ML20140C333

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 36 to License R-67

ML20140C333
Person / Time
Site:	General Atomics
Issue date:	02/20/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20140C309	List: ML20140C304 ML20140C317 ML20140C333
References
NUDOCS 8603250323
Download: ML20140C333 (3)

Text

, _. - - _ __ _ __ _

d- o g UNITED STATES

• 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMEN 0 MENT NO. 36 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-67 GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

DOCKET NO. 50-163 I. Introduction In a letter from GA Technologies, Inc. (GA), dated January 28, 1986, GA requested a change in the Technical Specifications of Operating License No. R-67 for their TRIGA Mark F non-power reactor. This change relates to the use of fueled in-core thennionic direct conversion experimental devices. The requested change would increase the authorized irradiation time of such devices from a maximum of 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> to a maximum of 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. A similar change had been i previously reviewed and approved in the Technical Specifications for a similar GA TRIGA reactor, Docket No. 50-227, which has been decommissioned.

II. Background GA initially designed and remains the sole vendor for the TRIGA family of non-power research reactors. In addition, they have installed several such reactors and operated them in their facilities under Nuclear Regulatory Commission operating licenses.

One of these, a Mark III, was devoted primarily to tests of thermionic direct conversion devices for the production of electricity for specialized purposes. That Mark III was operated l

under Operating License No. R-100, Docket No. 50-227, from approximately 1966 to 1973, when it was decommissioned. In recent years, the continued development of these direct conversion devices has been resumed, using a very similar Mark F reactor, which has been in operation since the early 1960s. During the years of l experimentation on the direct conversion devices, there have been no significant malfunctions or deviations from their predicted operations that raised unreviewed safety questions.

8603250323 860320 PDR ADOCK 05000163 p PDR

III. Requested Change and Evaluation The specific change requested by the licensee is to section 10.2.6(d) of the Technical Specifications, as follows:

The irradiation time for any one device shall not exceed 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. 1 The current section 10.2.6(d) limits the maximum irradiation time to 10,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. In justifying this request, the licensee pointed out that other Technical Specification limitations on the operation and monitoring of the thermionic devices would remain in effect, and referred to the License Conditions of the previo0s Mark III license R-100. The staff has reviewed the safety analyses and the related safety evaluations for that facility. Among other considerations, the safety report (GA 9622, December,1970) analyzes potential accidents that might involve the thermionic devices. In the licensee's analyses related to the duration of irradiation and the consequent inventory of fission products in such a device, it was assumed that operation would be for 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />. None of the assumed accident scenarios would have lead to radiological exposures in unrestricted areas that exceeded 10 CFR 20 values. On the basis of the staff's safety evalua-tion for the Mark III reactor it was found that operation for 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> was acc~eptable, and that reactor's license authorized such operation. The staff's review for the current amendment request indicates that all relevant operating conditions of the Mark F and Mark III reactors and the thermionic devices are sufficiently similar so that we reaffirm the previous conclusion that operation of the devices for 20,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> does not present an unacceptable risk to the health and safety of the public.

IV. Environmental Considerations i

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility )

components located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, and changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that: (1) the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (as discussed belov), (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) there is no significant increase in ir.dividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, t,his amendment meets the eligibility criteria for  ;

categorical es.clusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

0 V. Conclusion The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not. involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed activities, 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 emnmon defense and security or the the health and safety of the public.

Dated: February 20, 1986 Principal Contributor: Robert E. Carter

-m. , . , . . , ,.