ML20128L826
| ML20128L826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | General Atomics |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128L767 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507110469 | |
| Download: ML20128L826 (3) | |
Text
p rar 8[
g*
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
7.
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUAUOf' FY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMEf;T fl0. 34 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-67 GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DOCKET NO. 50-163 Introduction By letter dated June 4, 1985, the licensee, GA Technologies, Inc. (GA) requested an amendment to operating license R-67 for their TRIGA Mark F non-power reactor. The requested amendment would change the maximum interval between thermal power calibration measurements from quarterly to semi-annually.
The reason for the requested change is that the licensee is currently performing an experimental program invniving in-core fueled components that do or nay require continuous irradiation for more than three months, and thermal power calibrations for this convective-cooled reactor require major changes in reactor operating power level.
Evaluation The licensee has supported his request for this amendment by discussing briefly the features of the in-core experiments that are currently a major program using this 1.5 megawatt TRIGA reactor.
The principal components under test contain fissile material that is raised to elevated temperatures during irradiation and rust be raintained at various constant temperatures for extended periods of time to test the hypotheses of the experiments.
If the reactor were shutdown for reasons other than to test certain experiment parameters, not only would the usefulness and validity of the experiments be decreased, but premature temperature changes in the fueled components could cause deleterious changes or non-reparable damage to these components. While such damaoe would not lead to release of radioactivity, it could lead to discarding such components and the consequent loss of data and an expensive repetition of measurements and extension of time for the program.
The TRIGA Mark F at GA is licensed to operate with natural convective-flow water cooling at thermal power levels up to 1.5 MW. With such a syster, there is no feasible heat-balance method of measuring thermal power to calibrate the neutron power-level channels while the reactor continues to operate at constant power. The standard and well-established methods require shutdown of the reactor, and the use of non-isothernal calorimetric techniques.
9507110469 850624 PDR ADOCK 05000163 P
4 The current license condition in the Technical Specifications, quarterly power calibration, therefore, leads to periodic shutdown of the reactor that in turn leads to premature cessation of irradiations.
The licensee employs several monitors of reactor power that provide continuous readouts that are both redundant and diverse in type. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that tha licensee would know at all tires of reactor operation whether the thermal power level is within the licensed limit, and that corrective neasures vould be taken to naintain compliance with the regulations if significant changes in calibration were to occur.
The staff currently relios on Af!SI/ANS 15.1, "The Development of Technical Specifications for Research Peactors" (1982) in considering acceptance of proposed Technical Specifications.
This standard recommends that thermal power calibrations for research reactors licensed to operate at 1 css than 2 F4! he rerformed at annual intervals, so the licensee's proposed semi-annual interval is well within this guidance.
On the basis of the above considerations, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that the requested semi-arrual celibration continues to meet our acceptance criteria, and would pose no significant increase in hazard to the public.
Environmental Consideration This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFP Part 20 ard ebanges in inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determired that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideratior (as discussed below), there is no significant change in the types or sinnifi-cant increase in the enounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in individual or curulative occupational radiation exposura. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.2?fc)(91 Pursuant to 10 CFP 51.2?(bi, no envirorrental inpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in conrection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, thet:
i Ili because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluatod, dres not create the possibility cf a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction in a safety 1
margin, the amendment does not freclve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that tbn beelth and safety of the public will i
not be endangared by the proposed activitiet, and (3) such activities will be r
m,
. conducted in compliance with the Comission's reauletions and the issuance of this amendnent will not be inimical to the cormon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Robert E. Carter Dated: June 1?, 1985 e