ML19274E587
| ML19274E587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000054 |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19274E577 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904090219 | |
| Download: ML19274E587 (3) | |
Text
,
j.* *" *%g UNITED STATES M
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION w AsHINGTON, D. C. 20666 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.13 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-81 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION COCKET NO. 50-54 Introduction By telex dated February 21, 1979, Union Carbide Corporation (the licensee) requested a change in the Technical Specifications (TS) (Final Hazards Surcary Report) of Facility License No. R-81 to permit an increase in the total amount of special nuclear material (SNM) for fueled capsules from 400 to 750 grams on an expedited emergency basis. The licensee is the major supplier of the M0-99 radioisotope for use in nuclear medicine in the U. S. and Abroad.
A recent slowdown in the Canadian production of this radioisotope has required the licensee to produce at 100*. of allowed capacity.
A shortage to meet medical needs appears to be developing if the Canadian slowdown persists.
By letter dated June 21, 1977, as amended, the licensee had requested this change as part of a complete revision to the TS presently under review.
Evaluation The proposed TS change would increase the total amount of special nuclear material (SNM) for fueled capsule experiments from 400 to 750 grams. Since the TS limits the SNM to 50 grams per capsule in each reactor position, this proposed change would permit an increase in the number of simultaneous capsule irradiations from eight to fifteen. The proposed SNM increase to 750 grams is the limit dictated by the available heat removal capability of the reactor cooling system.
The Safety Evaluation (SE) prepared by the NRC Staff for Amend-ment No.10 to Facility License No. R-81 (February 21, 1975) is applicable for this proposed change. This SE authorized the licensee to increase the SNM for incore irradiations from 200 to 400 grams. All existing limitations and conditions rt,aain the same as currently authorized. One of these limitations that would apply to the proposed change is that all. capsule assemblies are separated from each other by rows of fuel elements which is 79()4(J30%
2 also mandated by the area requirements for a single incere experiment of 10 CFR 50.2(r)(iii). As shown in tne SE supporting Amendment No.10, a common mode failure involving more than one capsule is not considered a likely event. A possibility exists that a common mode failure may occur during the fabrication of the capsule containers. This has been judged unlikely by the NRC Staff based on the quality control during fabrication and testing prior to irradiation that is imposed by the licensee. Furthermore, the licensee has stated that he has irradiated 4,700 capsules over the years without a single failure.
Based on this review, we have concluded that a common made failure should not be postulated, and that the design basis accident based on the failure of a single capsule is valid. We agree with the licensee that the total amount of SNM allowed for simultaneous capsule irr-adiation should be based on the available heat removal capability of the reactor cooling system.
The additional capsule assemblies that would be allowed by this proposed change will be the same as those described in the licensee's letter of February 7,1973.
The design cociing flow for these additional capsules will be as cnalyzed in tne licensee's February 7,1973 submittal, while still maintaining the required core cooling flow.
As a result of this review, we have concluded that the existing hazards level of these additional capsule experiments will not increase the potential for hazards and the existing safety margin will not be reduced.
Therefore, we have found the licensee's proposed TS acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the star.dpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
- u::,
w' 3
Conclusion We have t:encluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a sicnificant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
March 15, 1979