ML20153A922
| ML20153A922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Berkeley Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153A896 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8807120659 | |
| Download: ML20153A922 (2) | |
Text
i
~
- - s
, l
/ o
~,, UNITED 3TATES T [ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C 20655 O ij
'ky.....,/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-101 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY DOCKET NO. 50-224 1.0 I,NTRODUCTION In a letter dated June 28, 1988 the University of Califernia at Berkeley (Berkeley) requested a change to Facility Operating License No. R-101 for the Berkeley TRIGA III Research Reactor. The reactor has not operated since January 1, 1988. Berkeley is currently determining the long term disposition of the facility. The requested change would allow Berkeley to postpone surveillance requirements that involve raising the control rode if the reactor has not been in operation for a period of time that causes the surveillance to be missed. The requirement for control rod inspection shall not be postponed. Postponed surveillance requirements shall be verified upon reactor startup.
2.0 EVALUATION Berkeley is currently in the process of determining the long term disposition of the reactor facility. Reactor operation was suspended in January 1988 pending the disposition of an application the licensee has filed to decommission the facility. However, at thic time, the licensee does not want to preclude the option of returning to operation at some future point of time. To prevent accidental raising of any control rod, each control rod drive has been electrically disabled at the control console. To maintain the reactor in a shutdown condition and prevent unnecessary operation of the reactor and activation of reactor components, Berkeley has requested that Technical Specification surveillance requirements that involve raising the control rods be postponed, i Postponed surveillance requirements shall be verified upon reactor startup. Surveillance requirements with control rod movement (control rod worth determination, shutdown margin determination, determination of reactor pulse parameters, control rod drop time, reactor scram time, reactor talorimetric power calibration) either involve measuring
! parameters that do not change if the recctor is not operated or involve j verifying operational performance which does not impact the ability to maintain the facility in a shutdown condition.
However, Technical Specification 4.2.1 c, which requires periodic control rod instection, shall not be postponed.
l 8807120659 880705 PDR
! ADOCK 05000224 i -- ___ _ ___ _ _ _ . _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __
o , , ,. s
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
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 ins)ection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that t11s amendment invc,1ves (1) no significant hazards consideration, (2) no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chan offsite, and (3)ge in the types, of any effluents that may be releasedthat there is cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this 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 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 evaluated, 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 public will not be endangered by the proposed activities, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr.
l Dated: July 5, 1988 i
t
_ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . -_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _,__ _____ ,_ ,___ __. _ _ _ _ _ _ . ,