ML20235Y396
| ML20235Y396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Texas at Austin |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235Y357 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903140100 | |
| Download: ML20235Y396 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
,/ %'c. UNITED STATES 0N - T %, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
'y )
{ WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 S ky ,D, ) f g;y. . .f.f
+
i l
SAFETY EVALUATION SY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING THE CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE EXTENSION FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS TRIGA (MARK II) P.ESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-602
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(b), the University of Texas (UT or applicant) by letter of October 17, 1988 requested an amendment to the University of Texas TRIGA Mark II research reactor (UTTRR) Construction Permit No. CPRR-123 to ex-tend the currently specified latest construction completion date of December 31, 1988 to April 30, 1989. The letter stated that the construction had been delayed by default of the general contractor.
Subsequently, by letter dated November 23, 1988, UT requested that the application of October 17, 1988 be amended to reflect a construction completion date of December 31, 1983.
2.0 EVALUATION The extension has been requested because construction has been delayed by the default of the general contractor in charge of the project. The general contractor was found in default because of inability to meet the construction schedule. The corrpletion of the project is now the responsibility of the bonding company. The facility exclusive of the reactor structural and instrumentation components is estimated to be 95% complete.
Termination of the general contractor occurred on October 13, 1988. As of December 7, 1988, the bonding company has not hired a new general contractor to complete construction. It was assumed by the applicant that the new contractor would be in place shortly after termination of the old contractor.
However, the process of putting a new general contractor in place is taking longer than originally anticipated. Thus, the applicent bs modified their request for the construction completion date to allow for sufficient time to assure completion of the project.
The reactor structural and instrumentation ccmponents will be installed by the reactor vendor, General Atomics, after the UT takes occupancy of the f acility. '
Installation of the reactor is estinated to take six weeks.
The staff concludes that the reasons for the delay of the faci'iity are beyond the control of the applicant and that good cause has been shown for the delays. The staff also concludes that the requested extension is for a reasonable period of time.
3@Moloo890224=ock osoons ,~
_ -_ ____ - - __ _-__-______-___ _-_____-____ _ _ a
~
.2-
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The staff has considered the environmental impacts of the extension of the construction permit and has determined that the proposed action does not entail any significant different construction activities from those which were considered in the Environmental Assessment for Construction and Operation of the Proposed TRIGA Research Reactor of the University of Texas (Environmental Assessment) dated May 13, 1985. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed action will not alter the conclusions reached in the Environmental Assessment regarding the environmental impacts of construction Pursuant to 10 CFRof51.32, the the University of Texas TRIGA research reactor.
Commission has determined that extending the construction completion date will 23, 1989).
have no significant impact on the environment (54FR7897, February
4.0 CONCLUSION
S The staff, be:,ed on the above evaluation, concludes that the factors that have prompted the applicant to delay the completion of construction of the UTTRR were beyond the control of the applicant and constitute goodTherefore, cause for the the delay in completion of construction under 10 CFR E0.55(b).
staff finds that the requested amendment to the construction completion date is reasonable. The staff further concludes that the proposed delay will not result in any significant increase in public health and safety risks or environmental impacts. The only modification proposed by the applicant to the existing construction permit is an extension of the latest completion date.
The extension does not allow any work to be performed involving new safety information of a type not considered by the staff prior to issuance of the existing construction permit.
Therefore, the staff finds that: (1) this action does not involve a significant hazard consideration as there is no radiological health and safety question in olved here; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by extension of the construction completion date; and (3) good cause exists for issuance of an order extending the completion. Accordingly, based upon the foregoing evaluation, the NP.C staff has concluded that issuance of an order extending the latest completion date for construction of the UTTRR is reasonable and should be authorized. The latest completion date should be extended to December 31, 1989.
Dated: February & 1989 Principal Contrib'utor: A Adams
-- _ __