ML20137C862

Forwards RAI Re Review of 961217 Amend Request for Facility OL R-38 for Triga Mark I Research Reactor.Response to Be Provided within 30 Days

ML20137C862
Person / Time
Site:	General Atomics
Issue date:	03/20/1997
From:	Alexander Adams NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Asmussen K GENERAL ATOMICS (FORMERLY GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC./GENER
References
TAC-M97502, NUDOCS 9703250151
Download: ML20137C862 (5)

Text

. i March 20, 1997 Dr. Keith E. Asmussen, Director )

Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliance General Atomics P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, California 92186-9784

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. M97502)

Dear Dr. Asmussen:

l We are continuing our review of your amendment request for Amended Facility Operating License No. R-38 for.the General Atomics TRIGA Mark I Research Reactor which you submitted on December 17, 1996. During our review of your amendment request, questions have arisen _ for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed i request for additional information within 30 days of the date of this letter. 1 In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under. oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation.of your amendment request.

This requirement affects nine or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not subject to Office of. Management and Budget review under P. L.96-511.

If you have any questions regarding_this review, please contact me at (301) 415-1127.

Sincerely, Original signed by:

Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager I Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-89 1

Enclosure:

As stated Nil 0 RLE CENTEB COPY '

cc w/ enclosure: ,

See next page l DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 50-89 TMartin SWeiss PDoyle MMendonca PUBLIC EHylton Region IV WEresian TMichaels PDND r/f AAdams BMurray, RIV PIsaac b

)DND:D PDND PM, P AAd s(( on SWeiss 97 30FFICIAL 3/8/97 3/18/97 RECORD COPY

-DOCUMENT NAME: A:\RAI97502 h)M*

U 1

9703250151 970320 PDR ADOCK 05000089 i P PDR s' 25003G

- - - _ _ . . - - - ~ . . - . - . . . - . - . - .

.3------_..,

7 o n, 1

? UNITED STATES l j j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsHINGloN, D.C. 20065-0001 3 i

%, /g March 20, 1997 Dr. Keith E. Asmussen, Director i Licensing, Safety and Nuclear Compliance General Atomics P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, California 92186-9784

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL.INFORMATION (TAC NO. M97502)

Dear Dr. Asmussen:

We are continuing our-review of your amendment request for Amended Facility Operating License No. R-38 for the General Atomics TRIGA Mark I Research l Reactor,which you submitted on December 17, 1996. During our review of your ,

amendment request, questions have arisen for which we require additional 1 information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 30 days of the date of this letter.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional i information, we will continue our evaluation of your amendment request. '

This requirement affects nine or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not subject to Office of Management and Budget review under P. L.96-511. 1 1

If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at (301) 415-1127.

Sincerely, j descDa hw '

AlexanderAdams,Jr.,Seniorfro[ectManager-Non-Power Reactors and Decbnfmissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-89  ;

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

LSee next page

a b

' General Atomics Docket Nos. 50-89/163 ;

i cc: l California Department of Health ATTN: Chief, Environmental Radiation Control Unit ,

Radiologic ~ Health Section 714 P Street, Room 498 Sacramento, California 95814 l

1 I

'I

, ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION GENERAL ATOMICS TRIGA MARK I RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET N0. 50-89

1. Proposed license condition 2. Are you proposing any changes to the introductory phrase of license condition 2? In your proposed license condition 2, you refer to facility License No. R-67. You have also added the words "as amended." Are these typographical errors? Please correct or justify your proposed wording.

2. Proposed license condition 2.B. You refer to "10 CFR Chapter 1" in your proposed license conditions. The correct reference is "10 CFR Chapter I." Please correct your proposed license conditions.

3. Proposed license conditions 2.8.(2) and (3). Your prcnded changes to license condition 2.B.(3) refer to special nuclear material. This license condition is for byproduct material only. Any reference to special nuclear material should be la license condition 2.B.(2). Please correct these license conditions.

4. Proposed license condition 2.C.(2). The first sentence of this license condition is standard for non-power reactor licensas and would read for your proposed license amendment:

The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A, as revised through Amendment No. 34, are hereby incorporated in the license.

1 Please correct or justify your proposed changes to this sentence.

5. Proposed license condition 2.C.(3). Please state the title of the Physical Security Plan and the date of the plan. Also, state the provisions of the regulations under which the contents of the plan are protected.

6. Proposednewlicenseconditions2.C.(2)(a)-(d). Changes to the regulations that became effective on August 28, 1996, (see Federal Register of July 29, 1996, page 39278) extended the use of 10 CFR 50.59 to non-power reactor licensees whose license no longer authorizes operation of the reactor (see new 10 CFR 50.59(e)). Given this change to the regulations, do you still want to make these proposed changes to your license?

7. Please provide NRC with updated technical specification (TS) pages that reflect your proposed changes.

.,. y -- -_ . .- . -- . - .. _. . . .

], 2-o

8. Proposed TS 1.2. You have proposed deleting TS 1.2.b. and have proposed  !

. changes to TS 1.2.c. Please provide justification for these proposed  ;

changes.

1

9. TS 1.10. Your proposed changes to TS 1.3 will result in the reactor not 1 being in operation again. In light of your proposed changes to TS 1.3, please review TS 1.10 to determine what events still need to be i considered repcrtable occurrences during possession-only status.

10. Proposed TS 5.2.3. You have proposed changes to TS 5.2.3. Please

provide justification for your proposed changes.

, 11. Proposed TS 9.1. Please provide justification for removing the requirement for the Physicist-in-Charge or designate to be a licensed senior reactor operator. Please discuss your plans to keep licensed operators qualified and train new operators when needed.

12. Proposed TS 9.1. You have proposed changes to your organizai.ional chart.

Please explain these changes. Your current TS show both solid and dotted i lines._ While not defiried in the TS, solid lines normally show reporting l lines while dotted lines show communication lines. Please discuss the  :

relationships in your proposed organizational chart.

13. Proposed TS 9.2. You have proposed additional changes to this TS beyond '

changing the name of the committee and deleting reference.to reactor

< operation. Please describe and provide justification for all your

, proposed changes. i

14. Proposed TS 9.3. Please describe and provide justification for all your proposed changes to this TS. For example, you have proposed eliminating

the requirement in TS 9.3.f. for written procedures for routine maintenance that could have an effect on reactor safety. Please justify.

15. TS 9.6. Please update references to the AEC with NRC. Please update the references to telegraph notification with facsimile to reflect changes in technology. .Please update the reporting requirements for telephone reports to provide the reports to the NRC Operations Center and Region IV, and written reports to the Document Control Desk and Region IV.

.16. Proposed TS 9.6.e. You have proposed deleting TS 9.6.e. However, some of the routine report topics appear to be still valid for a facility in possession-only status. Also, because the report provides information on past events, the first reports with the reactor in possession-only status would still need to provide operating information.

w-