ML20217K798
| ML20217K798 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Neely Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217K622 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804070314 | |
| Download: ML20217K798 (3) | |
Text
,. ,
{ # p RfC 1
y*
j6 k,t-UNITED STATES j* j
!a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055t4001
% ...* /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.12 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R 97 GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DOCKET NO. 50-160
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 7,1997, as supplemented on November 6,1997, and February 4,1998, the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech or the licensee) submitted a request for amendment to Facility License No. R-97 and Appendix A, Technical Specifications for the Georgia Tech Research Reactor (GTRR). The requested changes would remove authorization from the license to operate the reactor, authorize possession-only of the reactor, and change the technical specificationc (TSs) to remove or modify operational TSs that are not needed for possession-only status.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Introduction The reactor in the possession-only configuration will be incapable of achieving criticality under all environmental conditions. All GTRR fuel has been removed from the facility. Fuel will not be returned to the f acility.
TSs relevant to the safety of the facility in the possession-only configuration will continue in effect. This includes TSs concerning radiation monitoring and control. >
The licensee has proposed changes to TSs to remove wording from the TSs not applicable to a possession only status. TSs proposed to be removed from the license include those requiring limitations on experiments, primary coolant and emergency cooling systems, fuel handling, associated surveillance requirements and those administrative TSs related solely to reactor operation. The licensee has proposed changes to the definitions to make these definitions consistent with the proposed possession-only status.
2.2 Changes to License Conditions The license conditions have been changed to remove references to an operating reactor with fuel.
9804070314 900402 PDR ADOCK 05000160 P PDR
m.-.. ,_ ~ ~.m. _ ,
- 1*
1 2
2.3 Changes to Technical Specifications TS 2.1 has been modified to require that no GTRR fuel shall be reintroduced to the reactor or containment building. Since this change ensures that there will be no uncontrolled release of GTRR fuel-related radioactivity from the reactor or the containment building, it is acceptable.
The proposed change to TS 2.2 provides a list of safety related instruments that are to be operable. It specifies the minimum number or instruments, set points, functions, and operability requirements. The proposed TS 2.3 provides for containment integrity as long as there is a substantial amount of heavy water on-site). Further, proposed TSs 3.1 and 3.2 provide surveillance requirements to ensure functionality of these components. These specifications and surveillances are consistent with the analyses for radioactive materials at the facility which show that the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 would not be exceeded. Therefore, this change is acceptable.
TS 2.4 proposes effluent limits which are consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20.
Further, it proposes to continue requirements for discharge of liquid effluents from the holdup tanks that were previously used. This changes ensure that release will comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and are, therefore, acceptable.
The licensee has proposed a change to organizational structure in TS 5.1. This change establishes a Radiation Safety Officer that is independent from the facility director and that reports to the Vice Provost for Research & Dean of Graduate Studies. This change is consistent with the guidance of American National Standards Institute /American Nuclear Society Standard (ANSl/ANS) 15.1, and is acceptable. The change also removes the lowest level of personnel from the previous organizational chart to be consistent with a non-operating facility, which is also acceptable.
TSs 5.1 and 5.2 change the name of the safety review committee to the Technical Safety Review Committee. These TSs also provide reporting and communications requirements that are consistent with ANSl/ANS 15.1 guidance and are acceptable. The change also reduces the number of members of the safety review committee from five to four and changes the required expertise to be consistent with the possession-only status. The proposed change also changes meeting frequency from quarterly to semiannually to be consistent with the non-operational condition of the facility. The safety review committee responsibilities have been changed to be consistent with the non-operational condition.
These changes are consistent with the possession-only status of the facility and are acceptable.
TSs definitions to support the above have been proposed, and the TSs have been renumbered to be consistent with the changes. These administrative related changes are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20, changes in inspection and surveillance requirements, or changes in record keeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or
F .;. _,
- . - i .
,c q
3 requirements. The staff has determined that this 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)t9) 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 concludes, that amending this license to a possession-only status is appropriate. The staff has further 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels ,
Date: April 2, 1998
$\-