ML20247P602
| ML20247P602 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos Nuclear Center |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247P591 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906060214 | |
| Download: ML20247P602 (2) | |
Text
--
- .f nouq
-k UNITED STATES
.[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. t;
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%e,,../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REC 1LATIOJ p
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-33 GENERAL ELECTRIC DOCKET NO. 50-73
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated May 8 1989, the General Electric Company (licensee) requested '
an amendmerit to the Technical Specifications (TS) of their Nuclear Tsst Reactor
'(NTR). One change to the TS would eliminate a conflict with existing regulatio and the other would allow an exception to their present TS to permit radio-graphing a device containing 10 grams TNT and 200 mC1 of tritium. The licensee's TS presently do not permit radiography of radioactive material if explosive material is present in the " Setup Room."
2.0 EVALUATION The first change deals with the fact that the present TS in Section 6.6.2 requires that/. requalification records be retained for a two year period. Since the TS werewritten,anewPart55waspromulgatedwhich,in10CFR55.9(c)(5), requires that the records be kept until an operator's license is renewed. Appropriate modification to Section 6.6.2 has been made to refer to the requirements of 10 CFR55.9(c)(5). This was accepted by the licensee in a telecon (T. Michaels to G. Cunningham) on May 19, 1989.
The second change deals'with the fact that the licensee wants to radiograph a device which contains tritium and TNT, which is precluded by present TS Section 6.6.2 since radioactive material cannot be radiographer with explosive material in the " Setup Room."
The device contains 10 grams TNT equivalent of explosives with up to 200 mci oftritiumintheformoftritiatedmetal(hydride). The staff finds that the likelihood of this device detonating under the conditions to be expected at the licensee's facility are highly unlikely.
In addition, explosives more than 1000 times TNT equivalent (25 lbs. vs.022 lbs.) are presently permitted at the site. Apparently, under test firings of the device, free tritium was not detected. However, assuming a complete release of tritium in a gaseous form, an operator would receive a dose of approximately 30 mrem and a person at the nearest boundary would receive a dose of approximately.009 mrem. These levels are well within the 10 CFR Part 20 dose limitations.
N O O$N $bObOb73 P
PDC I
a...-_
The licensee proposed an exception to the TS Section 3.5.3.5 to allow radiography of this device.
In order to assure that similar conditions apply to this exception as agreed in a telecon (presently exists in TS Section 3.5.3.5 the licensee T. Michaels to G. Cunningham) of May 19, 1989 to modify the original proposed exception to have the last sentence read as follows:
"No more than one device may be in the neutron radiography area or the setup room at any one time, and no other explosive material may be in the same area at that time."
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 inspection and surveillance requirements and in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements.
The staff has determined.that 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 amendment meets the elig(ibility ' criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and 10).
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 Itaff 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this i
amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the j
health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels
{
Also reviewed by INEL (letter of May 19,1989)
]
Dated:
June 2, 1989
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - _. -.