ML20029A744
| ML20029A744 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20029A738 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103040196 | |
| Download: ML20029A744 (2) | |
Text
- --- _-._.---_ _ _ _ _ _ _
[pe 88Cy es UNITED STATES
[^ 3#$ h NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
"W c
w AsmNGTON, D. C. 20$$5 s, m /,$
4
...o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
,HPPORTINGTHECONSTRUCTIONCOMPLETIONDATEEXTENSION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA (MARK 11) RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-602
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b), the University of Texas (UT or applicant) by letter of November 20, 1990, as modified on December 11, 1990, requested an amenoment to the University of luas TRIGA Mark 11 Resaar:h Reactor (UTTRR)
Construction Permit No. CPRR-123 to extend the currentiy apecified latest construction completion date of December 31, 1990 to June 30, 1991, 2.0 EVALUATION On October 13, 1988, the project general contractor was terminated by UT due to inability to meet the construction schedule. The project was further delayed while the surety company put a new general contractor in place. UT requested a construction permit expiration cate extension from December 31, 1988 to December 31, 1989. The extension was approved by the staf f and an Orcer was issued on February 24, 1989.
These events offectea the timetable of the entire project to a greater extent than originally anticipated. Construction was completed on August 31, 1989.
The cwoletion of corrective work, testing, and inspection of systems continued until the eno of August,1990. The inspection program was also completed in August of 1990 with three open items identified concerning the repair and calibration of the Argon-41 monitor, installation and testing of the HVAC system HEPA filter, ano receipt and installation of a new bean, port shield plug.
To allow time to complete submission by the applicant of the documentation required to support issuance of the Facility Operating License and to close the open items, the applicant hhs requested a construction permit expiration date of June 30, 1991.
Th staff concludes that the reasons for the delay of the facility are beyond tb
,ontrol of the applicant and that good cause has been shown for the delays, h-staff also concludes that the requested extension is for a reasonable period of time.
9103040196 910220 i
DR ADOCK 0500 2
i
1
.g.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The staff has considered the environmental impacts of the extension of the construction permit and has determined that the proposed action does not entail any significant different. construction activities from those-which were considered in the Environmental Assessment for Construction and Operation of the Proposed TRIGA Research Reactor of the University of Texas dated May 13, 1985.
The staff,-thereforc, concludes that the proposed action will not alter the conclusions reached in the Environmental Assessment regarding:the environmental impacts of construction of the University of Texas TRIGA research reactor.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that extending the construction completion date will have no significant impact on the environment (56 FR 6690) on February 19, 1991.
4.0 CONCLUSTONS The staff, based on the above evaluation, concludes that the factors that have
-prompted the applicant to delay the completion of construction of the UTTRR were beyond the control-of the applicant and constitute good cause for the delay in completion of construction under 10.CFR 50.55(b). Therefore, the staff finds that.the requested amendment to the construction completion date is reasonable. The staff further concludes that the proposed _ delay will not result in any significant increase in public health and safety risks or environmental impacts. The only modification proposed by the applicant'to the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest completion date.
The extension does not allow any-work to be performed involving new safety information of a type not considered by the staff prior to issuance of the existing construction permit.
Therefore, the staff finds that':
(1)thisactiondoesnotinvolvea significant hazards-consideration as there is no radiological health and safety
_ question involved here; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the healtn and safety of the public will not be endangered by extension cf the construction completion date; and (3) good cause exists-for issuance of an order extending the completion date. Accordingly, based-upon the foregoing evaluation, the NRC staff has concluded that issuance of an order extending'the latest completion date for construction of-the UTTRR is reasonable and should be: authorized.
The latest completion date should-be extended to June 30, 1991.
-Principal Contributor:
A. Adams Dated:- February 20, 1991
.