ML20149M710

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 9 to License R-106

ML20149M710
Person / Time
Site:	Oregon State University
Issue date:	02/11/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M670	List: ML20149M669 ML20149M703 ML20149M710
References
NUDOCS 8802260247
Download: ML20149M710 (3)

Text

.. .

/ \o UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g j WASHINGTON, D C. 20666 g.....j SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATIOhl SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-106 OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-243

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letters dated July 19, 1983 and October 12, 1987, Oregon State University (OSU) requested changes in the Technical Specifications of Facility Operating License No. R-106 for the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor (OSTR). The first of the requested changes would modify the organization structure of the OSTR by changing two titles in the organization and eliminating one position. The other requested change would update the surveillance requirements time intervals to bring them into agreement with current practice. '

In addition, to make the license condition more complete, Paragraph 2.C.(1) was amended to add the maximum reactivity insertion allowed in the pulse mode. This limit has always existed but was not stated explicitly in Paragraph 2.C.(1). Also, changes to Technical Specification 3.1 and ,

3.5.3 were made to eliminate an inconsistency between the license condition for the maximum power level at which the reactor may operata and the Technical Specification for the maximum operating power level.

2.0 EVALUATION  !

2.1 Changes in the OSTR Organization Structure ,

OSU has proposed changing the titles of Assistant Reactor Administrator to Reactor Administrator and Vice President for Administration to Vice President for Finance and Administration. These are changes in formal i title only, the duties and responsibilities with respect to licensed activities will not change. OSU also proposed eliminating the position of Assistant Director for Radiation Protection and Regulatory Affairs.

The functions of the Assistant Director for Radiation Protection and Regulatory Affairs will be assumed by the Radiation Center Director, the Senior Health Physicist and the Radiation Center Health Physics Staff.

This change will not imaact radiation safety at the Center and will .

improve efficiency of t1e radiation safety program by streamlining l management at the Center.

i D DO OO O p PDR

.. . t I

i 2.2 Changes in the Surveillance Requirements Time Intervals [

OSU has proposed changes in Section 4 of the Technical Specifications, "Surveillance Requirements", to bring the surveillance requirements maximum time intervals into conformance with American National Standard ,

ANSI /ANS-15.1-1982, "The Development of Technical Specificatior ; for Research Reactors" (ANS-15.1) which is used by the NRC in the evaluation of non-power reactor Technical Specifications. ANS-15.1 specifies both the frequency of surveillance and maximum interval (used to provide operational flexibility as long as required frequencies are maintained over the long term) that can pass between surveillances. The requested changes would only affect the maximum interval between surveillances, the required frequencies would remain the same as before. The largest increase in maximum surveillance would be one month (from 14 to 15),

for those items with a one year frequency requirement. Because in the long term, no changes to surveillance frequencies will occur, there is t no safety impact involved in the granting of this request. [

2.3 Addition of the Maximum Reactivity Insertion Limit to the Operating License The purpose of this change is to bring the Facility 0)erating License f into conformity with current practice by stating in tie body of the ,

license the maximum thermal power level and the maximum reactivity  !

insertion permitted in pulse mode. The maximum reactivity insertion limit was previously stated only in the Technical Specifications. This  ;

change is editorial in nature and does not modify any actual license ~

conditions.  ;

2.4 Inconsistency in Maximum Thermal Power Level Between the Facility i Operating License and the Technical Specifications. Appendix A ,

Technical Specification 3.1 and 3.S.3 previously permitted steady-state l thermal power to reach a maximum of 1.2 megawatts for purposes of l

. testing the full pcwer scram safety circuits. This was inconsistent  ;

with the license condition that limited power to 1.0 megawatt. Testing ]

4 of these safety circuits can be accomplished by other methods. OSU will i test these safety circuits by the introduction of an electrical signal. j To achieve consistency, the maximum operating power level under any ,

j - ccnditions will be restated in the Technical Specifications to be 1.0 l megawatt. This does not constitute a change in the authorized licensed power limit.

1 3.0 ENVIRCNMENTAL CONSIDERATION 3.1 Chsnges in the OSTR Organizational Structure, Addition of the Maximum i

Reactivity Insertion Limit to the Operating License, and Inconsistency in Maximum Therraal Power Level Between the Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications, Appendix A.

j i

3 We have determined that these changes are in the category of record-keeping, eeporting, and administrative procedures and requirements.

4 Accordingly, this portion of the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessrent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this portion of the amendment, i

3.2 Changes in the Surveillance Requirements Time Intervals This portion of the 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 this portion of the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no '

significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this portion of the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion 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 portion of the amendment.

4.0 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 evaiuated, or ,

create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the proposed activities, and (3)suchpublic will notwill activities bebeendangered by the conducted in '

compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or the health and safety of the public. j 4

Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr. l l

Dated: February 11, 1988 1

l

--