ML20053B660

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 24 to License R-38

ML20053B660
Person / Time
Site:	General Atomics
Issue date:	05/11/1982
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20053B648	List: ML20053B647 ML20053B654 ML20053B660
References
NUDOCS 8206010113
Download: ML20053B660 (6)

Text

.

s.n se oq

[f-UNITED STATES o

g p,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\\po /

SAFETY.EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING MEN} TENT N0. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-38 GENERAL AT011C CG1PANY TRIGA MARK I DOCKET N0.

50-89 Introduction By letter dated November 2,1981, as supplemented by letter dated February 22, 1982, the General Atomic Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-38. The amendment would change the Appendix A Technical Specifications to permit the neutron radiography program to be extended to include certain new explosive devices being used or studied by various government agencies and their contractors.

Evaluation The licensee's information supporting this request,was reviewed under contract by the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL).

The LANL Technical Evaluation Report (TER) documenting this review is attached. The LANL TER indicates that the applicant has demonstrated a working knowledge of the handling of these explosives and has used neutron, radiography to examine devices that contain explosives at the facility in the past. LANL indicates that the radiation levels used in this radiography are significantly less than required to affect the explosives being radiographed. LANL concluded that there is no credible scenario for explosive initiation while being radiographed. The staff has reviewed the LANL TER and concurs on and endorses it. Thus, the requested changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not invol.ve a significant decrease in a safety margin nor do they involve a significant hazards consideration.

8206010 @

g. Environmental Consideration The staff has 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, the staff has further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, purusant to 10 CFR Section Sl.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative decla-ration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

Conclusion The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the proba-bility or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant 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:

MAY 11 1982 4

m O

e 9

TECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT SAFETY ANALYSIS, NEUTRON RADIOGRAPHY OF CLASS B AND C EXPLOSIVE DEVICES AT MARK I (.R-38) DATED NOVEMBER, 2, 1981, WITH REVISIONS DATED FEBRUARY 22, 1982 d

I.

INTRODUCTION

__.This report provides the basis for the evaluation performed by the

~

~

Los Alamos National Laboratory on the General Atomic Gompany License Amendment Docliet 50-89, Mark I reactor. The following documents were reviewed.

~

~

1.

Letter from' William R. Mowry, General Atomic, to ' James R. Miller, USNRC, dated November 2,1981-Application for License Amendment.

2.

Letter from William R. Mowry, General Atomic, to James R. Miller,

.USNRC, dated February.22,1982-Revision to Application for License Amendment.

.,3.

Attachnient 2, Excerpts from B0E-6000-A publishing Hazardous Materials Regulhtions of the Department of Transportation, Letter 38/67-3020, g

dated November 2, 1981.

4., Technical Specification, Mark I, letter 38/67'3020, dated November 2, 1981.

5., Safety Analysis, Neutron Radiography of Class B and C-Explosive Devices at Mark I (R-38), letter 38/67-3020, da'ted November 2, 1981.

The above documents provide the General Atomic technical basis for the application license amendment to use its Mark I TRIGA reactor at San Diego for-neutron radiography beyond the levels originally licensed.

Los Alamos coninents are directed towards Attachment 4-Safety Analysis.

II.

BACKGROUND A number cf f acilities throughout the United States u.se neutron radiography to examine devices that contain explosives.

General Atomic has been using this technique at this facility in the past and is now requesting

. that tijey be permitted to radiograph larger amounts of the same type of 1

0

~

b; explosive device (from 91-9 equivalent TNT to 454-g equivalent TNT).

The types of device that have been and will continue to be radiographed at General i

Atomic include Class B and/or Class C explosives.

III.

COMMENTS ON SAFETY ANALYSIS SECTIONS A.

Introduction It should be noted that the Class C explosive devices mentio.ned in this section may actually contain Class A or B explosives within the device.

We concur that in the normal modes of operation these explos'ives will not detonate or produce shock waves, ' blast, or fragmentatiion.

S'ome is's'u'e could.be

~

2

~ '

taken that neutron radiography does not constitute normal.use.

However, as-will be described later, we do not believe the radiation levels used.in this -

reactor will produce a reaction in the explosives; hence, any resultant explosion is considered beyond the realm of risk.

B.

Irradiation Conditions The design of the 3/4-in. plywood single blast shield protecting the reactor control system would b~e adequate for blast effects but'iha~dequate for 5

fragmentation.

Likewise, the 3/4-in. plywood with aluminum window design device to redirect any possible explosion away from the reactor control system, operator and other personnel is susceptible to shattering.from 454-g

. TNT equivalent. However, our opinion that any explosion would not occu_r neg'ates our concern of the inadequacy of these devices.

C.

Storage-of Explosive

~

The regulation followed and the procedures outlined indicating that no more than 454-g equivalent stored in the reactor room appear reasonable and prudent.

D.

Maximum Credible Accident We believe that the accident suggested by General Atomic is conservative because it assumes that a device will ignite and burn.

It is our contention that the neutron radiation levels are so low as to constitute no hazard from using them on explosives. Thiscontentionisbasedonpe/formingexperiments at Los Alamos on the effects of nuclear radiation on organic expl.osives.1 2

Further,- similar work done by Avrami and W. Voreck offer the same conclusions.

These opinions will,be discussed in the following section.

a--

Given that the explosive will not ignite by neutron radiation, then the next. logical inquiry wou'ld be if there were another method of ignition or.

atonation.

There is no evidence to support that the handling with postulated accidental dropping of the specimens in the control room or reactor area would be considered credible given the customary care and procedures as outlined by the applicant.

E.

Hazards Induced in Explosives by Irradiation

. As stated previously, we do not believe that the radiation ~ levels hentioned by the licensee of a few hundred roentgens of gama-dose'and/or 9

10 neutron doses of 10 - 10 nyt is 'near the doses required to effect the

~

explosives being irrudiated.

The experimental work done on neutron and gamma irradiation'of' 6xplosives

.inc uded both primary and secondary explosives for organic and nonorganic l

~

explosiv.es.

Although the impetus for the experiments were not neutron I

radiography (NR) related, the principles learned are-applicable to NR.

~

Los Alamos'used the Omega West Reactor, which is capable of 13 10 nyt-f ast. neutrons in the channel, and the Godiva~ burst' reactor; which '

16 5

,k, is capable of 10 nyt.

Avrami's experiments showing doses of 10 i ' gamma!

R 7

generally supported the conclusions that irradiation levels of >> 10 Rads 19 (gamma), > 10 nyt are required to ~cause chemical change in explosives.

Our calculations show that anticipated doses of 50 R (steady-state) and 61 R (burst) gamma and 2.7 x 10 nyt*(steady-state) and 2.8 x 1011 >

10 (burst) woul'd be experienced at the target area of the TRIGA reactors, which generally confirms the applicant's estimate of a few hundred roentgens and 9

10

-~~~"-:

neutron dose of 10 - 10 nyt.

.r u.

IV.-

SUMMARY

We would support the applicant's proposal to in. crease the amount of explosive -devices from 91-g to 454-g equivalent TNT for radiography purposes.

It is our contention, based on our Los Alamos work and comparison work done by Voreck and Avrami, that the radiation levels used in this radiography to be significantly less than required to affect the explosive devices being radiographed.

General Atomic has demonstrated a working knowledge of the handling of these explosives.

It is our belief that Class C devices may

~

contain Class A and/or B explosiv,es that can detonate under the proper

~

6; stimalus.

Further, high-energy orcoellants (HEP) now used in missiles can also detonate under the proper stimulus and should be classed as Class A explosives. We have reservations about the adequacy of some of the proposed shielding; however, these reservations are probably not important when balanced by the low probability of detonation from irradiation.

BEF.ERENCES 1.

M. J. Urizar et al., "The Effects of Nuclear Radiation on Organic ^

'.Explosiv.es," E2p_losivs'to'ffe. 2 iju3)_1962.

-'5-N 2.- L. Avrami and W. Voreck,."A Determination of Reactor Radiation Resistant Explosives, Propellants, Tan'd Related Material," Technical Report No. 3782 Frankfurt Arsenal, US Army (November 1969).

R. A. Haarman Q-6, MS G777-. -

g l,

M. J. Urizar, M-1, MS C920

~

., ~,

j -

- p D

m r, *

~ o o

.e

- - - -