NRC requirements, then the proposed
license renewal will not have a significant environmental impact with
respect to accidents.
Therefore, with the exception of the impacts associated with
accidents which the NRC staff is evaluating separately from this EA,
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 5 years of operation to determine the projected radiological
impact of the facility on the environment during the period of the
renewed license. The NRC staff found that releases of radioactive
material and personnel exposures were all well within applicable
regulatory limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC staff concluded
that continued operation of the reactor would not have a significant
environmental impact.
A. Radiological Impacts
Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations
Gaseous radioactive effluents are discharged by the facility
exhaust system via vents located on the roof of the reactor building,
through a rollup door, and personnel door located on the north side of
the facility. The current primary path for gaseous effluents is through
those two doors. The only significant nuclide found in the gaseous
effluent stream is argon-41. The licensee estimates argon-41 releases
from a calculated release of argon-41 based on hours of reactor
operation. Licensee calculations indicate that annual argon-41 releases
result in an offsite concentration of argon-41 which is below the limit
of 1.0E-8 microcuries per milliliter specified in 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix b, ``Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air
Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure;
Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage,'' for
air effluent releases. The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's
calculations and found them to be reasonable. Total gaseous radioactive
releases reported to the NRC in the licensee's annual reports were less
than the air effluent concentration limits set by 10 CFR part 20,
Appendix b. The potential radiation dose to a member of the general
public resulting from this concentration is less than 2 millirem (0.02
milliSieverts) and complies with the dose limit of 100 millirem (1
milliSievert) set by 10 CFR 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual
members of the public.'' Additionally, this potential radiation dose
complies with the air emissions dose constraint of 0.1 milliSievert (10
millirem) specified in 10 CFR 20.1101(d).
The licensee disposes of liquid radioactive wastes by discharge to
the sanitary sewer, in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR
20.2003(a). During the past 5 years, the licensee has reported in its
annual reports, no routine releases of liquid radioactive waste. No
significant solid low-level radioactive waste was generated at the
MUTR. According to the licensee, no spent nuclear fuel has been shipped
from the site to date. To comply with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, UMD 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 MUTR and that DOE is obligated to take the fuel from the site
for final disposition.
Data reported to the NRC by the licensee shows that personnel
exposures are well within the total effective dose equivalent limit of
5,000 millirem (50 milliSievert) set by 10 CFR 20.1201, ``Occupational
dose limits for adults,'' and as low as reasonably achievable. Fixed
mounted dosimeters are mounted on the east and west exterior walls of
the reactor building and provide gross quarterly readings (not adjusted
for background) of total radiation exposures at those locations. These
dosimeters typically measure average annual doses of approximately 87
millirem (0.87 milliSievert). No changes in reactor operation that
would lead to an increase in occupational dose are expected as a result
of the proposed action.
The licensee conducts an environmental monitoring program to record
and track the radiological impact of MUTR operation on the surrounding
unrestricted area. The program consists of quarterly exposure
measurements at four locations on the site boundary and at two control
locations away from any direct influence from the reactor. The
Radiation Protection Officer administers the program and maintains the
appropriate records. Over the past 5 years, the survey program
indicated that radiation exposures at the monitoring locations were not
significantly higher than those measured at the control locations.
Year-to-year trends in exposures are consistent between monitoring
locations. Also, no correlation exists between total annual reactor
operation and annual exposures measured at the monitoring locations.
Based on the NRC staff's review of the past 5 years of the
licensee's annual reports, the NRC staff concludes that continued
operation of the MUTR would not have a 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 MUTR SAR. The
maximum hypothetical accident is the uncontrolled release of the
gaseous fission products contained in the gap between the fuel and the
fuel cladding in one fuel element to the reactor confinement and into
the environment. The licensee conservatively calculated doses to
facility personnel, the maximum potential dose to a member of the
public, and the dose at the nearest residence. The NRC staff checked
the licensee's calculations to verify that the doses represent
conservative estimates for the maximum hypothetical accident.
Occupational doses resulting from this accident would be 12 millirem
(0.12 milliSievert), below the 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for
Protection Against Radiation,'' annual limit of 5,000 millirem (50
mSievert). Maximum doses for members of the public resulting from this
accident would be 99 millirem (0.99 mSievert), below the 10 CFR part 20
[[Page 93971]]
annual limit of 100 millirem (1.0 mSievert). The proposed action will
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents.
B. Non-Radiological Impacts
The MUTR core is located near the bottom of the reactor pool. The
pool contains approximately 22.7 m\3\ (6,000 gallons) of water which
acts as a coolant for the reactor core and provides a large heat sink.
The water in the pool is cooled by a primary cooling system consisting
of a primary pump, a heat exchanger, a filtration and demineralizer
water processing system, and associated piping. Cooling of the reactor
core is by natural convection of the water through the reactor core.
The water enters the cooling channels at the bottom of the core, warms
as heat from the fission process is transferred to the water, and rises
out of the core and into the bulk pool water. The reactor can run for
several hours without operating the primary cooling system to remove
heat from the reactor pool because of the large heat sink provided by
the volume of water in the pool. When heat needs to be removed from the
reactor pool the primary cooling system is operated. The primary
coolant is cooled by secondary coolant in the heat exchanger, the
secondary coolant is an open loop of city water that is discharged to
the sanitary sewer. The MUTR facility annual usage of city water is
minimal, less than 1 percent of the total University consumption.
During operation, the secondary system is maintained at a higher
pressure than the primary system to minimize the likelihood of primary
system contamination entering the secondary system, and ultimately the
environment. Additional controls are included in the facility design,
as indicated in the MUTR Environmental Report, included in the
licensee's application, ``. . . to preclude the contamination of the
city water supply by the reactor facility, the city water supply passes
through a backflow prevention valve after entering the reactor pump
room before it is distributed to the make-up water and cooling
systems.''
The reactor's low power level results in a small amount of heat
that is released to the environment. Release of this heat (thermal
effluent) from the MUTR facility will not have a significant effect on
the environment. As stated above, minimal amounts of secondary water
discharges to the sanitary sewer system after passing through the
primary heat exchanger.
The Department of Environmental Safety, Sustainability, and Risk
provides the University of Maryland community with information to
comply with Federal, State, local and university requirements for
managing hazardous and other regulated wastes. Because there is no
cooling tower, secondary water treatment chemicals are not used at the
MUTR facility. Small amounts of chemicals may be used at the MUTR
facility that are typical of what is used in a university research
environment. What chemicals or hazardous waste that is produced in
conjunction with operation of the facility is disposed of in accordance
with campus hazardous waste procedures maintained by the Department of
Environmental Safety, Sustainability, and Risk.
Because the proposed action does not involve any change in the
operation of the reactor, water use at the reactor is a small
percentage of the university's water use, chemical use is small and
disposal complies with all requirements, and the heat dissipated to the
environment is minimal, the NRC staff concludes that the non-
radiological impacts from proposed action will not have a significant
impact on the environment.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Considerations
The NRC has responsibilities that are derived from NEPA and from
other environmental laws, which include the Endangered Species Act,
Coastal Zone Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, and Executive Order 12898,
Environmental Justice. The following presents a brief discussion of
impacts associated with these laws and other requirements.
1. Endangered Species Act
The Wildlife and Heritage Service of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources has stated that there are no State or Federal records
documenting rare, threatened, or endangered species within the
boundaries of the MUTR site. Based on this information, the NRC staff
finds that the potential impacts of the proposed action would have no
adverse effect on rare, threatened, or endangered species within the
MUTR site boundary.
2. Coastal Zone Management Act
The MUTR is not located within any managed coastal zones; nor would
the MUTR effluents and emissions impact any managed coastal zones.
Based on this information, the NRC staff finds that the potential
impacts of the proposed action would not adversely affect managed
coastal zones.
3. 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 lists historic properties in the vicinity of the MUTR and the
UMD. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was contacted and a
project review form was submitted. The SHPO determined that license
renewal would have no adverse effect on historic properties in the
vicinity of the MUTR. Based on this information, the NRC staff finds
that the potential impacts of the proposed action would have no adverse
effect on historic and archaeological resources.
4. 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. Based on this information, the NRC staff finds that the
potential impacts of the proposed action would not adversely affect
water resource near the MUTR site boundary.
5. 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 MUTR. Such effects
may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of the MUTR--According to the
2010 Census, approximately 49 percent of the total population (total of
approximately 7,900,000 individuals) residing within a 50-mile radius
of MUTR identified themselves as minority. The largest minority
population were Black or African American (2,172,000 persons or 27
percent), followed by Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin of any race
(approximately 871,000 persons or 11 percent). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2010 Census, about 85.1 percent of the Prince George's
County population identified themselves as minorities, with persons of
Black or African American origin comprising the largest minority group
(64.5 percent). According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014 American
Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, the minority population of Prince
George's County, as a percent
[[Page 93972]]
of the total population, had increased to 85.9 percent.
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of the MUTR--According to
the U.S. Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 124,000 families and 736,000 individuals (6.4
and 9.2 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-mile radius of the
MUTR were identified as living below the Federal poverty threshold. The
2014 Federal poverty threshold was $24,230 for a family of four.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014 American Community
Survey 1-Year Estimates, the median household income for Maryland was
$73,971, while 7.1 percent of families and 10.1 percent of the state
population were found to be living below the Federal poverty threshold.
Prince George's County had a lower median household income average
($72,290) and a similar percentage of families (7.0 percent) and
individuals (10.2 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 below
regulatory limits.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed 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 MUTR.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC considered denying
the proposed action. If the NRC denied the request for license renewal,
reactor operations would cease and decommissioning would be required.
The NRC staff notes that, even with a renewed license, the MUTR will
eventually require decommissioning, at which time the environmental
effects of decommissioning will occur. Decommissioning will be
conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved decommissioning plan which
would require a separate environmental review under 10 CFR 51.21.
Cessation of facility 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 only 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 MUTR.
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. 7 to Facility
Operating License No. R-70 for the MUTR, dated August 7, 1984, which
renewed the Facility Operating License for a period of 20 years.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with the agency's stated policy, on December 9, 2016,
the NRC staff provided the Maryland State Nuclear Emergency
Preparedness Coordinator an email of the staff's environmental
assessment for publishing in the Federal Register regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The correspondence
involved a thorough explanation of the environmental review, the
details of this environmental assessment, and the NRC staff's findings.
The State official responded by email December 16, 2016 and indicated
the state of Maryland had no comments with this action.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA as part of its review of the
proposed action. On the basis of the EA included in Section II above
and incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC finds that there
are no significant environmental impacts from the proposed action, and
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality
of the human environment. The NRC staff has determined that a FONSI is
appropriate, and decided not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
IV. Availability of Documents
The following table identifies the environmental and other
documents cited in this document and related to the NRC's FONSI. These
documents are available for public inspection online through ADAMS at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html or in person at the NRC's PDR
as described previously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS Accession
Document No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University of Maryland, Request for Renewal of Class ML052910399
104 Operating License R-70., May 12, 2000..........
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML022690533
Information Re: Renewal of License R-70, October
10, 2002...........................................
Transmittal of the University of Maryland's Response ML041800348
to the Request for Additional Information
Pertaining to Sections Six through Ten of the
Safety Analysis Report (SAR), June 7, 2004.........
University of Maryland's Response to the Request for ML042240227
Additional Information Re: Environmental Report for
Training Reactor, August 4, 2004...................
Submittal of Additional Information as it Pertains ML042940317
to Section Eleven of the Safety Analysis Report for
the Maryland University Training Reactor, September
17, 2004...........................................
Response to the Request for Additional Information ML042940408
as it Pertains to Section Twelve of the Safety
Analysis Report for the Maryland University
Training Reactor, October 7, 2004..................
University of Maryland--Response to RAI Regarding ML051160054
the Technical Specifications for the Maryland
University Training Reactor, April 18, 2005........
University of Maryland's Response to Request for ML061250233
Additional Information, as it Pertains to Section
Two of Safety Analysis Report for Maryland
University Training Reactor, April 25, 2006........
University of Maryland's Response to Request for ML061280383
Additional Information, as it Pertains to Section
Two of Safety Analysis Report for Maryland
University Training Reactor, April 25, 2006........
University of Maryland Responses to RAIs on the SAR, ML101970209
August 28, 2006....................................
University of Maryland's Response to Request for ML16083A222
Additional Information, September 7, 2006..........
University of Maryland's Responses to RAIs on the ML101970210
SAR, November 9, 2006..............................
[[Page 93973]]
University of Maryland's Response to Request for ML101480913
Additional Information as it Pertains to Technical
Specifications for Maryland University Training
Reactor, December 18, 2006.........................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional ML093420068
Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training and Research Reactor,
December 10, 2009..................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional ML100840239
Information Regarding License Renewal Technical
Matters (TAC ME1592), April 6, 2010................
University of MD Training Reactor (MUTR)--Submitting ML101670413
Responses to NRC 12/10/09 Request for Additional
Information Regarding Financial Qualifications for
Renewal of License, May 27, 2010...................
University of Maryland Responses Request for ML102110049
Additional Information Regarding the License
Renewal for Maryland University Training Reactor,
July 28, 2010......................................
University of Maryland Training Reactor, Request for ML102230338
Additional Information Regarding License Renewal
Revised Technical Specifications dated December 18,
2006 (TAC No. ME1592), August 20, 2010.............
University of Maryland, Request for Additional ML102710556
Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training Reactor, September 22,
2010...............................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training ML110320459
Reactor (MUTRA), Request for Additional Information
(RAI) Regarding Remaining Technical Specifications,
January 31, 2011...................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training ML110350175
Reactor, Response to Request No. #2 to the NRC's
April 6, 2010 Request for Additional Information,
February 2, 2011...................................
University of Maryland, Maryland University Training ML11124A124
Reactor (``MUTR''), Technical Specifications,
Response to February 18, 2011, Request for
Additional Information (``RAI'') Regarding
Remaining Technical Specifications, May 2, 2011....
University of Maryland, NRC Response to Letter Dated ML11171A566
May 2, 2011, June 22, 2011.........................
University of Maryland, Maryland, Response to ML11189A065
Request for Additional Information in Regard to
Remaining Technical Specifications, July 5, 2011...
University of Maryland, Response to Request for ML11215A130
Additional Information Regarding Dose to General
Public in the Event of Maximum Hypothetical
Accident (MHA), July 29, 2011......................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML112130086
Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training Reactor (Related to
May 2, 2011) (TAC No. ME1592), August 26, 2011.....
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML112380621
Information Regarding Dose Calculations, September
8, 2011............................................
University of Maryland, Request for Additional ML11277A026
Information Regarding License Renewal for Maryland
University Training Reactor (TAC No. ME1592),
September 28, 2011.................................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML11286A337
Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training Reactor, October 12,
2011...............................................
University of Maryland--Response to NRC Request for ML12060A344
Additional Information Regarding the License
Renewal for the Maryland University Training
Reactor, February 9, 2012..........................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML102660113
Information Re: Reactor Operator Requalification
Program, February 15, 2012.........................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML12081A017
Information Re: Reactor Operator Requalification
Program (TAC No. ME2431), March 14, 2012...........
University of Maryland, Request for Additional ML12172A139
Information Regarding the License Renewal for the
Maryland University Training Reactor (``MUTR''),
May 22, 2012.......................................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML121870709
Information, Re: Reactor Operator Requalification
Program (TAC ME2431), July 16, 2012................
University of Maryland, Response to Request for ML12255A400
Additional Information Regarding the License
Renewal for the Training Reactor (``MUTR''), August
29, 2012...........................................
University of Maryland--Review and Approval of the ML12306A112
Requalification Training Program for Licensed
Operators (TAC No. ME1592), November 15, 2012......
University of Maryland--License Renewal for the ML13095A006
Maryland University Training Reactor (MUTR), TAC
ME1592), March 21, 2013............................
University of Maryland, College Park Request for ML14141A630
Additional Information Re: Financial Update for
License Renewal for the University of Maryland (TAC
ME1592), June 2, 2014..............................
University of Maryland Training Reactor--Report on ML14176A078
AR-41 Mitigation, June 18, 2014....................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML14266A658
Information Re: Review of the Argon-41 Radiological
Dose Assessment for License Renewal (TAC ME1592),
September 25, 2014.................................
University of Maryland, Response to Request for ML14342A563
Additional Information Regarding Financial Update
for License Renewal, November 25, 2014.............
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML14332A300
Information Re: Review of the ARGON-41 Radiological
Dose Assessment for License Renewal of the Maryland
University Training Reactor (TAC No. ME1592),
November 25, 2014..................................
University of Maryland--Revised Physical Security ML14364A086
Plan For License Renewal of The Maryland University
Training Reactor (TAC ME1592) License No. 70;
Docket No. 50-166, December 19, 2014...............
Letter Request for Additional Information RE: ML15058A276
Physical Security Plan Review for License Renewal
(TAC No. ME1592), March 12, 2015...................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML15083A383
Information for License Renewal of the Maryland
University Training Reactor (TAC No. ME1592),
August 21, 2015....................................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML15219A471
Information for License Renewal of the Maryland
University Training Reactor Pertaining to Thermal
Hydraulics, September 10, 2015.....................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML15349A894
Information for License Renewal Pertaining to
Thermal Hydraulics, December 2, 2015...............
University of Maryland--Response to Request for ML16008A072
Additional Information for License Renewal, January
5, 2016............................................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML16061A003
Information Re: For the Renewal of Facility
Operating License No. R-70 the Maryland University
Training Reactor Docket No. 50-166, February 29,
2016...............................................
University of Maryland--Request for Additional ML16323A447
Information Re: For the Renewal of Facility
Operating License No. R-70 the Maryland University
Training Reactor Docket No. 50-166, November 17,
2016...............................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 93974]]
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of December 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch, Division of Policy
and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-30863 Filed 12-21-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
