ML20205A193
| ML20205A193 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | General Atomics |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205A132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703270397 | |
| Download: ML20205A193 (3) | |
Text
.
4
%o UNITED STATES
.y . T ,'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
, g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 37 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. R-67 GA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
DOCVET NO. 50-163
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated November 14, 1986, GA Technologies, Inc. (GA) requested a change in the Technical Specifications of Operating License No. R-67 for the TRIGA Mark F non-power reactor. This request relates to the use of fueled, in-core, thermionic, direct conversion, experimental devices. The requested change would increase the authorized number of such devices which may be irradiated simultaneously from four to seven.
More than this number of thermionic devices had been previously reviewed and approved in the Technical Specifications for a similar GA TRIGA reactor, Docket No. 50-227, which has been decommissioned.
In addition, to make the license condition more complete, paragraph 2.C.1 was amended to add the maximum reactivity insertion allowed in the pulse mode. This limit has always existed but was not stated explicitly in paragraph 2.C.1. Also, a change to Technical Specification 9.1.1 was made to eliminate an inconsistency between the license condition for the maximum power level at which the reactor may operate and the Technical Specification for the maximum operating power level and testing of the
( reactor over-power trip setpoint.
2.0 BACKGROUND
r GA initially designed and remains the sole vendor for the TRIGA family of non-power research reactors. In addition, they have installed several such reactors and operated them in their facilities under Nuclear Reculatory Commission operating licenses. One of these, a Mark III, was devoted primarily to tests of thermionic direct conversion devices for the production of electricity for specialized purposes.
That Mark III was operated under Operating License No. R-100, Docket No.
50-227, from approximately 1966 to 1973, when it was decommissioned. In recent years, the continued development of these direct conversion devices has been resumed, using a very similar Mark F reactor, which 8703270397 870319 PDR ADOCK 05000163 p PDR f - -- - - -- -- _ .. _ __ _ _
~ -
i i has been in operation since the early 1960s. During the years of experimentation on the direct conversion devices, there have been no significant malfunctions or deviations from their predicted operations that raised unreviewed safety questions (see GA-9622, " Direct Conversicn Device Description and Safety Evaluations", December 1970).
3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 Increase in Authorized Number of Thermionic Devices The reouested increase from four to seven, of individual thermionic devices authorized _to be irradiated simultaneously, is less than the fifteen similar devices approved for simultaneous irradiation in the MARK-III TRIGA Reactor (see letter from Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to GA dated February 11,1972). A previous increase in the number of devices authorized for use'in the MARK F TRIGA Reactor has also been evaluated and approved (see Amendment No. 33 dated August 17,1984).
The basis of these previous approvals was that because of the independence of the installed devices, both structurally and with respect to the separate safety systems provided for the devices, it was determined that the installation of the additional devices would not significantly increase the likelihood that one of them, or several simultaneously, would fail. This remains true, and thus, as before, we can conclude that increasing the number of thermionic devices to seven will not decrease significantly the safety of reactor operation or increase the potential hazards to the public or to reactor personnel.
3.2 Addition of the Maximum Reactivity Insertion Limit to the Operating License The purpose of this change is to bring the Facility Operating 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 maximum 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.
3.3 Inconsistency in Maximum Thermal Power Level Between the Facility Operating License and the Technical Specifications, Appendix A l
Technical Specification 9.1.1 previously permitted steady-state thermal
! power to reach a maximum of 1.75 megawatts for purposes of testing the full power scram safety circuits. This was inconsistent with the license condition that limited power to 1.5 megawatts. Testing of these safety l
circuits can be accomplished by other methods. GA tests these safety I circuits by the introduction of an electrical signal. To achieve consistency, the maximum operating power level under any conditions will be restated in the Technical Specifications to be 1.5 megawatts. This does not constitute a change in the authorized licensed power limit.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSICERATION 4.1 Increase in Authorized Number of Thermionic Devices This portion of the 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 significart
. 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 portion of the 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 portion of the amendment.
4.2 ' Addition of the Maximum Reactivity Insertion Limit to the Operating License and Inconsistency in Maximum Therinal Power Level Between the Facility Operating License-and the Technical Specifications, Appendix A-We have determined that these changes are in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, this portien of the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this portion of the amendment.
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 l 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 the health and safety of the l
j- public.
Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Dated: March 19, 1987
--,..--.,.-,_.- - --._ - - .-.