ML20207Q147

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 3 to License R-93

ML20207Q147
Person / Time
Site:	Plum Brook
Issue date:	01/12/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20207Q135	List: ML20207Q134 ML20207Q143 ML20207Q147 ML20207Q150
References
NUDOCS 8701230118
Download: ML20207Q147 (5)

Text

/ o g UNITED 8TATES 8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. t j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 g.....,/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOP REGULATION

_ SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-93 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION PLUM BROOK M0CK-UP REACTOR DOCKET N0. 50-185

1.0 INTRODUCTION

In an amendment dated August 1, 1973, the Plum Brook Mock-Up Reactor was issued a license for Possession-Only. . By letter dated March 17, 1980, as supplemented, NASA requested authorization to dismantle both the Plum Brook Test Reactor (PBTR) and Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor (MUR), to dispose of the component parts and terminate Licenses Nos. TR-3 and R-93. Following review of the NASA applications, NRC issued an " Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facilities and Disposition of Component Parts," dated May 26, 1981 (i.e., the Order covered both reactors).

By application dated July 26, 1985, NASA requested that NRC rescind the Order of May 26, 1981, and reinstate the facilities to a status of Possession-Only. NASA cited budget limitations as the reason for not being able to implement the May 26, 1981 Order.

Facility Status The PBTR and MUR are located in the same reactor building at NASA's Plum Brook Facility near Sandusky, Ohio (see Figures 1 and 2). Both the reactors have been shut down since January, 1973. The Plum Brook Mock-up Reactor is a 100 kWt swimmino pool-t years, from 1963-1973 (see Figure 3)ype reactor that operated for tenOperation resulted 0.2 megawatt day of total energy. The reactor was used principally to determine the effect of new fuels and experiments on the performance of the PBTR prior to insertion in the PBTR. All fuel from the reactor was removed from the reactor site in 1973. All coolant has been drained from the reactor and Canal H. Multiple physical barriers have been erected and maintained to control access to radioactive areas. Finally, adequate monitoring programs have been maintained since shutdown.

2.0 EVALUATION Safety Evaluations and Environmental Impact Appraisals were performed for the reactors for both the 1973 Possession-Only license amendment and the August 1981, " Order Authorizing Dismantling of Facilities and Disposition of Component Parts".

h2hh f5 P

$5

Current Evaluation The conclusions of the earlier staff safety evaluations still are valid.

Further, in the interim period, radioactive decay has reduced, residual radioactivity to levels much lower than indicated in either the 1973 Amendment SER or the 1981 Order SER. In addition, the Technical Specifications, utilized since 1973, have been upgraded for this amendment request to reflect current NRC and ANSI recommendations.

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 reoofrements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (as discussed below), there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts 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 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 concludes that amendment of this license to a possession-only status is appropriate. We have further concluded, based on the consider-ations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: Hal Bernard i

Dated: January 12, 1987 4

1

,_, _ , . . . - , - - . , - - - , -. - , , , , - - . . - - - - , - - , - _ _ _ _ . - , - - - - . _ , ~ - - - . . , . .

, 9-In! M?Cf:e turcit j, ,

N

~

11C *%f3 *Cf LAt&A'WT ,, _

un uvis ars =renr.

11;1 WETF 11W. (*Li# 217.. ,

[,_ O e

3122 atEf7 F43 act1 I 31*s Macfy istit eastry, tur,. b -

n M e,n g e lise Eacfr fer' ster Ptf? quatu , " en ""

21:3 MaCf3 5t! Elv1Cis ELM.

!!g statty C:PrTs%"i (1N.

fl '-

im MactF WFift t LAftFAfyv g  ;

n., ..f. ..,o,mm n; ext ..rtafattesi

(

m y. y. , , ,

a m usa tutscxsm mt.

l \\

s g O_ rr o. ]

f mH nss sects sitva ests ns. at:o;a coto urtst:en ensm u l

a /'ig 7. .

7 s

. _ . _ . ..- , ass (t

41$3 E4Cf3 aCf Eftst!& Basils 4

.& ., #,4 f f E n2 ==fm ars mit ifyv4 ==

p1 - -

-4 e *i.',";J ar >

lier etEf3 FECIPITAf3 ,,,,,

k IN =%C [ j

• uct xxTz stesfsria co g""l i 1 ,

r  ::

uta uscfr stativ n;fum

,,,;q i:

31 2 Watf3 (VFLIENT ft4EffE sit. ,,.r 3 ,

g. 1 O aa .

._ p g. -

m im = =Y= =.f.. Tur 2 *=

uw wacfr stante mt* ' 3 '  !!

a(n  :-- -....-_-_-----------J' us uncfm centne at ras sipLt b  : ij tr *,  ::  :

" ~

' ll  :  ::

!.!. i:;, t.i.

. e.  ;.

is  :: .:

t .-- c4 y; .,

y .

g'

. e ,. < .

b f i.

. .:  ::  : 3/. > 4  ::

ii . ii x  ::

'l  ::

j' g j;;

ve' rCYEJ'% - :j

$HADED AREAS REQUttE DECONTAaAINATION ACTIVITIES.

f l'l a;

a y gj  %.3 ; > ( l jf k ;;

gy '- {%_;7 a hq ,____....__JL.a. -

JL .......~..... n : =.:n. .*

u d

pr = T auT u *oso

- N. I.

Figure 1 - Plot Plan of Plum Brook Reactor Facility.

J UNDERWATER TRANSPORT PATHS PUMP HOUSE

~ . .

M0CK-UP j

lll8lll H',,,, / REACTOR

,. ^ '

' ~ -

.: _ . , - ~ . _.

/ '

. ~. q: L ,

60 MW ' , .y ]

/ .. -

g. s i

, 7 l

~

I -O.,

1. ~ - . , .< - <

s s\x.

I x.. c. -

. _3

_ y

u .

g - - -

a..

.- \ -. ,

s- ... . ..

s ..

l ~~~~~ ' '\ [ "

re;-

i j q. _44_ v ..

f  :

i

, -u is uu TT -

l ~

"0T '^8 B'M I N n.nny , -a l REACTOR BLOG I

[]'

l

=

1 's tu N ' '

Figure 2 - Reactor Building and Hot Laboratory.

i i

.i.:

u E '

Y I I I _ _ . . _ __

I _ _ _f g .. . mo ,

1 x:-

s E

-Q- 1 l ,

3 -s ,

5 __ J CONTROL DOOM M

~ ..,

__ __ i g t Activt LAttict '

~ Z11~ 1.y -

-__..._.3'__l  !. l l

, 7 . . _

-[ __

d

-...L_74.gIflo ,l 5_  !/ ). =;;< j I ,.___,

i ,1l ni u, ,

s

,4

= ------

lpl ,-.

et . ,, . o ..

7 \

. .._. _ - .._ . . . . . . . .-.y -:- . -- -- - ..  !  !.e 4

d . - - . . . _ . . F * '

L- -

=

8 ==.

==

=:' Z'=:.

N

=== --

-< 0 ', - __. . . . . _ .

,,.,,3 =

l i...- ..

x  ! .

l:. . .

i . -

I .

d i

l- u.cro g

E c

c

} -J""-d o V -...

[( t i.

r,-

s k I i  ; '

/--. ,.

.., 25' J ,

j i _

_ __m . . , .

i

..-y .

E Figure 3 - Vertical Section of MUR Facility I