ML20149E558
| ML20149E558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | U.S. Geological Survey |
| Issue date: | 01/04/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149E502 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801130382 | |
| Download: ML20149E558 (3) | |
Text
-- - . ..
'/ ~
UNITED STATES 8 ( n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20565
! (3 }
=
l c
\ *' ....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO FACILITY LICENSE _NO. R-113
~
.U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR (USGS)
DOCKET NO. 50-274
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a lette~r dated October 21, 1987, thi, lnited States Geological Survey (USGS) requested changes to Facility License No. R-113 and to the Technical Specifications, Appendix A. The requested changes fell into two categories. The first involved changes to the Technical Specifications surveillance limits to carry out replacement of the reactor pool liner which vill involve the complete draining of the reactor pool and i disassembly of the reactor. The second category involved changes to '
bring the Facility I.icense and the Technical Specifications into conformity with currant practice. This involves stating in the body of the license both the maximum thermal power level and the maximum reactivity insertion permitted in the pulsing mede and by changing the Technical Specifications definition of steady-state node to eliminate an inconsistency between the Technical Specifications thermal power limit .
and the license linit. The definition of square wave mode is changed to l bring it into cotiformity with other TRIGA reactors that possess this capatility, 3
f 2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Changes in the Technicti Specifications Surveillance Limits The work that is to be performed to drain the reactor pool, disassemble ,
the reactor and replace the peal liner will result in situations where it will be impossible to E M certain Technical Specifications surveillance !
requirements, The first of these requirements is that of measuring the conductivity of i the pool water weekly, After the reactor is defueled, the pool water j level will be reducci and the pool eventually emptied. During this process the water level will reach the point where it will fall below the water treatment synem intake, thus rendering the system inoperable. When i this occurs, the licensee will not be required to perforni the weekly !
r meas.urement. After repairs, when the pooT level reaches the treatment system intake during tank refilling, this requirement will again be in effsct. ,
l
There are semi-annual surveillance requirements to test that all reactor interlocks are operable; the control element drop times are less than one second (two seconds for the pulse rod); power level safety circuits are operable; and the linear power channel indicates the actual power level as determined by a thermal power measurement. Upon removal of the reactor fuel, these requirements become either impossible to perform or are meaningless and have no impact on reactor safety. While the reactor is defueled, the licensee will not be required to perform these sur-veillances. If more than six months have passed after the previous tests, the reactor may be started to perform the tests. These changes to the Te:hnical Specifications do nct relieve the licensee from thn requirements of Technical Specification H.4., which reqvires verification of operation of systems upon which maintenance has been performed.
2.2 Addition of the Maximum Reactivity Insertion Limit to the License The purpose of this change is to bring the Facility License into conformity with current practice by stating in the body of the license both the maximum thermal power level and the maximum reactivity insertion permitted in pulsing mode. The msximum reactivity insertion limit was previously stated only in the Technical Specifications. This .
change is editorial in nature and does not modify any actual license conditions.
2.3 Changes in Technical Specifications Definitions Technical Specification A.2. previously permitted steady-star.e thermal power to reach a maximum of 1.15 megawatts for purposes of testing the full power scram safety circuits. This was inconsistent with the license condition that limited thermal power + 1.0 megawatt. Testing of these safety circuits can be accompliahed by other methods. USGS tests these safety circuits by the introduction of an electrical signal. To achieve consistency, the maximum operating power testing exception will be eliminated from the Technical Specifiestions. This does not constitute a change in the authorized licensed power limit.
The definition for square wave mode is changed to be consistent with the definition found in other TRIGA Technical Specifications for reactors with this capability, i
3.0 ER.'IRONMENTAL CONSIDEP.ATION j l
3.1 Changes in the Technical Specifications Surveillance Limits I This portion of the ame.Mment involver changes in the installation er use !
of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. i The staff has determined that this portion of the amendment involves no i significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the ;
types, of any effluents that may be released offsite; and that there is no 'I significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation l exposure. Accordingly, this portion of the amendment meets the eligibility l i
I I
criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentel impact statement or environmcntal assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuan;e of this portion of the amendment.
3.2 Addition of the Maximum Reactivity Insertion Limit to the Operating License and Changes in Technical Specification Definitions We have determined that these changes are in the category of recordkeep ng, reporting, and adminfstrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, this portion of the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 1C CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment nee.d be prepared in connection with the issuance of this portion of the amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amandment 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 activ? ties, and (:) such activities will be coaducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the cv;non defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Dated: January 4, 1988 t
- , _ . _ . . _ .