ML20027B619
| ML20027B619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000112 |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20027B614 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8209290059 | |
| Download: ML20027B619 (3) | |
Text
a.;. -...-
- x :-
~~
~
G UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO FAtILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-53 UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA DOCKET NO.
50-112 Introduction By letter dated July 31, 1982, University of Oklahoma (hereinafter, the licensee or U0) requested an amendment to Facility License No. R-53 for the AGN-211 research reactor. The request is to increase the number of fuel elements allowed in the current license from 12 to 20. The purpose is to allow the reac.'or to be operated in a flux trap configuration, which will permit higher thermal neutron flux necessary for an experimentel program associated with UO's nuclear engineering laboratory courses.
This requires additional fuel elements in the periphery of the core that have little worth.
No other aspects of the licensed operations need be affected and the current licensed Technical Specifications and reactor power level will be maintained at 15 watts.
===.
Background===
The U0 AGN-211 is a homogenous 15W thermal reactor, using fine particulate 20 w/o U-235 oxide ' fuel elements that are polyethelene clad so that each fuel element appears as a homogeneous, unclad, solid polyethylene block.
Each element is painted with epoxy to keep the pool water from direct contact of the fuel surface. The U0 AGN-211 has been in operation for 20 years with no safety related incidents having occurred over that period.
U0 submitted a timely application for license renewal in October,1979 with substantial additional information transmitted during the period February -
May, 1982. The license renewal also requested an increase in power from 15 watts to 100 watts and the utilization of a flux trap in the core.
However, because the flux trap is required for the nuclear engineering laboratory classes starting in Fall 1982, U0 requested a separate consideration of this amendment.
U0 has asked for authorization to increase the maximum number of fuel elements permitted in the core at one time from 12 to 20, which would allow the reactor to operate in two basic core configurations, their current standard twelve element core or a flux trap core with up to 20 fuel elements, as shown in Figure 1.
8209290059 820910 PDR ADOCK 05000112 PDR P
u___.___
g 2-Evaluation The applicant has considered several hypothetical accident scenarios. Each resulted in only a slight rise in temperature due to the inherent safety feature associated with the AGN fuel construction.
In the original SAR, Aerojet General calculated that a 2% step increase ak/k would produce only a 70*C - 80*C rise in temperature, well below the melting point of polyethylene encapsulant.
The staff agrees' with the applicant's analysis of the contrived accidents and the absence of any personnel or environmental consequences.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that this amendment will not result in any significant environmental impact and that it does not constitute a major Commission action significantly affecting the quality. of the human environment. We have also determined that this action is not one of those covered by 10 CFR 9 51.5(a) or (b). Having made these determinations, we have further concluded that, pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.5(d)(4), ar environmental impact statement or environmental impact appraisal and negative declaration need not be prepared in connection with issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, 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:
This Safety Evaluation was conducted by H. Bernard, Project Manager, Division of Licensing, Standardization & Special Projects Branch.
t 9
9 m%e
,--y e-.
s
-...y-
.-,p..=,.
s
x,,. -
~ - - -.
e i '
R R
R A
R g
R A
8 R
R R
F F
F G
8 R
F F
F F
R R
P F
F F
b R
R R
R R
i; p: f u SL 2 LErA CA!T g
a g
a g
g g
G RA P." ' T!
l 8 EFJ.EC MA L
ELE />t ENT A.
Standard Core Configuration R
'R R
R R
(t, R
A R
F F
R R
F F
F
-F y=
WATER FWO F
F W
W F
F F
F F
F R
R A
R p
R R
R R
R B.
Flux Trap Core Configuration FIGURE 1 1
- p. g-m'
- -
- seg pe oeeef ee
$ Aa
_ f M -Y*
O#
j.%
- g. [,, ".g I
g l
- ~ -' - '
--