ML20153B778
| ML20153B778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B773 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9809230241 | |
| Download: ML20153B778 (3) | |
Text
e f M0Q4 44 *, UNITED STATES I j
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555 4 001
\ ***** /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-112 I REED COLLEGE DOCKET NO. 50-288
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 2,1998, as amended on August 18,1998, Reed College (the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility License No. R-112 and Appendix A, Technical Specifications. The amendment includes (1) addition of a definition of allowable surveillance time periods, (2) increase in the time period allowed to complete fuel inspection, (3) correction and editorial changes, (4) the use of stainless steel clad control rods rather than just aluminum clad control rods, and (5) the use of any gamma sensitive dose rate meter, rather than just a portable gamma sensitive ion chamber, with the Radiation Area Monitor out of service.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Definition of Allowable Surveillance Time Periods This change is to add Technical Specification definition A.7 on " Surveillance Periods. ' It rpecifies surveillance periods that are consistent with those in the American National Standards institute /American Nuclear Society (ANSI /ANS) Standard 15.1, " Development of Research Reactor Technical Specifications." Therefore, this change is acceptable.
2.2 Increase Time Periods for Fuel Inspection This change to Technical Specification t:.3 increases the time periods for fuel inspection, it changes the time allowed to inspect 1/5 of the fuel from 1 year to 2 years and to inspect the entire core from 5 years to 10 years. This change is to reduce the potential for an accident or fuel damage during fuel handling. The reactor has no pulse capability and a relatively low power level (250 kW) for TRIGA reactors. The potential for fuel degradation is therefore low, so that the increase in the allowed time periods to complete fuel inspection is acceptable.
2.3 Correction and Editorial Changes The change to Technical Specification D.2 is to change the term microchms to micormhos and is consistent with the guidance of NUREG-1537, " Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors." The changes to Technical Specifications 1.1 and J.1 are editorial in nature and do not change the 9809230241 980917 PDR ADOCK 05000288 P PDR
l l
l requirements. The change to 1.3.c removes the statement as required by 10 CFR 50.59, I since this is already part of a license condition. Therefore, these changes are ccceptable.
2.4 Use of Stainless Steel Clad Control Rods The change to Technical Specification F.1 allows the use of stainless steelin addition to the currently authorized aluminum clad control rods. The licensee indicated that it has l received three spare stainless steel control rods from another TRIGA. The licensee also l indicates that TRIGA reactors of the age and power level of the Reed facility have used stainless steel control rods. The licensee also plans to address additional health physics j concerns in their procedural controls for activities related to stainless steel control rod inspection. Based on the fact that stainless steel control *ods have taeen acceptably used i at other similar facilities and the licensee's understanding of the needed additional precautions, this change is acceptable.
l 2.5 Use of a Gamma Sensitive Dose Rate Meter when the Radiation Area Monitor is Out of Service l The change to Technical Specification G.1 is to require the use of a detector capable of ,
displaying the gamma dose rate rather than requiring a portable gamma sensitive ion I chamber during short periods of repair to the Radiation Area Monitor. The licensee indicated that an energy compensated Geiger-Mueller tube is already installed and available for this function. This change provides more flexibility and equivalent monitoring capability, and therefore is acceptable.
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, changes in inspection and surveillance requirements, or changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in individe or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment meets the -Jibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, on the basis of 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 Commission's regulations, and the issuance of this
. . . . .y.
1
. \
l-i 1
'I amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
j
. Principal Contributor: M. M. Mendonca i i
i Date:
i i
l l-l i 1
l l .
l i
i l
L- )
l l
[ s u
j 2 l- ,
i l
I i
l-l l
, I i ,
l l
l i'
I r
L. . _ _ s _ ,, _ . , . . - _ , - _ _ . . _ . - - , . .-