ML19344D444

Eia Supporting Renewal of Facility License R-78.Financial Liability Statement Encl

ML19344D444
Person / Time
Site:	05000148
Issue date:	03/31/1980
From:	KANSAS, UNIV. OF, LAWRENCE, KS
To:
Shared Package
ML19344D430	List: ML19344D429 ML19344D438 ML19344D444 ML19344D451
References
NUDOCS 8003120391
Download: ML19344D444 (13)

Text

%- -

. (' ) '3 .

N_/ i Environmental Impact Appraisal for University of Kansas Nuclear Reactor l

l

,, March /1980 8008120 3c) l

ss mi t Environmental Impact Appraisal This section deals with the environmental effects which can be attributed to. the operation of the University of Kansas (Lawrence) Training Reactor since its initial criticality in 1961. It will also address potential future environmental effects.

A. Facility, Environmental Effects of Construction The KU Training Reactor is housed in the Nuclear Reactor Center which is located toward the west side of the KU campus. The nuclear reactor occupies the south end of the Center and the Radiation Biophysics Program now occupies the north end. There have been no significant effects on the terrain, vege-tation, wildlife, nearby water or aquatic life due to the operation of the reactor.

There are no exterior conduits, pipelines, electrical or mechanical structures or transmission lines attached to the nuclear reactor facility other than utility service facilities which are similar to those required in other campus facilities, especially laboratories. Heat dissipation is accom-plished by evaporation and conduction from the pool. There is no external cooling system on the KU Training Reactor.

Make-up water for the cooling system is readily available and is obtained from the City of Lawrence water supply. Radioactive gaseous effluents consist of very small quantities of Ar-41. There are minimal radioactive liquid-effluents (less than a liter per year) associated with the production of isotopes in the KU reactor. These solid and liquid radioactive wastes are generated through the irradiation of samples to be used on ca2 pus for neutron acti-

)

vation analysis, classroom projects with radioactive materials, or for tracer studies. These radioactive samples are normally of such short half life

4 ,.

that disposal is'by decay. There is one Kansas Department of Health and

~

Environment approved field study involving the use of small amounts of Tantalum.

1 Rue sanitary waste systems associated with the Nuclear Reactor facility are similar to those at other univeristy reactors. The design excludes the possibility of discharging un-monitored liquids into the sanitary waste system.

B. Environmental Effects of Facility Operation ,

The KU Nuclear Reactor has a maximum power output of 250 DJt limited to

'an average of 10 KWe and a maximum of three hours at 250 KWt. The environ-mental effects of thermal effluents of this order of magnitude are negligible.

The waste heat is rej ected to the atmosphere through the roof of the Nuclear Reactor building. Replacement water is equal to that lost by evaporation at the top of the 6000 gallon reactor tank with a top surface area of 45 f t This amount of water loss by evaporation has minimum effects on the environ-

. ment .

The room in which the reactor is located is continuously monitored for gamma-ray fields. The gamma detectors are Jordan ion chambers, three of which are mounted on the walls of the reactor bay and one of which is attached to the ceiling directly cbove the reactor tank.

At 10 KWt, none of the alarms have ever been unexpectedly triggered.

- The south wall and ceiling monitor do exceed five mR/hr at 250 KWt. The maximum rate has never exceeded 100 mR/hr.

The reactor has been used above 10 KWt an average of six hours per year for the-past five years.

P' Air samples' are obtained in and near the reactor building on a weekly

-basis during.pediods in which: the reactor is being routinely used. (Samples are not_ normally taken when the reactor is not being operated.) A low volume air sampler 'is used to draw air through a filter with the volume determined by a flow meter. Gross. beta activity is determined by 2 x gas flow count-

'ing and gross gamma activity with a NaI ocintillation counting system.

Table I summarizes the data for the last five years and is representative of results'throughout the life of the reactor.

The demineralizer regeneration effluent is held in a hold-up tank for a period of time to allow for decay. The gross beta and gamma activity in the effluent is determined before it is released to the sanitary sewer system.

Table 2 gives the total amount released to the sewer system in each of the past five years. The concentrations as the effluent enters the drain is.

less than 9 x 10

~S uCi/ml of beta plus gamma and less than 4 x 10 -7 uC1/ml alpha. Thus the dilution factor obtained by averaging these concentrations with the normal. sewage volume causes the disposal to be far below Appendix B, Table I, Column 2.

Water samples from' the reactor tank are obtained'on a periodic basis

[ and analyzed for gross alpha, beta and gamma activity. The maximum activities

~ -0 recorded were 6.5,x 10 , 2 x 10 , and 1 x 10- pCi/ml respectively with

~0 averages of 7 x 10 , 1.6 x 10- , and 7.0,x 10" uCi/ml. Of course, in

i. this case, the samplingJ time relative to reactor operations does make a

.. difference . It is seen that the values are extremely small.

,, =. , , , , , . , y.

g-.

Radioactive samples made in the reactor are normally allowed to decay to extremely small values following which they may be disposed of via the sewer in the case of liquid samples. Indium foils and other such materials are kept and reused.

The number of samples of radioactive materials produced in the reactor over the past five years are given in Table 3. .This table also gives the total' activity produced.

C. Environmental Effects of Accidents Accidents ranging from failure of experiments to the insertion of 1.5%

excess reactivity result in doses of only a small fraction of 10 CFR Part 100 guidelines and are considered negligible with respect to the environment.

D. Effects of Facility Operation No adverse impact on the environment is expected from the operation of the reactor based on the analysis given above.

E. Alternatives to Operation of the Facility There are no suitable or more economical alternatives which can accomplish both the educational and the research objectives of this facility. These objectives include the training of students in radiation protection aspects of nuclear reactors, the production of radioisotopes, its use as a source of neutrons for neutron activation analysis, and also its use as a demonstration tool to familiarize the general public with nuclear reactor operations.

I F. Long-Term Effects of Facility Construction and Operation The long-term effects of a research facility such as the KU Nuclear

' Training Reactor are considered to be beneficial as a result of the contribu-L tion'to scientific knowledge and training. This is especially true in view

-c L;

. 5_

of the relatively low capital costs ($147,000) involved and the minimal impact on the environment associated with a facility such as the KU Training Reactor.

- G. Costs and Benefits of Facility and Alternatives The annual operating cost for a facility such as the KU Training Reactor is approximatley $29,000 with negligible environmental impact. The benefits include, but are not limited to: training of radiation protection students, performance of activation analysis; production of short-lived radioisotopes; and education of students and public. Some of these activities could be conducted using particle accelerators or radioactive sources, but these alternatives are at once more costly and less efficient. There is no reason-able alternative to a nuclear training reactor of the type presently used of the University of Kansas - Lawrence Campus for conducting the broad spectrum of activities previously mentioned.

Approximately an average of five graduate degrees a year have been i

awarded in Radiation Biophysics with emphasis on radiation protection. In 1

4 addition, two to three undergraduate degrees are completed per year. All of these students receive training involving the reactor.

l l

It is possible to have a Radiation Biophysics degree program without a  !

l Nuclear Reactor Facility. However, past experience for most disciplines show a much better understanding when experiments and experience accompany a lecture / problem learning system.

4 Another example of the benefits recovered from a facility of this type

- is the visitors tours. Approximately 2000 people have visited the facility in the-last.five years and have either been shown'by demonstration or by lecture /

tour, the purpose of nuclear reactors in our society.

l l

l I

f

Table I.

AIR SAMPLES (Vicinity of Nuclear Reactor Center)

Average Beta Activity Average Camma Activity.

Year # Samples (pC1/ml) # Samples (pCi/ml)

~I * ~11*

7/1/73 - 6/30/74 32 < 4.0 x 10 32 < 1. 8 x 10

~1 *

• 7/1/74 - 6/30/75 37 < 3. 4 x 10 37 < 2. 2 x 10~

~11*

7/1/75 - 6/30/76 84 <3.4 x 10 -12* 84 < 2. 2 x 10 7/1/76 -6/30/77 45 d3.4 x 10 -12* 45 < 2. 2 ' x 10

-11*

-12*

• 7/1/77 - 6/30/78 23 < 2. 0 x 10 27 < 2.0 x 10~

-11 -11 7/1/77 - 6/30/78 5 1.2 x 10 1 4.1 x 10

-12*

7/1/78 6/30/79 46 < 2. 8 x 10 46 < 3. 2 x 10 -11*

-12 ~11 7/1/78 .a30/79 5 2.4 x 10 5 4.0 x 10

• Represents the average minimum detectable activity for the samples collected.

1

E . A

, _. Table 2.

HOLD'UP TANK

_ ( Demineralizer Regeneration Effluents)_

Year _ Gross Beta Activity Gross Gamma Activity 7/1/73 - 6/30/74 0.9 pCi 22.1 uCi

. 7/1/74 - 6/30/75 8.0 pCi 19.9 7/1/75 - 6/30/76 2 x 10- 1 x 10-7/1/76 - 6/30/77 Less than Minimum 0.34 Detectable

- 7/1/77 - 6/30/78 1.7 3.8 7/1/78 - 6/30/79 0.012 0.079 i

r h-I e-h

c. 1'

.,a

' s Table 3.

PRODUCTION OF RADIOISOTOPES Years No. of Samples Activity (uCi) 7/1/73 - 6/30/74 12 < 44 + 630 Ta O

7/1/~' ' - 6/30/75 - 23 < 456 (of which - 200 Br) 80 66 7/1/75 - 6/30/76- 30 < 460 (of which - 300 Br) + 4300 Cu 182 69 7/1/76 - 6/30/77 22 < 133 + 690 Ta + 6200

. Zn 182

/ 7/1/77 - 6/30/78 .10 < 25 + 1370 Ta 7/1/78 - 6/30/79 11 < 62 Isotopes produced tacluded .0 Co (calibration foils), Na, l "In 0 6 Cu, 50p , 198 (foils reuse'd), C1, 64Cu, 692n, 122Sb, I 'Sb, Br, "Br, Br, K, P(traces) and traces of other isotopes.

L L

9

) .

Financial Considerations University of Kansas - Schoci of Engineering (R-78)

February 27, 1980 8bn84-s& > > > ^

TU0

m FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. Annual Statement The accompanying _page is reproduced from the Annual Financial Report of the University of Kansas for the fiscal year ended June 10, 1979. It shows the expenditures of the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering and included in these were funds for operation of the nuclear reactor.

2. Annual Operating Cost The estimated cost for operating the reactor for 1979-80 is $29,000.

Funds for operation of the University come from appropriations by the Legislature of the State of Kansas. A statement concerning future funds for operation of the reactor is signed by the Dean of Engineering.

3. Cost of Permanent Shutdown The cost for shutdown and dismantling the facility are as follows. All costs are in 1979 dollars. As per Regulatory Guide 1.89, the facility would be dismantled and returned to unrestricted use by the campus.

Five years cooling time after removal of the fuel is desirable before dismantling the core structure and portions of the pool wall. During that

' time the reactor bay would be maintained as a restricted area under NRC possession only license.  !

Security would continue as is currently provided during the cooling period. Appropriate monitoring would continue to insure the health and safety of the public. A facility radiation survey and an administrative procedure will be established for the notification and reporting of any l

l hazard-that might develop.  ;

I

Dismantle Cost Removal and Disposal of Fuel

$2,000/elementLx 18 $ 36,000 Removal'and Disposal of Core Support Plate- 30,000 Removal and Disposal of Beamports and Thermal Column 100,000 Removal and Disposal of Activated Portion of Pool Wall 200,000 Contingency @ 25% 92,000 TOTAL $458,000

4. Annual Cost to-Maintain Shutdown Facility Estimated cost in 1979 dollars to maintain the shutdown facility in -

a safe shutdown condition are:

Personnel Radiological survey, maintenance and administration $10,000 Expense and Equipment

-Supplies- 1,000 Annual Total- $11,000 Total ~for 5 years $55,000 i

t-i_','.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . - - - - ~ ~ _

l'%, =

g,, ' ' ' M "

h -

.~ Ag }

i .init*ths te cuacts: Ecotknistats

.1 Ft1 ItE F15tAL vtar FNott JLtr 32. 14 7 ~. Treinti :-J h

3 5C L u C E C F f L N C0 i oh4f5talCISC 4E514!CI!C

') ,

4 PC5 DE SCR IPil( A GENEd*L CLLIP*EAl AAC C8AERAL CLSIC%ATEC IClat IDALARif5 E r3ENSL I FP ativ E

• E N I S Y  ?

L5r L5E b

f L*ASSIGNEU FACLLTV 22.693.53 p C4APAIlC$ 19.C'7.44 4.446.05 22.493.53 74.t3I.76 13.P2 5. 3C 6C.917.73 54.S1 1C.320.73 64.511.21 2

TbiAL PLS !!B 20.11?.524.37 !#.444.eCE.t7 t.e19.637.97 568.017.t? ?C.12Cel?7.46 k 745.515.41 42 221.45 11C fouCAi!UN IN 519tC i t t'.

I ADFIN. FCUNCATICAS E N10FCe EU 143.*54.73 328.235.69 13.C05.59 0 ECOACMIC LCUCallCf. 12.34C.95 2.205.25 343.C35.03 415.7C j y!$uAL Au ! 5 E CLC A T IIJ. 04.S45.4C 9.221.14 E1.672.12 1.9C9.79 elC.C6 12.2C4.97 33t.C2

! Cupd!CULUF LAeCAAILWY-ECLC 2.651 29 221.99 84.54!.4C tl.ct4.c1 3.tE3.55 9.725.26 Cour.5 E L I N; 346.CC 13.214.21 156.73a.7: 149.6fC.54 5.987.16 k

EDULAI!ONAL P5vCFCLC;v L 4E5 !C t.L t 4.C S 268.435.33 1.Cc3.tc 15t.193 22 53e.4E h CtdulCULUP L IASTRUCT et7. LLC.1!

31.743.64 1.435 12 3CC.157 33 1.lt4.52 ASt.t4 f 2 7. 7t S.C2 27.7t).52 11.578.35 (64.5C1 11 3 SPECIAL ELLCATICA 433.29C.C5 453.CC 2.tte.E2 PU$lC EC L IPEAAPY 356.415.ts 53.96C.03 17.95C.37 373.698.30 56.le4.71 2 t 7.411.0 3 226.956.54 23.44C.87 11.Cl3.22 4C7.04 PEALIH. Ps15 [C C d[5 4th.115.54 453.95C.22 204.270 23 ett.76 letIS.C4 28.412.41 4.612.51 474.92t.t: t. Ell.el 2.471.13 L f014L PCS !!C 2.761.929.27 2.5LS 728.AC 198.663.50 57.53t.91 2.661.527 22 St. Sit.cP e.C4C. 3 7 IIC EAGIAEEdIAG INSTaUCTICN k 9 g a AfRGSPACE E NG I NE E R i t4G

• ' 7te.sei.i- tei.9is.15 26.554 8C S.Siz.55 CPEPICAL PETHCLLLP ENG 493 t31.C2 2ii.i45.Sc 6.44C.52 197.i2 l ggyg)) CIVIL LAGINEEMihG 353.977.55 99.583.63 37.271.44 Ab2,etP.e9 ELECIRICAL EAG!hEEaln; 775.ste.65 6Ct.C32.65 56.028.!! 116.255.73 76 C. 7C t .4; c.134.53 1.225.tC

• 25.953.;! 563.369.13 149.722.8C 14.elC.25 i

FfChaNICAL EAGlhEEMir.5 107 et6.lC e20.963.76 4.C52.?? $35.SF

'h $ *2E tte.18 342.413.CC 14.048.te 51.346.52 42t e95.32 1.132 24 24C.t2

, TOTAL PCS 11C 2.739.153.;e 2.C 6 7. 76 2 4 0 34t.7 38. 2C 324.c52.30 2.702.379.89 33.515.85 3.203.32 IIE FINt AHi$ [ A $ iR L C ilCf.

khd d CEstGN E3;.729.69 pq;cd CCCU P A I ! Of. A L IFERAPY 581.252.2C 2,5.983.16 23.482.33 626.306.34 PAIAIIAC 5 SCULpIUdt 235.641.64 224.259.52 9.351.00 1.S$t.C4 1.C15.e7 3.341.4e i 4ec.57d.54 435.319.27 235.417.57 224.C7 hh3D FUSIC EA5iP8LES 2 7.854.5e 17.395.09 479.254.tc PUSIC PISTORY 225.8t1.11 110.412.43 43.C97.33 12.451.61 1.323.S4 h

w- S4.234.62 e3.239.Cl 220.517.46 3.453.76 1.59C.15 PUSIC IPECNY 4.755.26 6.3CC.35 S3.23e.22 174. 5 5 4. t ! 176.9 7t . 7C l,2F6.7C lei.e4 S2e.54 FUSIC PENfCHPAhCE 464, 54.',2 2S[.2$ {72,5$4.t$

631.174.21 22.8 7C. 59 30.CC8.62 681.764.22 372.e2 1.911.te IOIAL PCS tlE 2. 529.t 54.5 3 2.3C2.tPC.54 135.243.7C 91.53C.25 2.515 C53.Ct 5.3CC.it S.5Cl.!!

!!F JCURAAL15k IN518LCIION SCHCCL CF JCLRNALISP 751.024.97 594.137.05 AAulC-TV flLF ts;0dATCalES 24,725 17 79 LLO.'F 35.473.54

!)2.761.55 743.125.e2 5.t33.15 2.et2.CC 11.344.19 12.762.35 65.Sec.C9 Set 2C.39 TOTAL PC5 11F *st.225.45 629.611.79 56.069.36 145.544.!C e13.1C5.S1 15.253.54 2.tt2.CC

_ . . ~ , - . . . . , . _ _ . . . - ,

eg-  %+ * *w -F