ML020040346
| ML020040346 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Plum Brook |
| Issue date: | 01/09/2002 |
| From: | Mendonca M Operational Experience and Non-Power Reactors Branch |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Madden P, NRC/NRR/DRIP/REXB 415-1188 | |
| References | |
| TAC MA8190 | |
| Download: ML020040346 (4) | |
Text
January 9, 2002 MEMORANDUM TO: Biweekly Notice Coordinator FROM: Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager /RA by Non-Power Reactors Section Alexander Adams, Jr.
Acting for/
Operating Reactor Improvements Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN BIWEEKLY FR NOTICE -
NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (TAC NO. MA8190)
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Docket No. 50-30, Plum Brook Reactor Facility (PBRF), Sandusky, Ohio Date of amendment request: December 20, 1999, as supplemented on March 26, November 19, and December 20, 2001.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment would allow decommissioning of the Plum Brook Test Reactor Facility.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:
- 1. Does the proposed approval of the PBRF Decommissioning Plan involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
All nuclear fuel has been removed from the PBRF site. Radioactive inventories at the PBRF are very small compared to those in operating reactors (both power and non-power) and in various kinds of fuel cycle facilities subject to NRC regulation. Analyses indicate that decommissioning activities would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the current Final Hazards Summary for the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility.
SUMMARY
NASA considers that the approval of the Decommissioning Plan does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
- 2. Does the proposed approval of the PBRF Decommissioning Plan create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The current Final Hazards Summary for the NASA Plum Brook Reactor Facility evaluated those cause-and-effect accidents related to external events and loss/failure of reactor support systems that would result in the dispersal of fission products and radioactive materials to the environment. Due to the combined absence of fuel at the PBRF site and the non-operational condition of reactor support systems, NASA has determined that decommissioning activities, as described in the Decommissioning Plan, will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
SUMMARY
NASA considers that the approval of the Decommissioning Plan does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
- 3. Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
Current Technical Specifications adequately restrain the scope and nature of decommissioning activities to loose equipment removal and preparations for dismantlement. Approval of the proposed Decommissioning Plan provides for additional controls prior to commencement of dismantlement activities, thereby achieving a greater margin of safety.
SUMMARY
NASA considers that the approval of the Decommissioning Plan does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluations, NASA concludes that the activities associated with the above described changes present no significant hazards consideration under the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c) and, accordingly, a finding by the NRC of no significant hazards consideration is justified.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for the Licensee: J. William Sikora, Esquire, 21000 Brookpark Road, Mail Stop 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135 NRC Section Chief: Patrick M. Madden
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensees analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for the Licensee: J. William Sikora, Esquire, 21000 Brookpark Road, Mail Stop 500-118, Cleveland, OH 44135 NRC Section Chief: Patrick M. Madden DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC RORP r/f MMendonca EHylton PMadden LCox, Sholly Coordinator (Orig. + 1 copy, O8-E1)
ADAMS ACCESSION NO: ML020040346 TEMPLATE #: NRR106 OFFICE RORP:PM RORP:LA RORP:SC NAME MMendonca:rdr EHylton PMadden DATE 01/ 08 /2002 01/ 07 /2002 01/ 08 /2002 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY