ML20210R187

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 24 to License R-2

ML20210R187
Person / Time
Site:	Pennsylvania State University
Issue date:	05/12/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20210Q914	List: ML20210Q907 ML20210Q928 ML20210R187
References
NUDOCS 8605160136
Download: ML20210R187 (2)

Text

--. . - _ _ _ .

p%q g

kg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 ij WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. R-2 PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR DOCKET NO.50-005 i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In a letter dated April 10, 1986, Pennsylvania State University requested an amendment to Operating License No. R-2 for its TRIGA non-power research reactor. The amendment would make changes in license conditions relating to the authorization for special nuclear I'

material, and to the authorization for neutron sources to be used in connection with operation of the reactor.

2.0 REQUESTED CHANGES AND EVALUATION The requested changes, paraphrased, are as follows:

Delete the authorization to possess reactor fuel containing high enriched uranium, and add an authorization to possess and use an Am-Be neutron source.

The Penn State research reactor, built initially in the 1950s, was i

fueled entirely with plate-type (MTR-type) fuel elements containing uranium highly enriched (HEU) in the uranium-235 isotope. After several years of operation, the reactor was modified, converted to the use of uranium-zirconium hydride (TRIGA) fuel with the uranuim-235 enriched to less than 20%, and the authorized power level was increased. At that time and in subsequent years the licensee properly disposed of most of the plate-type fuel, but retained some elements for possible future experiments. The reactor operating license continued to authorize their possession. Eventually, in accordance with NRC policy and with assistance from the Department of Energy, the last of these HEU elements was disposed of in early 1986. The change in the license condition is required to conform with the present situation at Penn State with respect to HEU fuel, and will lead to no increase in radiological hazard to the public. The staff, therefore, concludes that this change 1s acceptable.

The safety of operating a nuclear reactor is generally increased by using a neutron source for start-up from low power.

8605160136 860512 PDR P

ADOCK 05000005 PDR

i

) er ' '

'v i

For several years Penn State has used either antimony-berylium or californium-spontaneous fission neutron sources for this purpose. As a result of the recent decommissioning of a TRIGA reactor very similar to the one at Penn State, an americium-berylium neutron source became available, and Penn State proposes to acquire it to use as a reactor start-up source. This source has been-licensed for use in a 1 MW 4 TRIGA reactor for at.least twenty years, and other reactors licensed i by NRC also use very similar americium sources produced by the same 4

vendor. Penn State has considered the operating conditions under which the source would be used, and has estimated that the maximum power 5

production in the source due to reactor neutron irradiation would be less than 10 watts. Because this power would only be produced while the reactor is at full power, and the source would be immersed in the pool water, dissipation of the source power is readily assored. The

! staff concurs in this analysis and conclusion. Furthermore, the many l years of fully satisfactory operation of this same source, and others,

! at similar operating conditions supports the staff conclusion:that the j possession and use of this source by Penn State University presents no-i new significant radiological hazard to the public, and is therefore i acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility 1 components located within the restricted area, as defined,in 10 CFR Part j

20, and changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. The' staff has determined that: (1) the amendment involves no>significant hazards

! considerations (as discussed below), (2) there is no significant change-in i

the types or significant ' increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) there is no significant increase in i j individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion

setforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be

! prepared in connection with the issuance cf,this amendment.

I \N '

4.0 CONCLUSION

i t

] The staff has concluded, based on; the considerations discussed above, j that: (1) because the'amerdment does not involve a significant increase

! in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated, i or create the possibility, of a new or different kind of accident from 1 any accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, this amendment involves no significant hazards

considerations, (2) there.is' reasonable assurance that the health and safet of the public will not be endangered by the proposed activities, j and (y) 3 such activities will be conducted in compliance with the

Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be j inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of

the public. ,

Principal Contributor: '

Robert E. Carter Dated

May 12, 1986 i

,