81 FR 74822 - Purdue University Reactor

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 208 (October 27, 2016)

Page Range		74822-74828
FR Document		2016-25993

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-87, held by Purdue University (the applicant), for the continued operation of the Purdue University Reactor (PUR-1), located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe County, Indiana for an additional 20 years. In connection with the renewed license, the applicant is also seeking a power increase from 1 kilowatt thermal (kW(t)) to a licensed power level of 12 kW(t). The NRC is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the renewal of the license.

Federal Register, Volume 81 Issue 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 208 (Thursday, October 27, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74822-74828]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25993]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-182; NRC-2011-0186]

Purdue University Reactor

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

[[Page 74823]]

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-87, held by Purdue
University (the applicant), for the continued operation of the Purdue
University Reactor (PUR-1), located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe
County, Indiana for an additional 20 years. In connection with the
renewed license, the applicant is also seeking a power increase from 1
kilowatt thermal (kW(t)) to a licensed power level of 12 kW(t). The NRC
is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no
significant impact (FONSI) associated with the renewal of the license.

DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on
October 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0186 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0186. 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 http://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: Cindy K. Montgomery, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3398; email: Cindy.Montgomery@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

The NRC is considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R-87, held by Purdue University, which would authorize
continued operation of PUR-1, located in West Lafayette, Tippecanoe
County, Indiana, for an additional 20 years. In connection with the
renewed license, the applicant is also seeking a power increase from 1
kW(t) to 12 kW(t). 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 proposed action and is issuing a FONSI.

II. Environmental Assessment

Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action would renew Facility Operating License No. R-87
for a period of 20 years from the date of issuance of the renewed
license. The proposed action would also authorize a power increase from
1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t). The proposed action is in accordance with Purdue
University's application dated July 7, 2008, as supplemented by letters
dated June 30, 2008; June 3, and June 4, 2010; November 15, 2011;
January 4, January 30, January 31, June 1, June 15, June 29, July 13,
and August 11, 2012; April 10, 2013; July 24, 2015; and January 29,
February 26, March 31, May 9, July 7, July 19, September 19, and
September 29, 2016 (collectively referred to as ``the renewal
application''). In accordance with Sec. 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 PUR-1, which is used for teaching and research to support the
mission of Purdue University, for a period of 20 years. Operation of
the PUR-1 at the requested higher power level would expand the
educational and research uses of the facility.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Separate from the environmental assessment referenced in this
document, the NRC is writing a safety evaluation (SE) of the proposed
action to issue renewed Facility Operating License No. R-87 to allow
continued operation of the PUR-1 for a period of 20 years. The details
of the NRC's SE will be provided with the renewed license, if approved.
This document contains the EA of the proposed action.
The applicant has requested a power increase from 1 kW(t) to 12
kW(t) maximum allowed licensed power. The applicant performed analyses
at 18 kW(t) to bound the requested power increase. The applicant's
required annual reports from 2011 through 2015 indicate that no
measurable amount of radioactive effluent was released from the PUR-1
to the environment.

Facility Site and Environs

The PUR-1 is a heterogeneous, pool-type non-power reactor that has
been in operation since 1962 for teaching and research purposes. The
PUR-1 is located in the Duncan Annex of the Electrical Engineering
Building on the eastern edge of the Purdue University campus. The
building was originally designed as a high voltage laboratory, and the
space was later converted into classrooms, laboratories, and offices.
The building is constructed of brick, concrete block, and reinforced
concrete. Within the Duncan Annex, the PUR-1 is located within a 6,400-
gallon cylindrical water tank that is 17 feet deep and 8 feet in
diameter. The tank is enclosed by a concrete shielding structure.
The PUR-1 operates about 90 times per year on average. The reactor
is fueled with standard low-enriched uranium plate-type fuel and is
cooled by natural convection of light water. The reactor coolant system
includes a process system, which controls the pool water temperature,
and a purification system, which is designed to maintain pool water
quality by limiting corrosion and coolant activation by the use of
microfilters and ion exchange resins. Water from the pool is drawn out
from the scupper drain or suction line via polyvinyl chloride piping
leading to the circulating pump; a second source of water for the pump
is a water supply tank supplied with city service water and controlled
by a float valve. Ball valves for water shutoff and a vacuum cleaning
connection are provided in the pump supply line. From the pump, a pipe
with a ball valve installed leads first to the filter and then to a
demineralizer. An adjustable by-pass or throttling valve is inserted in
the system to regulate water flow through the demineralizer. A flow
indicator and a conductivity indicator are installed as a check on flow
rate and water purity

[[Page 74824]]

from the demineralizer. The water next flows through a stainless steel
heat exchanger. The water from the heat exchanger is then returned to
the reactor pool. A magnetrol water-level control is located in the
reactor pool; this unit controls a solenoid valve in the line from the
water supply tank to ensure that the prescribed pool water level is
maintained. However, this system is manually controlled by the PUR-1
staff to allow markup water to be inventoried. Makeup pool water is
provided by the city public water supply.
A detailed description of the reactor can be found in the PUR-1
Safety Analysis Report (SAR) submitted by the applicant with its
renewal application.
A. Radiological Impacts
Environmental Effects of Reactor Operations
During normal operations at the PUR-1 facility, the two primary
airborne sources of radiation are argon-41 (Ar-41) and nitrogen-16 (N-
16). N-16 is produced when oxygen in the pool water is irradiated in
the reactor core, and must then diffuse to the pool surface before it
is released to the atmosphere. The applicant estimates that, due to its
short half-life (about 7 seconds), any N-16 produced by the reactor at
the bounding power level of 18 kW(t) would decay before reaching the
surface of the pool. The primary source of Ar-41 at the PUR-1 is from
irradiation of air containing argon dissolved in the reactor pool. At
the current 1 kW(t) steady-state operation, effluent samples in the
reactor room have not contained detectable traces of Ar-41. At the
bounding power level of 18 kW(t), the applicant estimates that steady-
state operation of the reactor would produce an equilibrium
concentration of 2.08 x 10^-7 [mu]Ci/cm\3\ of Ar-41 in the
exhaust air and the reactor room, which is lower than the 3.0 x
10^-6 [mu]Ci/cm\3\ Derived Air Concentration (DAC) limit for
occupational workers found in 10 CFR part 20. Due to the DAC being
below regulatory limits, the estimated occupational radioactivity
exposure levels will also be below the 10 CFR part 20 limit of 5
reontgen equivalent man (rem). The estimated dose rate to a worker at
the bounding power level of 18 kW(t) was calculated by the applicant to
be 0.167 milli roentgen equivalent man per hour (mrem/hr) (0.00167
millisievert/hour (mSv/hr)). Using the calculated dose rate, the total
effective dose equivalent to a worker in the reactor room for an entire
year would be less than 334 mrem (3.34 mSv), assuming a hypothetical
2,000-hour steady state, full power operation, since the reactor
license contains no restriction on operating hours. The reactor
normally operates for much less than the assumed 8 hours per day and
the conservatively calculated dose is still well below the 5,000-mrem
(50 mSv) limit established in Sec. 20.1201, ``Occupational dose limits
for adults.'' The applicant also calculated, at the bounding 18 kW(t)
power level, an environmental public dose rate from normal operations
to a person in the unrestricted area due to Ar-41 released from the
building ventilation opening. The release point is on the roof vent on
the top of the building 15 meters above ground. Assuming a hypothetical
continuous steady state, full power operation for a year, the applicant
calculated the public dose rate to be 3.17 x 10^-4 mrem/hr
(3.17 x 0^-6 mSv/hr) or 2.8 mrem/yr (0.28 mSv/yr), which is
well below the limit in Sec. 20.1301 of 100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). This
calculated public dose rate would also meet the as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) dose constraint of 10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) found in
Sec. 20.1101(d).
Purdue University has a structured radiation safety program.
Policies for the program are determined by the University Radiation
Safety Committee, which has the mission to ensure the safety of the
University and community in the utilization of all radioactive
materials and radiation-producing devices at the University by faculty,
staff, or students. The program is administered by the Radiation Safety
Officer and his staff, as part of Radiological and Environmental
Management. The staff is equipped with radiation detection
instrumentation to determine, control, and document occupational
radiation exposures at the reactor facility under the broad scope
byproduct materials license held by Purdue University.
Only very limited contaminated materials are generated by PUR-1.
Any contaminated material is disposed of under the Purdue University
broad scope license. No wastes have been released to the environment in
an uncontrolled manner. During the past 5-year period from 2011 through
2015, the applicant reported no routine releases of liquid radioactive
waste by any disposal method. The NRC assumes that any changes due to
the requested power increase from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t) are expected to
be minimal and capable of being handled by the existing systems and
procedures.
As described in Chapter 11 of the PUR-1 SAR, personnel exposures
are well within the limits set by Sec. 20.1201, ``Occupational dose
limits for adults,'' and the ALARA dose criteria in Sec. 20.1101(b).
The University is committed to the principle of ALARA and it makes
every effort to keep doses to a minimum. All unanticipated or unusual
exposures are investigated. According to annual reports for the past 5
years of operation from 2011 through 2015, there were no radiation
exposures greater than 25 percent of limits set forth in Sec. 20.1201.
The change in occupational dose from the proposed power uprate from 1
kW(t) to 12 kW(t) is discussed previously in this notice.
The applicant monitors dose to the public by placing
thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLD) at the boundaries of the facility.
The TLDs are checked for exposure every other month. Doses measured
from the TLDs at the current operating power level of 1 kW(t) have been
at background levels, therefore, the applicant concludes that the
public has not received exposures greater than the limits set forth in
Sec. 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual members of the public.'' As
stated previously, this should not change for the proposed power
increase of 12 kW(t). Additionally, the potential radiation dose from
current operations at 1kW(t) also demonstrates compliance with the
ALARA dose constraints specified in Sec. 20.1101(d), ``Radiation
protection programs.'' As stated previously, this should not change for
the proposed power increase of 12 kW(t).
Over the past 5 years of operation from 2011 through 2015, results
from the applicant's survey program indicate that radiation exposures
at the current operating power level of 1 kW(t) at the monitoring
locations were not significantly higher than those measured at the
control locations. This should not change for the proposed power
increase of 12 kW(t). Therefore, the NRC concludes that the proposed
action would not have a significant radiological impact.
Environmental Effects of Accidents
The maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) is an event involving the
cladding failure of an irradiated fuel element in air. The MHA is
considered the worst-case fuel failure scenario for PUR-1 that would
lead to the maximum potential radiation hazard to facility personnel
and to members of the public. The results of the MHA are used by the
NRC to evaluate the ability of the applicant to respond and mitigate
the consequences of this postulated radioactive release.
The applicant conservatively calculated doses to facility personnel

[[Page 74825]]

during evacuation and the maximum potential doses to members of the
public at various locations around the PUR-1 facility. The license
estimated an occupational dose of 317 mrem (3.17 mSv), for a one minute
(evacuation) duration, and 47 mrem (0.47 mSv) for the maximum exposed
member of the public. The NRC performed independent calculations to
verify that the applicant's calculated doses represented conservative
estimates for the MHA. The NRC, using conservative assumptions,
estimated a dose to a worker of 294 mrem (2.94 mSv) for a one minute
duration, and 4 mrem (0.04 mSv) for the maximum exposed member of the
public. The details of these calculations are provided in the NRC's SER
that will be issued with the renewed license. The occupational
radiation doses resulting from the postulated MHA would be well below
the 10 CFR 20.1201 limit of 5,000 mrem (50 mSv). The maximum calculated
radiation doses for members of the public resulting from the postulated
MHA would be below the 10 CFR 20.1301 limit of 100 mrem (1 mSv).
Because the NRC concludes in the SE that the radiological
consequences of the MHA are within the NRC's 10 CFR part 20 dose
limits, the proposed action will not have a significant impact with
respect to the radiological consequences of the MHA.
Conclusions--Radiological Impacts
As discussed previously in this notice, the applicant has requested
a power increase from 1kW to 12 kW maximum allowed licensed power. In
addition, as previously described, while there is a potential increase
in routine occupational and public radiation exposure as a result of
license renewal at the higher power level, all exposure rates and doses
would be within regulatory limits. There would be no changes in the
types of effluents that may be released off site, and any potential
increase in their quantities would be within regulatory limits. The
applicant 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, and
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. The proposed action will not significantly
increase the probability or consequences of accidents. Therefore,
license renewal and the proposed power increase would not change the
environmental impact of facility operation. The NRC evaluated
information contained in the renewal application and data reported to
the NRC by the applicant 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 found that releases
of radioactive material and personnel exposures were all well within
applicable regulatory limits. Based on this evaluation, the NRC
concludes that the proposed action would not have a significant
environmental impact.
B. Non-Radiological Impacts
The proposed action would not result in any land use changes,
visual resource impacts, or increases in noise. No significant changes
in air emissions would occur as a result of the proposed license
renewal and power increase. Because water is supplied through the city,
the proposed action would not affect surface water or groundwater
resources. There is no potential for the proposed action to affect
aquatic or terrestrial resources. Therefore, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would have no significant non-radiological impacts.
Other Applicable Environmental Laws
In addition to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
NRC has responsibilities that are derived from other environmental
laws, which include the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Coastal Zone
Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and Executive Order 12898 Environmental
Justice. Preparing this EA satisfies the agency's obligations under
NEPA. The following presents a brief discussion of impacts associated
with resources protected by these laws.
Endangered Species Act
The NRC staff conducted a search of Federally listed species and
critical habitats that have the potential to occur in the vicinity of
the PUR-1 using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS)
Environmental Conservation Online System Information for Planning and
Conservation (IPaC) system. Five Federally-listed mussels--clubshell
(Pleurobema clava), fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria), snuffbox
(Epioblasma triquetra), rabbitsfoot (Quadrula cylindrical cylindrical),
and sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphus)--and the Indiana bat (Myotis
sodalis) occur in Tippecanoe County. However, none of these species are
likely to occur near the PUR-1 because the facility is located on the
Purdue University Campus, which has been developed since the 1960s and
does not provide suitable habitat for Federally-listed species.
Additionally, operation of PUR-1 has no direct nexus to the natural
environment that would affect Federally-listed species. Accordingly,
the NRC concludes that the proposed license renewal of the PUR-1 would
have no effect on Federally-listed species or critical habitats.
Federal agencies are not required to consult with the FWS if they
determine that an action will not affect listed species or critical
habitats (ADAMS Accession No. ML16120A505). Thus, the ESA does not
require consultation for the proposed PUR-1 license renewal and
proposed power uprate, and the NRC considers its obligations under ESA
section 7 to be fulfilled for the proposed action.
Costal Zone Management Act
Tippecanoe County, Indiana does not contain any coastal zones.
Because the PUR-1 is not located within or near any managed coastal
zones, the proposed action would not affect any coastal zones and
Coastal Zone Management Act consistency certification does not apply.
National Historic Preservation Act
The NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. As stated in the Act, historic
properties are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building,
structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP lists several
historic districts and properties within 0.5 miles of PUR-1 in the
Duncan Annex of the Electrical Engineering Building on the campus of
Purdue University. Operation of PUR-1 has not likely had any impact on
these districts and properties. Based on this information, the NRC
staff finds that the potential impacts of license renewal and the
continued operation of PUR-1 would have no adverse effect on historic
properties located near PUR-1.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The proposed action does not involve 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. Therefore, no coordination with FWS pursuant to the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act is required for the proposed action.

[[Page 74826]]

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 PUR-1. Such effects may
include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or social
impacts.
Minority Populations in the Vicinity of PUR-1. According to U.S.
Census Bureau's 2010 Census, approximately 21 percent of the total
population (approximately 164,000 individuals) residing within a 10-
mile radius of PUR-1 identified themselves as minorities. The largest
minority population were Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin of any
race at (approximately 12,800 or 8 percent), followed by Asian
(approximately 10,700 persons or 7 percent). According to the 2010
Census, about 20 percent of the Tippecanoe County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish
origin and Asians comprising the largest minority populations
(approximately 8 and 7 percent, respectively). According to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2014 American Community Survey 1-year Estimates, the
minority population of Tippecanoe County, as a percent of the total
population, had increased to about 22 percent.
Low-income Populations in the Vicinity of PUR-1. According to the
U.S. Census Bureau's 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, approximately 36,000 persons and 4,000 families
(approximately 22.7 and 11.7 percent, respectively) residing within a
10-mile radius of PUR-1 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 Census 1-Year Estimates, the median household income for Indiana
was $49,446, while 11 percent of families and 15.2 percent of the state
population were found to be living below the Federal poverty threshold.
Tippecanoe County had a lower median household income average ($45,771)
and a higher percent of families and people living below the poverty
level (12.2 and 23.6 percent, 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 and the proposed power increase are expected to continue at
current levels, and would be well below regulatory limits.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed action would
not have disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and low-income populations residing
in the vicinity of PUR-1.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to license renewal, the NRC considered denying
the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). If the NRC
denied the request for license renewal, reactor operations would cease
and decommissioning would be required. The NRC notes that, even with a
renewed license, PUR-1 will eventually be decommissioned, at which time
the environmental effects of decommissioning would occur.
Decommissioning would be conducted in accordance with an NRC-approved
decommissioning plan, which would require a separate environmental
review under Sec. 51.21. Cessation of reactor operations would reduce
or eliminate radioactive effluents. However, as previously discussed in
this EA, radioactive effluents from reactor operations constitute a
small fraction of the applicable regulatory limits. Therefore, the
environmental impacts of license renewal, including the proposed power
uprate, 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 PUR-1 facility.
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 Facility Operating License No.
R-87 for the PUR-1 in August 1988, which renewed the Facility Operating
License for a period of 20 years.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC did not enter into consultation with any other Federal
agencies or with the State of Indiana regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. However, on October 21, 2016, the NRC
notified the Indiana State official, Ms. Laura Dresen, Radiation
Programs Director, of the Indiana Department of Homeland Security of
the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC is considering issuance of a renewed Facility Operating
License No. R-87, held by Purdue University, which would authorize the
continued operation of PUR-1 for an additional 20 years.
On the basis of the EA included in Section II of this notice and
incorporated by reference in this finding, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action would not have significant effects on the quality of
the human environment. Section IV lists the environmental documents
related to the proposed action and includes information on the
availability of these documents. Based on its findings, the NRC has
decided not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.

IV. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following tables are available to
interested persons as indicated.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADAMS
Document accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Purdue University, School of Nuclear Engineering. ML083040443
Application for relicense of License Number R-87 with
Power Uprate, July 7, 2008.............................
Purdue University Safety Analysis Report, June 30, 2008 ML111890201
[Redacted Version].....................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML101620125
(RAI) Regarding License Renewal, [Decommissioning
Funding Statement of Intent], June 3, 2010.............
Purdue University--Request For Additional Information ML101620184
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(Tac No. Me 1594), Responses to RAIs Dated 24 March
2010, [Responses To ML100820019, financial assurance,
statement of intent, signature authority, financial
report], June 4, 2010..................................
Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding ML11320A287
the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC
ME1594), Response to RAIs Dated 6 July 2011
(ML101460429), November 15, 2011.......................

[[Page 74827]]

Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12006A193
Regarding the License Renewal, Responses to RAIs Dated
6 July 2011, [Responses 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23,
25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 37], January 4,
2012...................................................
Purdue University--Responses to the Request for ML12031A223
Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University
Reactor License Renewal dated July 6, 2011, [Responses
3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 34, and 40],
January 30, 2012.......................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML14234A109
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC NO. ME 1594), Responses to RAIS (ML103400115 and
ML103400250) (Redacted Version), [Responses 45, 55, 62,
65, 66, 67, 68, 70, and 73], January 31, 2012..........
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue ML12156A364
University Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594),
Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250),
[Responses 43, 51, 56, 60, and 61], June 1, 2012.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12170B018
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and
ML103400250), [Response 46, 47, 52, 57, and 59], June
15, 2012...............................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12170B018
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and
ML103400250), [Response 48, 58, 96, 97 and 98], June
29, 2012...............................................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML12201A070
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal, Response to RAI, [Response 49, 50, 53, 64, and
72], July 13, 2012.....................................
Purdue University--Response to Request for Additional ML12226A400
Information Regarding Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal (TAC No. ME1594, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115
and ML103400250), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92],
August 11, 2012........................................
Purdue University--Response to Request Request for ML13101A044
Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University
Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594), [Responses 54,
69, 77, 78, and 92], April 10, 2013....................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species ML16120A505
Consultations Frequently Asked Questions, July 15, 2013
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML13203A081
Operations For the Period January 1, 2011 to December
31, 2011, July 18, 2013................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML13203A082
Operations For the Period January 1, 2012 to December
31, 2012, July 18, 2013................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML14154A123
Operations For the Period January 1, 2013 to December
31, 2013, May 22, 2014.................................
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML15092A160
Operations For the Period January 1, 2014 to December
31, 2014, March 30, 2015...............................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A280
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), [RAI cover letter for
responses to August 29, 2015 NRC letter], July 24, 2015
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A282
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 1 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 1 of 5: responses (1-29), TS (30-64), d/
c cost estimate (65-68), Requal (69-73), SAR Chs. 1-5
(70-162)], July 24, 2015...............................
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A283
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 2 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 2 of 5 (SAR Chs. 6-15)], July 24, 2015..
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A285
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 3 of 5, [RAI
Responses Part 3 of 5 (drawings)], July 24, 2015.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A287
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 4 of 5, [RAI
Responses Part 4 of 5 (drawings)], July 24, 2015.......
Purdue University--Request for Additional Information ML15210A288
Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
Application (TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated
August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 5 of 5, [RAI
Responses part 5 of 5 (NATCON, Procedures, Drawings)],
July 24, 2015..........................................
Purdue University--Response to NRC Request for ML16047A382
Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan
Review for License Renewal, January 29, 2016...........
Purdue University--Re-Submittal Response to NRC Request ML16083A219
for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security
Plan Review for License Renewal, February 26, 2016.....
Purdue Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for ML16102A123
Additional Information Re: Physical Security Plan
Review for License Renewal, March 31, 2016.............
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor ML16102A119
Operations For the Period January 1, 2015 to December
31, 2015, March 31, 2016...............................
Purdue University--Second Re-Submittal of Response to ML16134A143
NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding
Physical Security Plan Review for License Renewal, May
9, 2016................................................
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering Notice ML16193A681
of ADAMS Document Correction, PUR-1, Docket 50-182,
ML16187A371, Technical Specifications, Proposed
Amendment 13 Enclosed, [Correction of the TSs,
originally submitted under ML16187A371], July 7, 2016..
Purdue University Responses to Request for Additional ML16207A426
Information re PUR-1 License Renewal and Power Uprate,
[Responses to RAIs ML15328A314], July 19, 2016.........
Purdue University--Response to Request for Additional ML16267A465
Information Regarding the Reactor License Renewal
Application, Responses to Letter dated July 25, 2016,
September 19, 2016.....................................
Purdue University--Explanation of Technical ML16277A165
Specification Changes and Emergency Operator Action,
September 29, 2016.....................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 74828]]

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day October, 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Alexander Adams, Jr.,
Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-25993 Filed 10-26-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

74822 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices

removing the requirement for a licensed exemption would allow the licensee to types or significant increase in the
senior operator to approve the designate an alternative position, with amounts of any effluents that may be
suspension of security measures in an qualifications appropriate for a released offsite; and no significant
emergency or during severe weather, to permanently shutdown and defueled increase in individual or cumulative
allow suspension of security measures reactor, to approve the suspension of public or occupational radiation
to be authorized by a CFH, does not security measures during an emergency exposure. The exempted regulation is
adversely affect public health and safety to protect the public health and safety, not associated with construction, so
issues or the assurance of the common and during severe weather to protect the there is no significant construction
defense and security. safety of the security force, consistent impact. The exempted regulation does
with the similar authority provided by not concern the source term (i.e.,
C. Is Otherwise in the Public Interest
§ 50.54(y). Therefore, the exemption is potential amount of radiation in an
Entergy’s proposed exemption would in the public interest. accident), nor mitigation. Thus, there is
allow a CFH, following permanent no significant increase in the potential
cessation of operation and permanent D. Environmental Considerations
for, or consequences of, a radiological
removal of fuel from the reactor vessel, The NRC’s approval of the exemption accident. The requirement to have a
to approve suspension of security to security requirements belongs to a licensed senior operator approve
measures in an emergency when category of actions that the Commission, departure from security actions may be
‘‘immediately needed to protect the by rule or regulation, has declared to be viewed as involving either safeguards,
public health and safety’’ or during a categorical exclusion, after first materials control, or managerial matters.
severe weather when ‘‘immediately finding that the category of actions does
needed to protect the personal health not individually or cumulatively have a Therefore, pursuant to § 51.22(b) and
and safety of security force personnel.’’ significant effect on the human (c)(25), no environmental impact
Without the exemption, the licensee environment. Specifically, the statement or environmental assessment
cannot implement changes to its exemption is categorically excluded need be prepared in connection with the
security plan to authorize a CFH to from further analysis under approval of this exemption request.
approve the temporary suspension of § 51.22(c)(25). IV. Conclusions
security regulations during an Under § 51.22(c)(25), the granting of
emergency or severe weather, an exemption from the requirements of Accordingly, the Commission has
comparable to the authority given to the any regulation of Chapter I to 10 CFR is determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
CFH by the NRC when it published a categorical exclusion provided that: (i) 73.5, the exemption is authorized by
§ 50.54(y). Instead, the regulations There is no significant hazards law and will not endanger life or
would continue to require that a consideration; (ii) there is no significant property or the common defense and
licensed senior operator be available to change in the types or significant security, and is otherwise in the public
make decisions for a permanently increase in the amounts of any effluents interest. Therefore, the Commission
shutdown plant, even though JAF that may be released offsite; (iii) there is hereby grants the licensee’s request for
would no longer require a licensed no significant increase in individual or an exemption from the requirements of
senior operator. However, it is unclear cumulative public or occupational 10 CFR 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii), which
how the licensee would implement radiation exposure; (iv) there is no otherwise would require suspension of
emergency or severe weather significant construction impact; (v) security measures during emergencies
suspensions of security measures there is no significant increase in the and severe weather, respectively, to be
without a licensed senior operator. This potential for or consequences from approved by a licensed senior operator
exemption is in the public interest for radiological accidents; and (vi) the following permanent cessation of
two reasons. First, without the requirements from which an exemption operations and permanent removal of
exemption, there is uncertainty on how is sought involve: Safeguard plans, and fuel from the reactor vessel. The
the licensee will invoke temporary materials control and accounting exemption is effective upon the
suspension of security matters that may inventory scheduling requirements; or docketing of the certification of
be needed for protecting public health involve other requirements of an permanent removal of fuel in
and safety or the safety of the security administrative, managerial, or accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)(ii).
force during emergencies and severe organizational nature.
The Director, Division of Operating Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day
weather. The exemption would allow
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear of October 2016.
the licensee to make decisions pursuant
to § 73.55(p)(1)(i) and (ii) without Reactor Regulation, has determined that For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
having to maintain a staff of licensed approval of the exemption request George A. Wilson,
senior operators. The exemption would involves no significant hazards Deputy Director, Division of Operating
also allow the licensee to have an consideration because expanding the Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor
established procedure in place to allow requirement to allow a CFH to approve Regulation.
a trained CFH to suspend security the security suspension at a defueled [FR Doc. 2016–25989 Filed 10–26–16; 8:45 am]
measures in the event of an emergency shutdown power plant does not (1) BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
or severe weather. Second, the involve a significant increase in the
consistent and efficient regulation of probability or consequences of an
nuclear power plants serves the public accident previously evaluated; or (2) NUCLEAR REGULATORY
interest. This exemption would assure create the possibility of a new or COMMISSION
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

consistency between the security different kind of accident from any
regulations in 10 CFR part 73 and the accident previously evaluated; or (3) [Docket No. 50–182; NRC–2011–0186]
operating reactor regulations in 10 CFR involve a significant reduction in a
part 50, and the requirements margin of safety. The exempted security Purdue University Reactor
concerning licensed operators in 10 CFR regulation is unrelated to any
part 55. The NRC staff has determined operational restriction. Accordingly, AGENCY:Nuclear Regulatory
that granting the licensee’s proposed there is no significant change in the Commission.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1

74824 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices

from the demineralizer. The water next mSv), assuming a hypothetical 2,000- well within the limits set by § 20.1201,
flows through a stainless steel heat hour steady state, full power operation, ‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults,’’
exchanger. The water from the heat since the reactor license contains no and the ALARA dose criteria in
exchanger is then returned to the reactor restriction on operating hours. The § 20.1101(b). The University is
pool. A magnetrol water-level control is reactor normally operates for much less committed to the principle of ALARA
located in the reactor pool; this unit than the assumed 8 hours per day and and it makes every effort to keep doses
controls a solenoid valve in the line the conservatively calculated dose is to a minimum. All unanticipated or
from the water supply tank to ensure still well below the 5,000-mrem (50 unusual exposures are investigated.
that the prescribed pool water level is mSv) limit established in § 20.1201, According to annual reports for the past
maintained. However, this system is ‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults.’’ 5 years of operation from 2011 through
manually controlled by the PUR–1 staff The applicant also calculated, at the 2015, there were no radiation exposures
to allow markup water to be bounding 18 kW(t) power level, an greater than 25 percent of limits set
inventoried. Makeup pool water is environmental public dose rate from forth in § 20.1201. The change in
provided by the city public water normal operations to a person in the occupational dose from the proposed
supply. unrestricted area due to Ar-41 released power uprate from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t)
A detailed description of the reactor from the building ventilation opening. is discussed previously in this notice.
can be found in the PUR–1 Safety The release point is on the roof vent on The applicant monitors dose to the
Analysis Report (SAR) submitted by the the top of the building 15 meters above public by placing thermoluminescent
applicant with its renewal application. ground. Assuming a hypothetical dosimeters (TLD) at the boundaries of
continuous steady state, full power the facility. The TLDs are checked for
A. Radiological Impacts operation for a year, the applicant exposure every other month. Doses
Environmental Effects of Reactor calculated the public dose rate to be measured from the TLDs at the current
Operations 3.17 × 10¥4 mrem/hr (3.17 × 0¥6 mSv/ operating power level of 1 kW(t) have
hr) or 2.8 mrem/yr (0.28 mSv/yr), which been at background levels, therefore, the
During normal operations at the PUR–
is well below the limit in § 20.1301 of applicant concludes that the public has
1 facility, the two primary airborne
100 mrem/yr (1 mSv/yr). This not received exposures greater than the
sources of radiation are argon-41 (Ar-41)
calculated public dose rate would also limits set forth in § 20.1301, ‘‘Dose
and nitrogen-16 (N–16). N–16 is
meet the as low as is reasonably limits for individual members of the
produced when oxygen in the pool public.’’ As stated previously, this
achievable (ALARA) dose constraint of
water is irradiated in the reactor core, should not change for the proposed
10 mrem/yr (0.1 mSv/yr) found in
and must then diffuse to the pool power increase of 12 kW(t).
§ 20.1101(d).
surface before it is released to the Purdue University has a structured Additionally, the potential radiation
atmosphere. The applicant estimates radiation safety program. Policies for the dose from current operations at 1kW(t)
that, due to its short half-life (about 7 program are determined by the also demonstrates compliance with the
seconds), any N–16 produced by the University Radiation Safety Committee, ALARA dose constraints specified in
reactor at the bounding power level of which has the mission to ensure the § 20.1101(d), ‘‘Radiation protection
18 kW(t) would decay before reaching safety of the University and community programs.’’ As stated previously, this
the surface of the pool. The primary in the utilization of all radioactive should not change for the proposed
source of Ar-41 at the PUR–1 is from materials and radiation-producing power increase of 12 kW(t).
irradiation of air containing argon devices at the University by faculty, Over the past 5 years of operation
dissolved in the reactor pool. At the staff, or students. The program is from 2011 through 2015, results from
current 1 kW(t) steady-state operation, administered by the Radiation Safety the applicant’s survey program indicate
effluent samples in the reactor room Officer and his staff, as part of that radiation exposures at the current
have not contained detectable traces of Radiological and Environmental operating power level of 1 kW(t) at the
Ar-41. At the bounding power level of Management. The staff is equipped with monitoring locations were not
18 kW(t), the applicant estimates that radiation detection instrumentation to significantly higher than those
steady-state operation of the reactor determine, control, and document measured at the control locations. This
would produce an equilibrium occupational radiation exposures at the should not change for the proposed
concentration of 2.08 × 10¥7 mCi/cm3 of reactor facility under the broad scope power increase of 12 kW(t). Therefore,
Ar-41 in the exhaust air and the reactor byproduct materials license held by the NRC concludes that the proposed
room, which is lower than the 3.0 × Purdue University. action would not have a significant
10¥6 mCi/cm3 Derived Air Only very limited contaminated radiological impact.
Concentration (DAC) limit for materials are generated by PUR–1. Any
occupational workers found in 10 CFR contaminated material is disposed of Environmental Effects of Accidents
part 20. Due to the DAC being below under the Purdue University broad The maximum hypothetical accident
regulatory limits, the estimated scope license. No wastes have been (MHA) is an event involving the
occupational radioactivity exposure released to the environment in an cladding failure of an irradiated fuel
levels will also be below the 10 CFR uncontrolled manner. During the past 5- element in air. The MHA is considered
part 20 limit of 5 reontgen equivalent year period from 2011 through 2015, the the worst-case fuel failure scenario for
man (rem). The estimated dose rate to a applicant reported no routine releases of PUR–1 that would lead to the maximum
worker at the bounding power level of liquid radioactive waste by any disposal potential radiation hazard to facility
18 kW(t) was calculated by the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

method. The NRC assumes that any personnel and to members of the public.
applicant to be 0.167 milli roentgen changes due to the requested power The results of the MHA are used by the
equivalent man per hour (mrem/hr) increase from 1 kW(t) to 12 kW(t) are NRC to evaluate the ability of the
(0.00167 millisievert/hour (mSv/hr)). expected to be minimal and capable of applicant to respond and mitigate the
Using the calculated dose rate, the total being handled by the existing systems consequences of this postulated
effective dose equivalent to a worker in and procedures. radioactive release.
the reactor room for an entire year As described in Chapter 11 of the The applicant conservatively
would be less than 334 mrem (3.34 PUR–1 SAR, personnel exposures are calculated doses to facility personnel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 208 / Thursday, October 27, 2016 / Notices 74827

ADAMS
Document accession No.

Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the License Renewal, Responses to RAIs Dated 6 July 2011,
[Responses 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 35, 36, and 37], January 4, 2012 ......................................... ML12006A193
Purdue University—Responses to the Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Re-
newal dated July 6, 2011, [Responses 3, 4, 7, 10, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 29, 34, and 40], January 30, 2012 .................................. ML12031A223
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC NO.
ME 1594), Responses to RAIS (ML103400115 and ML103400250) (Redacted Version), [Responses 45, 55, 62, 65, 66, 67,
68, 70, and 73], January 31, 2012 .................................................................................................................................................. ML14234A109
Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC ME1594), Responses to
RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Responses 43, 51, 56, 60, and 61], June 1, 2012 ..................................................... ML12156A364
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal (TAC No.
ME1594), Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Response 46, 47, 52, 57, and 59], June 15, 2012 ............ ML12170B018
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal, Responses
to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Response 48, 58, 96, 97 and 98], June 29, 2012 ................................................. ML12170B018
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal, Response to
RAI, [Response 49, 50, 53, 64, and 72], July 13, 2012 .................................................................................................................. ML12201A070
Purdue University—Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Purdue University Reactor License Renewal
(TAC No. ME1594, Responses to RAIs (ML103400115 and ML103400250), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92], August 11,
2012 ................................................................................................................................................................................................. ML12226A400
Purdue University—Response to Request Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License
Renewal (TAC ME1594), [Responses 54, 69, 77, 78, and 92], April 10, 2013 .............................................................................. ML13101A044
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Consultations Frequently Asked Questions, July 15, 2013 ........................... ML16120A505
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011,
July 18, 2013 .................................................................................................................................................................................... ML13203A081
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012,
July 18, 2013 .................................................................................................................................................................................... ML13203A082
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013,
May 22, 2014 ................................................................................................................................................................................... ML14154A123
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014,
March 30, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................................ ML15092A160
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), [RAI cover letter for responses to August
29, 2015 NRC letter], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................ ML15210A280
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 1 of 5, [RAI Responses part 1 of 5:
responses (1–29), TS (30–64), d/c cost estimate (65–68), Requal (69–73), SAR Chs. 1–5 (70–162)], July 24, 2015 ................ ML15210A282
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 2 of 5, [RAI Responses part 2 of 5
(SAR Chs. 6–15)], July 24, 2015 ..................................................................................................................................................... ML15210A283
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 3 of 5, [RAI Responses Part 3 of 5
(drawings)], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................ ML15210A285
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 4 of 5, [RAI Responses Part 4 of 5
(drawings)], July 24, 2015 ................................................................................................................................................................ ML15210A287
Purdue University—Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal Application
(TAC No. ME1594), Responses to Letter Dated August 29, 2014 (ML14115A221), Part 5 of 5, [RAI Responses part 5 of 5
(NATCON, Procedures, Drawings)], July 24, 2015 ......................................................................................................................... ML15210A288
Purdue University—Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan Review for License
Renewal, January 29, 2016 ............................................................................................................................................................. ML16047A382
Purdue University—Re-Submittal Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security Plan Re-
view for License Renewal, February 26, 2016 ................................................................................................................................ ML16083A219
Purdue Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Re: Physical Security Plan Review for License
Renewal, March 31, 2016 ................................................................................................................................................................ ML16102A123
Purdue University Research Reactor, Report on Reactor Operations For the Period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015,
March 31, 2016 ................................................................................................................................................................................ ML16102A119
Purdue University—Second Re-Submittal of Response to NRC Request for Additional Information Regarding Physical Security
Plan Review for License Renewal, May 9, 2016 ............................................................................................................................. ML16134A143
Purdue University School of Nuclear Engineering Notice of ADAMS Document Correction, PUR–1, Docket 50–182,
ML16187A371, Technical Specifications, Proposed Amendment 13 Enclosed, [Correction of the TSs, originally submitted
under ML16187A371], July 7, 2016 ................................................................................................................................................. ML16193A681
Purdue University Responses to Request for Additional Information re PUR–1 License Renewal and Power Uprate, [Responses
to RAIs ML15328A314], July 19, 2016 ............................................................................................................................................ ML16207A426
Purdue University—Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding the Reactor License Renewal Application, Re-
sponses to Letter dated July 25, 2016, September 19, 2016 ......................................................................................................... ML16267A465
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with NOTICES

Purdue University—Explanation of Technical Specification Changes and Emergency Operator Action, September 29, 2016 ........ ML16277A165

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:43 Oct 26, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\27OCN1.SGM 27OCN1

Document Created: 2016-10-27 01:52:58
Document Modified: 2016-10-27 01:52:58

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; issuance.
Dates		The EA and FONSI referenced in this document is available on October 27, 2016.
Contact		Cindy K. Montgomery, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3398; email: [email protected]
FR Citation		81 FR 74822