ML19247B165
| ML19247B165 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | U.S. Geological Survey |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19247B162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7908080096 | |
| Download: ML19247B165 (2) | |
Text
i
$n asco UNITED STATES
/
'o
(',j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,.,,(
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 3
M g
J s,. m,
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR R 3 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-ll3 SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GEOLOGICAL SURVEY _
COCKET NO. 50-274_
Introduction _
By letter dated October 11, 1978, as supplemented February 20, 1979, the U. S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey (the licensee or USGS) requested an amendment to License No. R-ll3 for the U. S. Geol >gical Survey The amendment would increase the maximum TAIGA Reactor (GSTR) Facility. amount of special nuclear material (SNM) au i
Uranium-235, from 4.0 kilograms to 5.0 kilograms.
The amendment would also define the maximum total authorized categorized according to type of fuel and percent SNM exempt and nonexempt enrichment.
Discussion The Technical Specifications (TS) authorize the operation of the reactor with a core configuration of TRIGA Mark III stainless steel clad fuel-moderatorUSGS ha In their letter of October 11, 1978, intend to obtain surplus fuel elements from c facility which has converted to elements.
The fuel would be the same configuration as the fuel presen FLIP fuel.
authorized for use in the reactor.be added to the core to maintain adequate e amount of fuel that would not be placed in the core programs. The excess would be placed in storage ir. the pool or in the dry storage wells.
_ Eval ua tion _
would not The proposed increase in total amount of Uranium-235 at Moreover, the TS contain adequate provisions to assure safe storage of the additional fuel when it is not in use in the reacior and of any irradiated by the TS.
fuel removed from the core.
We find that the receipt, storage and use of the proposed additional Uranium-ld not would not involve a safety consideration not previously ad fuel.
,,a
~
7908080
--...e-..
[
.- find that the Based on our review of the factors involved in the request, wed risks assccia proposed additional SNM would not increase the safeguarWe find the propo I
with the facility and therefore is acceptable.
roved SNM to be within the level of protection afforded by the licensee s ap security plan.
in the We find that the proposed change, as was discussed with the licensee, defines license relating to the specificity of authorized SNM appropriately d the maximum SNM the maximum total authorized SNM, the maximum SNM axeript i
liferation Ac*
posed regulation 10 CFR 73.47 and the objectives of the Nonpro nonexempt.
of March 10, 1978.
(1) does not involve any reduction in the ik In summary, the propused amendment:
level of safety of the facility, (2) does not increase the safeguards r s s imum SNM associated with the facility, and (3) provides the spec h Non-l and, therefore is acceptab e.
10, 1978, proliferation Act of March a
l Environmental Consideration We have detemined that this amendment will not re lity of
'a major Comission action significantly affecting the qua We have also determined that this action Having is not one of those covered by 10 CFR 651.5(a) or (b).
the human environment.
made these determinations, we have further concluded that, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), an environmental impact state-c i
l ment or environmental impact appraisal and negative d ent.
a Conclusion that:
We have concluded, based on the consideration idered the probability or consequences of accidents previously cons the and does not involve a significant decrease in a s (2) f the public there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety o and (3) will not be endangered by operation in the pmposed i
i
's inimical regulations and the issuance of this amendment w ft of the public.
Dated: July 10, 1979 gij'f 2b