[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59267-59269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29447]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-131]


Department of Veterans Affairs; Nebraska--Western Iowa Health 
Care System; Alan J. Blotcky Reactor Facility; Environmental Assessment 
and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of an amendment for Facility Operating License No. R-57, 
issued to the Department of Veterans Affairs, Nebraska--Western Iowa 
Health Care System (the licensee or VA) for operation of the Alan J. 
Blotcky Reactor Facility (AJBRF) located in Omaha, Douglas County, 
Nebraska.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would renew the license for the AJBRF for 20 
years from the date of issuance of the license amendment. The proposed 
action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment 
dated May 10, 1993, as supplemented on March 1, 1995, December 17, 
1997, March 12, April 5, July 29, November 24 and December 2, 1999, 
January 4, September 25, October 2 and October 24, 2000, and August 8 
and October 16, 2001. In

[[Page 59268]]

accordance with 10 CFR 2.109, the 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 continued operation of the 
AJBRF in order to continue educational training and academic research 
beyond the current term of the license.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action

    The AJBRF is located in the basement of the Department of Veterans 
Affairs, Nebraska--Western Iowa Health Care System, Omaha Division 
(formerly known as the VA Medical Center Omaha) in Omaha, Nebraska. The 
main hospital building is 11 stories high and is constructed of brick 
and reinforced concrete construction, including the ceilings and 
floors. The hospital building is built on a knoll in a commercial area 
within the city limits. To the north is a large county hospital, to the 
south a commercial district, to the west a residential area, and to the 
east a golf course. The medical center grounds are sufficiently large 
so that the nearest offsite dwelling is more than 520 ft. (158 m) away.
    The reactor is located near the bottom of a cylindrical pool 20 ft 
(6.1 m) below the floor of the reactor room. The only access to the 
reactor pool is from the top. The reactor control console is located 
near the reactor pool in the reactor room.
    On June 24, 1959, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issued VA 
a Construction Permit (CPRR-36) authorizing construction of a General 
Atomics TRIGA-type research reactor. On June 26, 1959, Facility 
Operating License No. R-57 was issued authorizing VA to operate the 
TRIGA reactor at steady-state power levels up to 10 kW(t). The reactor 
first reached criticality on June 30, 1959. Amendment No. 2 to the 
license issued in September 1963 increased the steady-state thermal 
power level of the reactor to 18 kW(t) and Amendment No. 9 issued in 
April 1991 increased the power level to 20 kW(t). The license has been 
renewed twice prior to this renewal with the last renewal issued in 
August 1983. The licensee submitted an updated safety analysis report 
and technical specifications as part of the application for license 
renewal. Over the last ten years the facility has operated an average 
of 344 full power hours per year. Facility modifications have been 
minor. The licensee has not indicated any plans to significantly change 
the design of the facility.
    The radioactive releases from the AJBRF have been well within 
regulatory limits of 10 CFR part 20. Argon-41, a product from neutron 
irradiation of air during operation, is the principle airborne 
radioactive effluent from the AJBRF during routine operations. During 
the last 10 years, the licensee has calculated that the amount of 
argon-41 discharged from the facility to the environment has ranged 
from 1 mCi (37 MBq) to 300 mCi (11,100 MBq) per year. The maximum dose 
to members of the public has been less than 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) per year. 
The staff calculates that even given continuous operation of the 
reactor, the maximum dose to members of the public would still be less 
than 1 mrem (0.01 mSv) per year.
    Over the last ten years the licensee has released no liquid or 
solid waste from the AJBRF. Any future releases would be performed 
within the requirements of the regulations.
    Currently, there are no plans to change any operating or 
radiological release practices or characteristics of the reactor during 
the license renewal period. The NRC concludes that conditions are not 
expected to change and that the radiological effects of operation 
during the renewal period will continue to be minimal. The radiological 
exposures for facility operations have been within regulatory limits 
and should continue to remain so.
    The proposed action will not significantly 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 to occupational or public radiation exposure. 
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological facility effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts 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 AJBRF and 
that there are no special or unique features that would preclude 
reliance on the generic evaluation.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). If 
the NRC denied license renewal, AJBRF operations would stop and 
decommissioning would be required with no significant benefit to the 
environment. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
alternative are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources:

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the safety analysis and evaluation for the 
operating license renewal in 1983.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on June 19, 2001, the staff 
consulted with the Nebraska State official, Ms. Julia Schmitt of the 
Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Regulation and 
Licensure, 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 NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated May 10, 1993, as supplemented on March 1, 1995, 
December 17, 1997, March 12, April 5, July 29, November 24 and December 
2, 1999, January 4, September 25, October 2 and October 24, 2000, and 
August 8 and October 16, 2001. Documents may be examined, and/or copied 
for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. 
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. 
Documents from November 24, 1999, may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not

[[Page 59269]]

have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 
Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by email to 
[email protected].

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

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Eugene V. Imbro,
Acting Chief, Operational Experience, and Non-Power Reactors Branch, 
Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.

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 facilities 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, if required, is generally 
accomplished by a heat exchanger whose secondary side includes a 
cooling tower located on the roof of or nearby the reactor building. 
The size of these cooling towers typically are on the order of 10 ft 
by 10 ft by 10 ft (3 m by 3 m by 3 m) and are comparable to cooling 
towers associated with the air-conditioning systems of large office 
buildings. Heat dissipation may also be accomplished by transfer 
through a heat exchanger to water flowing directly to a sewer or a 
chilled water system. Make-up for the cooling system is readily 
available and usually obtained from the local water supply.
    Radioactive gaseous effluents during normal operations are 
usually limited to argon-41. 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 or the 
environment. This liquid waste may also be solidified and disposed 
of as solid waste. Solid radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped 
offsite for storage or disposal 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 an 
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. The small amount of waste heat 
released to sewers, in the case of heat exchanger secondary flow 
directly to the sewer, will not raise average water temperatures in 
the environment.
    Release of routine gaseous effluents can be limited to argon-41, 
which is generated by neutron activation of air. In most cases, this 
will be kept as low as practicable by using gases other than air for 
supporting experiments. Experiments that are supported by air are 
designed to minimize production of argon-41. Yearly doses to persons 
in unrestricted areas will be at or below established 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 the regulations. Solid radioactive wastes will be 
shipped in approved containers to an authorized disposal site or to 
a facility licensed to treat and consolidate radioactive waste. 
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 (1,110,000 MBq) and 0.01 curies (370 MBq), 
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. The quality of secondary cooling water may 
be maintained using biocides, corrosion inhibitors and pH control 
chemicals. The use of these chemicals for this purpose is approved 
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The small amounts of 
laboratory chemicals that may be used in research laboratories are 
disposed of in accordance with EPA and state requirements.
    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 limits 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, 
operating licenses or license renewals for such facilities.
    Revised June 2001.
[FR Doc. 01-29447 Filed 11-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P