ML19325C676
| ML19325C676 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Plum Brook |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19325C670 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8910170168 | |
| Download: ML19325C676 (2) | |
Text
ye i
Wk ge ar Y.
og,
. UNITED STATES -
,f g
NUCLE %R REGULATORY COMMISSION
.5 E
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 y
-t
.a Q... f SAFETY EVALVATION By THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING @ NDMENT N0 4 TO n
)
t 1
[
FACILITY LICENSE NO. R t NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE,ADM ESTRAY 0N L
- DOCKET NO. 50-185 h
R h
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1 l-By letter dated February 27, 1989, as supplemented on June 22, 1989, the l
National Aeronautics and Space Adm:nistration (NASA) requested changes in the L
Technical Specifications of Facility License No. R-93 for the Pluin Brook L
Mock-Up Reactor (MUR). The requested changes would update portions of tne organizational structure of the Lewis Research Center presented in the Technical Specifications.
L l
2.0 EVALUATION The MUR is located at the Plum Brook Station of NASA's Lewis Research Center.
The. reactor was shutdown.in January 1973 and all special nuclear material has been removed from the site. The reactor is currently licensed under a
" possession-only" license whkh authorizes NASA to possess, but not operate, the reactor.. The only radioactive material remaining at the reactor is byproduct material in the form of activated reactor components and contamination that resulted from reactor operation. Research projects at the NASA Plum Brook Station:were' shutdown during the mid 1970s and the Station was placed under the direction of.the Administrative Directorate of the Lewis Research Center.
Reactivation of non-nuclear test facilities et'the NASA Plum Brook Station has resulted in administrative responsibility for the Station being reassigned to the Aeronautics Directorate. Within the Aeronautics Directorate, the Aeropropulsion Facilities and' Experiments Division will be responsible for the reactor through the Plum Brook Station Management Office.
The-Aeropropulsion Facilities and Experiments Division will be responsible for meeting Technical Specification 3.1.2 which requires that resources be
!provided to meintain the MUR in protected safe storage, which is defined by
. Technical Specification 1.2.1 as "the custodial state of undefined duration characterized by physical and procedural access control and periodic monitoring, Lmaintentoce and inspection." NASA shall continue to provide whatever resources are required to maintain the MUR in a condition that poses no hazard to the general public or to the environment as required by Technical Specification 3.1.
(
e PDR P
g...
...n
?
T ?
The Radiation Safety' 0fficer (RS0), a member of the Environmental Health and Chemical Analysis Branch, will continue to be responsible for the radiological control and monitoring programs as required by Technical Specificatica.3.1.4.
.-As a result of the organizational change, the RSO will report to the Director of_ the Aeronautics Directorste in matters concerning the radiation safety of the-facility.
The staff concludes that the requested changes in the technical specifications are organizational changes in management at the Lewis Research Center. The i
administative controls of the Technical Specifications will continue to be in place including oversight by the RSO. The facility will continue to be i
maintained in protected safe storage with no alteration of reactor systems or
-components. The new management of the NASA Lewis Research Center will continue
.to meet all requirements of the Technical Specifications. Based on the above discussion the staff concludes that these changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, and. administrative precedures una requirements. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentaliractstatement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.-
4.0 CONCLUSION
g The staff has-concluded, 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 evaluated, or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously L
evaluated, and doe; not involve a significant reduction in a margin of sefety, i
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 L
endangered by the proposed activities, and (3) such aethities will be conducted in comfliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the co"non defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
1 Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Dated:
October 12, 1989 l
l n
i o
-