[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16696-16697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-7510]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-188]


Kansas State University; TRIGA Mark II Nuclear Research Reactor; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering the issuance of a license amendment to Facility Operating 
License No. R-88, issued to Kansas State University (the licensee) for 
operation of the Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research 
reactor.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow extension of the license expiration 
time from August 15, 2001, to October 16, 2002, for the Kansas State 
University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research reactor. By letter dated 
February 1, 2001, and supplement dated February 12, 2001, the licensee 
requested this license extension by the provisions of 10 CFR 50.90. The 
licensee submitted an environmental report with their application.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow continued operation of the 
Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research reactor for 
research, development and educational activities beyond the current 
term of the license.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    The Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research reactor 
is on the University's campus in Manhattan, Kansas. The research 
reactor is housed in a closed room designed to restrict air flow.
    The Kansas State University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research reactor 
is a low power (250 kilowatts), pool-type research reactor. The NRC 
licensed the facility for operation up to a power level of 100 
kilowatts in 1962 and authorized operations up to 250 kilowatts with 
pulsing capability in 1968. From fiscal year 1981 to fiscal year 1999, 
the facility has operated ~800 megawatt-hours total. Data from recent 
operations, from 1995 to 1999, was assessed. The gaseous radiological 
release of Argon-41, the primary airborne effluent, has conservatively 
been estimated to result in 2.8 millirem exposure outside the facility. 
All gaseous releases were and are expected to remain well within 
regulatory requirements. Liquid effluents have been relatively small 
with the highest concentration in 1997 at 250 pCi/ml. Low-level solid 
radioactive waste between 1988 and 1998 was less than 245 mCi in 116 
cubic feet of material.
    The Commission concludes that the radiological effects of the 
continued operation will be minimal based on past radiological 
releases. The radiological exposures for facility operations have been 
within regulatory limits. Conditions are not expected to change 
significantly. The proposed action will not increase the probability or 
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no 
significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    As for potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does 
not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological 
effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, no 
significant non-radiological environmental impacts are associated with 
the proposed action.
    In addition, the environmental impact associated with operation of 
research reactors has been generically evaluated by the staff and is 
discussed in the attached generic evaluation. This evaluation concludes 
that no significant environmental impact is associated with the 
operation of research reactors licensed to operate at power levels up 
to and including 2 megawatts thermal. The NRC staff has determined that 
this generic evaluation is applicable to operation of the Kansas State 
University TRIGA Mark II nuclear research reactor and that there are no 
special or unique features that would preclude reliance on the generic 
evaluation.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    An alternative to the proposed action for the facility is to deny 
the application (i.e., ``no action'' alternative). If the application 
is denied, the licensee has indicated that it would apply for license 
renewal and operate under the timely renewal provisions of 10 CFR 2.109 
until the Commission renewed or denied the license renewal application. 
With operation under timely renewal or renewal, the actual conditions 
of the reactor would not change. If the Commission denied license 
renewal, operations would stop and decommissioning would be required 
with a likely small impact on the environment. The environmental 
impacts of the proposed action and alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Hazards Analysis prepared for the issuance 
of the construction permit in 1961 and for operating license in 1962.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    On March 1, 2001, the NRC staff consulted with the State of Kansas, 
Vick L. Cooper, Chief, Radiation Control Program, Kansas Department of 
Health and Environment, Bureau of Air and Radiation regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission 
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the

[[Page 16697]]

NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for 
the proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated February 1, 2001, and supplement dated February 
12, 2001, which is available for public inspection, and/or copied for a 
fee, at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), 
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov (the Electronic Reading Room).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of March, 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh,
Chief, Events Assessment, Generic Communications, and Non-Power 
Reactors Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Attachment

Environmental Considerations Regarding the Licensing of Research 
Reactors and Critical Facilities

Introduction

    This discussion deals with research reactors and critical 
facilities which are designed to operate at low power levels, 2 MWt 
and lower, and are used primarily for basic research in neutron 
physics, neutron radiography, isotope production, experiments 
associated with nuclear engineering, training and as a part of a 
nuclear physics curriculum. Operation of such facilities will 
generally not exceed a 5-day week, 8-hour day, or about 2000 hours 
per year. Such reactors are located adjacent to technical service 
support facilities with convenient access for students and faculty.
    Sited most frequently on the campuses of large universities, the 
reactors are usually housed in already existing structures, 
appropriately modified, or placed in new buildings that are designed 
and constructed to blend in with existing facilities. However, the 
environmental considerations discussed herein are not limited to 
those which are part of universities.

Facility

    There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or 
mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to or adjacent 
to the facility other than for utility services, which are similar 
to those required in other similar facilities, specifically 
laboratories. Heat dissipation is generally accomplished by use of a 
cooling tower located on the roof of the building. These cooling 
towers typically are on the order of 10' x 10' x 10' and are 
comparable to cooling towers associated with the air-conditioning 
systems of large office buildings.
    Make-up for the cooling system is readily available and usually 
obtained from the local water supply. Radioactive gaseous effluents 
are limited to Ar-41 and the release of radioactive liquid effluents 
can be carefully monitored and controlled. Liquid wastes are 
collected in storage tanks to allow for decay and monitoring prior 
to dilution and release to the sanitary sewer system. Solid 
radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped offsite for storage at 
NRC-approved sites. The transportation of such waste is done in 
accordance with existing NRC-DOT regulations in approved shipping 
containers.
    Chemical and sanitary waste systems are similar to those 
existing at other similar laboratories and buildings.

Environmental Effects of Site Preparation and Facility Construction

    Construction of such facilities invariably occurs in areas that 
have already been disturbed by other building construction and, in 
some cases, solely within an already existing building. Therefore, 
construction would not be expected to have any significant effect on 
the terrain, vegetation, wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. 
The societal, economic and aesthetic impacts of construction would 
be no greater than those associated with the construction of a large 
office building or similar research facility.

Environmental Effects of Facility Operation

    Release of thermal effluents from a reactor of less than 2 MWt 
will not have a significant effect on the environment. This small 
amount of waste heat is generally rejected to the atmosphere by 
means of small cooling towers. Extensive drift and/or fog will not 
occur at this low power level.
    Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to Ar-41, 
which is generated by neutron activation of air. Even this will be 
kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for 
supporting experiments. Yearly doses to unrestricted areas will be 
at or below established guidelines in 10 CFR Part 20 limits. Routine 
releases of radioactive liquid effluents can be carefully monitored 
and controlled in a manner that will ensure compliance with current 
standards. Solid radioactive wastes will be shipped to an authorized 
disposal site in approved containers. These wastes should not 
require more than a few shipping containers a year.
    Based on experience with other research reactors, specifically 
TRIGA reactors operating in the 1 to 2 MWt range, the annual release 
of gaseous and liquid effluents to unrestricted areas should be less 
than 30 curies and 0.01 curies, respectively.
    No release of potentially harmful chemical substances will occur 
during normal operation. Small amounts of chemicals and/or high-
solid content water may be released from the facility through the 
sanitary sewer during periodic blowdown of the cooling tower or from 
laboratory experiments.
    Other potential effects of the facility, such as aesthetics, 
noise, societal or impact on local flora and fauna are expected to 
be too small to measure.

Environmental Effects of Accidents

    Accidents ranging from the failure of experiments up to the 
largest core damage and fission product release considered possible 
result in doses that are less than 10 CFR part 20 guidelines and are 
considered negligible with respect to the environment.

Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction and Operation

    The unavoidable effects of construction and operation involve 
the materials used in construction that cannot be recovered and the 
fissionable material used in the reactor. No adverse impact on the 
environment is expected from either of these unavoidable effects.

Alternatives to Construction and Operation of the Facility

    To accomplish the objectives associated with research reactors, 
there are no suitable alternatives. Some of these objectives are 
training of students in the operation of reactors, production of 
radioisotopes, and use of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct 
experiments.

Long-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Operation

    The long-term effects of research facilities are considered to 
be beneficial as a result of the contribution to scientific 
knowledge and training. Because of the relatively small amount of 
capital resources involved and the small impact on the environment, 
very little irreversible and irretrievable commitment is associated 
with such facilities.

Costs and Benefits of Facility Alternatives

    The costs are on the order of several millions of dollars with 
very little environmental impact. The benefits include, but are not 
limited to, some combination of the following: conduct of activation 
analyses, conduct of neutron radiography, training of operating 
personnel, and education of students. Some of these activities could 
be conducted using particle accelerators or radioactive sources 
which would be more costly and less efficient. There is no 
reasonable alternative to a nuclear research reactor for conducting 
this spectrum of activities.

Conclusion

    The staff concludes that there will be no significant 
environmental impact associated with the licensing of research 
reactors or critical facilities designed to operate at power levels 
of 2 MWt or lower and that no environmental impact statements are 
required to be written for the issuance of construction permits or 
operating licenses for such facilities.
[FR Doc. 01-7510 Filed 3-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P