ML20216E760
| ML20216E760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington State University |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216E734 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9804160291 | |
| Download: ML20216E760 (3) | |
Text
_______
. @ uru o a' t UNITED STATES j
. y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 4001
\ /
- SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.16 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-76 DOCKET NO. 50-27 WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated September 25,1995, as supplemented on January 8,1996, February 23, 1996, May 15,1997, and February 20,1998, the Washington State University (WSU) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No.
R-76 for the WSU research reactor (TRIGA). The requested changes would add requirements to the TS concerning the use of the WSU research reactor to provide a boron neutron capture facility for experimental purposes not involving human beings.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) authorizes the issuance of class 104 licenses for medical therapy (Section 104.a. of the Act) and for research and development facilities (Section 104.c. of the Act). All non-power reactors (NPRs) currently licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) hold class 104.c.
licenses in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.21(c). Currently, the Massachusetts institute of Technology (MIT) is the only licensee holding a 104.a. license in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.21(a). This license was issued in 1958 when the original MIT reactor was licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission.
On February 16,1993, the Commission issued Amendment No. 27 to Facility Operating License No. R-37 for the MIT research reactor. This amendment added requirements to the Technical Specifications for the use of the MIT Medical Therapy Facility beam for human therapy. The proposed amendment to the WSU Facility Opercting License is substantially the same as that which has been issued to MIT, except it does not authorize the irradiation of human beings. As of this date, WSU has not applied for a class 104.a license. The proposed amendment to the WSU Facility Operating License is in anticipation of requesting the issuance of a class 104.a. license, and is made to allow for operational experience under regulatory requirements similar to those that would be required for human irradiation during the characterization and testing of the facility's neutron beam.
9804160291 980413 PDR ADOCK 05000027 P PDR
3 2
in the MIT therapy beam system, beam delivery is controlled by a system of shutters, whi:h function to interrupt the beam when unsafe conditions arise. In the WSU beam
' system, this same result is accomplished by movement of the reactor core. Questions relating to movement of the reactor bridge (and hence the core and support structure) have been addressed in the proposed amendment.
' A new section to the Technical Specifications, Section 3.15, has been proposed by the
' licensee to place limits and conditions on the generation of a neutron beam and associated reactor and personnel protective features. These TS will ensure that the boron neutron capture facility design features operate properly.
3.0 EVALUATION -
The proposed changes to the TS include a reactor scram, and movement of the bridge in response to an inadvertent or emergency entry into the boron neutron capture facility. As an additional safety feature, a lockdown interlock has been added. Possession of the key by any person within the boron neutron capture facility room ensures that the reactor cannot be started up (i.e., inhibits blade withdrawals). Reactor startup can only be accomplished when the key is in its lock. Additionally, the licensee has proposed surveillance tests to verify the operability of these scram and bridge motion functions. The staff has determined that these TS requirements acceptably ensure that adequate safety precautions exist to prevent accidental exposure from the boron neutron capture facility beam and that surveillances exist to test the interlocks and scram.
The licensee evaluated the effect on the core support structure or core as a result of the bridge motion. The motor driven mechanism is designed to move the bridge at the same velocity (1-fr.,6t par es seconds) as results when the bridge is moved manually which has been previously allowed at this facility. The fully retracted position of the bridge is 6-feet from the thermal column, and it requires 48 seconds to reach this position. Experiments -
performed by the WSU staff show that bridge motion can be initiated with a force of 20 pounds, and that a sustained velocity of 1 foot per 8 seconds requires a force of 10 pounds. Since only a fraction of this force is applied to overcoming the hydrodynamic friction associated with movement of the core and support structure through the water, stresses applied to the core and support structure would be negligible. Based on the above, this is acceptable to the staff.
4.0 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. 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
3
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Warren J. Eresian Dated:
pf y -- .
. , -