ML20248L504
| ML20248L504 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20248L487 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803230131 | |
| Download: ML20248L504 (5) | |
Text
s s@ MQl, yo t UNITED STATES
< o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
6E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 1
l \...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO AMENDED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-2
_THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO.50-005 1.0 l INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 6,1997, and as supplemented on April 28, September 19,1997, January 19,1998, and February 27,1998, the Pennsylvania State University (the licensee) submitted a request for amendment to the Amended Facility Operating License No. R-2 and associated Technical Specifications (TS) for the Pennsylvania State University Breazeale Research Reactor. The amendment clarifies requirements to be consistent with 10 CFR Part 20 requirements and the Safety Analysis Report (SAR), as well as the facility's physical installation, experimental f acility limitations, surveillance requirements, and organizational structure. It also makes some administrative and editorial changes to clarify the TS.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes to License Condition 2.C(1) involve an increase in the maximum allowed power level and an increase in the allowable reactivity insertion in accordance with the revised SAR.
With regard to the increase in the maximum allowed power level, the License Condition designates a steady-state power level of 1.0 megawatt thermal (Mwt), which was the previous maximum power level. The License Condition also designates a maximum power level of 1.1 Mwt, which is the limiting power level that is assumed in the SAR for accident and protective action initiation. Without these designation s, the License Condition does not allow for variations in instrument indications (e.g., drift and noise). Therefore, these two changes in the Licent.e Condition will not change actual operation or potential accident conditions or mitigation and will ensure that actual operations are consistent with the License Conditions. The licensee also proposed changes to TS 1.1.17, TS 1.1.44, and TS 3.1.1 to supply definitions and specifications for maximum power level and steady-state power level consistent with the License Conditions. Similar clarifying changes have been made for other non-power reactors (e g., the University of Michigan, Docket No. 50-02, Amendment No. 39). On the bases of the above information, these changes are acceptable.
9803230131 980313 PDR ADOCK 05000005 P PDR
s 2
With regard to the increase in the maximum allowed reactivity insertion from 2.31%Ak/k to 2.45%Ak/k, the licensee submitted SAR analyses for this insertion and demonstrated that no fuel safety limit would be exceeded. These analyses used the methods that were previously approved. The change is also specified in TS 3.1.4 to ensure compliance with the reactivity insertion limit. Further, the licensee proposed reducing the transient rod worth and experiment worth allowable limits in TS 3.1.4, TS 3.7.a, and TS 3.7.b from 2.59%Ak/k to 2.45%Ak/k to be co' stent with the SAR analysis. The licensee also proposed to delete the specification , that removes the limit '>n transient rod worth when excess reactivity was below that limit, sinca this requirement no longer applies. On the bases of the analyses for and the specification of this limitation, these changes are acceptable.
g The licensee proposed changes to TS 1.1.2, TS 1.1.15, TS 1.1.23, TS 1.1.26, and M TS 1.1.43 to supply definitions that are consistent with the current operations and facility configuration for the digital control console that was accepted for use in License Amendment No. 30. Therefore, these chEnges are acceptable.
The proposed changes to TS 1.1.7, TS 1.1.8, TS 1.1.10, TS 1.1.30, TS 1.1.31, 3 TS 1.1.32, TS 1.1.35, TS 3.1.2, TS 3.1.3, TS 3.1.4, TS 3.1.5, TS 3.1.6, TS 3.2.1, TS g 3.2.2, TS 3.2.3, TS 3.2.4, TS 3.2.5, TS 3.2.6, TS 3.3.1, TS 3.3.2, TS 3.3.3, TS 3.3.4, TS 3.3.6, TS 3.6.1, TC 3.6.2, TS 3.6.3, TS 3.6.4, TS 3.7, TS 4.1.1, TS 4.1.2, TS 4.1.3, TS 4.2.1, TS 4.2.2, TS 4.2.3, TS 4.2.4, TS 4.2.5, TS 4.2.6, TS 4.3.1, TS 4.3.2, TS 4.3.3, TS 4.3.4, TS 4.4, TS 4.5, TS 4.6.1, TS 4.6.2, TS 4.7, TS 5.1.a, TS 5.3, TS 5.5.6, TS 5.5.b, TS 6.3, TS 6.4, TS 6.5, and TS 6.6 include editorial or administrative changes.
Additionally, changes in the TS numbering are also editorial. These changes are consistent with regulatory guidance and, therefore, are acceptable.
The proposed TS 1.1.16, TS 2.2, TS 3.1.1.c, TS 3.1.5.b, and TS 3.1.5.c involve changes to ensure that the fuel temperature limiting safety system setting (LSSS) is conservatively established. These changes involve a calculational and empirical technique. This technique ensures consideration of the maximum core power density location for the LSSS. The change to TS 2.2 also reduces the LSSS from 700 *C to 650 C to provide additional margin to the safety limit. A change to TS 3.2.4 Table 2a provides the fuel temperature channel setpoint requirement for this LSSS reduction. This technique has been described in the licensee's SAR and has been demonstrated by the licensee to provide a conservative method to establish the LSSS. Further, the SAR accident analyses are conservative and demonstrated that fuel damage is not expected in the event of a potential loss-of-coolant acciden or other analyzed accidents. There were also editorial changes to TS 2.2 and TS 3.1.5. These changes are acceptable.
The proposed changes to TS 1.1.32, TS 3.1.3, and TS 3.2.2 involve designation of reactivity in units of %Ak/k in addition to the units of $. This is only an expression of the same value in terms of an additional unit. Additionally, there are editorial changes to TS 3.1.3 that do not affect the meaning of the specification. Therefore, these changes are acceptable. !
)
o l l l The proposed changes to TS 2.1 are editorial and make the " Basis" section consistent with l the SAR. Therefore, these changes are acceptable.
The licensee proposed changas to TS Table 2b and TS 4.2.4 for the " Source Level" l channel. These changes would replace the 2 counts per second with a neutron-induced l signal and provide associated surveillance requirements. The changes to these l specifications accomplish the same function, which was to ensure that control rods are not i withdrawn without instrument indication, and, therefore, are acceptable.
1 The licensee proposed a change to TS 3.4, which requires confinement when irradiated fuel or fueled expenments with significant fission product inventory are bing moved outside containers, systams, or storage areas. This change provides additional assurance that confinement will te maintained during periods of potential fission product release-type accidents and is consistent with the provisions of ANSI 15.1. The licensee also proposed changing the requirement for confinement from when the reactor is operating to when the reactor is not secured. This change is conservative. Therefore, these changes are acceptable.
The proposed change to TS 3.3.5 involves designation of conductivity in units of microsiemens/cm in addition to the value in units of micrombos/cm. This change only expresses the same value in terms of an additional unit and represents the same condition as the previous specification. Editorial changes were also proposed to this TS. On the bases of the above information, these changes are acceptable.
The licensee also proposed a change to TS 3.5, which requires facility exhaust fan
- operation and system operability when irradiated fuel or fueled experiments with significant l fission product inventory are being moved outside containers, systems, or storage areas.
l This change provides additional assurance that engineered safety system response during periods of potential fission product release-type accidents and is consistent with the 7
provisions of ANSI 15.1. The licensee also proposed changing the requirement for a fan l operating and system operability from when the reactor is operating to when the reactor is
! not secured. This change is conservative. Therefore, these changes are acceptable.
The licensee proposed changes to TS 3.7.d to broaden and cover all damage mechanisms l for research with explosive materials. These changes clarify that the limitations are consistent with regulatory guidance and are, therefore, acceptable.
The licensee proposed changes to TS 3.7.f, and TS 4.6.2 to be consistent with current 10 CFR Part 20 requirements. These changes are acceptable.
The licensee also proposed changes to TS 4.1.3 surveillance for reactor fuel examination to reduce the handling of fuel elements. The change continues examination of fuel with j
normalized power greater than 1 on a biennial basis and reduces to once every 4 years the examination of fuel with normalized power less than or equa! to 1. For fuel that is not in service (i.e., out of the core), the change eliminates the inspection. However, inspection is required before the fuel can be retumed to service in the core. These changes ensure I
i
)
inspection of reactor fuel that concentrates on the fuel with the most potential for change.
It also reduces the likelihood of fuel damage due to handling. Therefore, these changes are acceptable.
The proposed change to TS 4.2.4.b increased the maximum time allowed for the channel check of the transient rod interlock from 7 to 7% months. This change is consistent with regulatory guidance and does not change the designated semiannual surveillance l frequency.
TS 5.5.a was updated to reflect current reactor bay free volume consistent with the SAR and previous licensee reports and analyses. - The licansee demonstrated in these analyses and reports that reactor bay free volume was conservatively taken into consideration for applicable potential radiological consequences. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
The licensee proposed changes to TS 6.1.1 and the associated chart describing the
! organizational structure for this non-power reactor, This step in'volved changes in titles, which are solely administrative. it also involved changes to the radiation protection l organization, which remained acceptably independent from the reactor management.
, Changes also involved separation of the facility director and the Manager of Operations and l Training into different levels (levels 2 and 3, respectively), and combination of the Senior l Operators and the Reactor Operators into level 4 in the organization chart. This change also removes the specification of delegation of authority for the facility director, which will now be handled by administrative procedure. These changes are consistent with the i guidance of American National Standards Institute /American Nuclear Society Standard 15.1-1990, " Development of Technical Specifications for Research Reactors." This guidance has been found acceptable in the NRC's " Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors," February 1996, NUREG-1537. On this basis, these changes are acceptable.
l The changes proposed to TS 6.2.3 provide additional clarification of the safety committee's i
10 CFR 50.59 review function. These changes are acceptable.
I The change to TS 6.3 removes the requirement for approval of the Health Physics Office l on specific procedures. This change is acceptable because such review is required by the
- l. Safeguards Committee, which is required to have health physics expertise.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
I I
This amendment involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. This amendment also involves changes in the installation or use of a f acility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this j amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site, and no significant increase in l individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment l
o 5-meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.22(c)(9) and (10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, on the basis of 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 r'ot 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: Marvin M. Mendonca
- l. Date: March 13, 1998 l
l i
f 1
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _