ML20035D405
| ML20035D405 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Rolla |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20035D393 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9304130177 | |
| Download: ML20035D405 (3) | |
Text
,
'o UNITED STATES E"'
~,7, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
{
n,E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\...+/
+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION l
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-79 DOCKET NO. 50-123 l
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. ROLLA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter of September 17, 1992, the University of Missouri, Rolla, (the
. licensee) proposed four change. in the Technical Specifications of Facility l
Operating License No. R-79 for their Nuclear Reactor Facility (reactor).
These changes (1) eliminate the position of Reactor Maintenance Engineer, (2) remove a Health Physics monitoring requirement, (3) alter the supervisory requirements for unlicensed personnel to operate the reactor, and (4) reduce the minimum pool water resistivity requirement.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Reactor Maintenance Enaineer (Technical Specification 6.1.2)
The licensee has proposed that paragraphs 5 and 6 of Section 6.1.2, Technical Specifications, which address the qualifications of the Reactor Maintenance Engineer, be deleted. There are no references to the duties or responsibili-ties of a Reactor Maintenance Engineer in the Technical Specifications or in any of the Operating Procedures, and this position no longer exists at the facility. Therefore, deleting the Reactor Maintenance Engineer from the Technical Specifications is acceptable.
2.2 Health Physicist (Technical Specification 6.1.3)
The licensee has proposed that when rearrangements of the core occur, radiaticn levels be monitored by a licensed Senior Operator rather than by a Health Physicist.
(The Senior Operator may, at his option, request Health Physics presence). A history of measurements by the licensee indicate that dose rates at the pool surface, when fuel is being moved, are typically less than 1 millirem / hour. There are no actions, based on dose rate, that would require the knowledge or experience of a Health Physicist. Additionally, the present Technical Specification allows the Health Physicist to designate a representative, which is frequently a Reactor or Senior Operator.
Licensed reactor operators are acceptably trained to monitor radiation levels as proposed.
9304130177 930406 PDR ADOCK 05000123 p
. 2.3 Trainee and Student Operation (Technical Specification 6.1.3)
The licensee has proposed modifications of the limitations on student and trainee operation of the reactor, whereby only students may operate the reactor under the supervision of a Reactor Operator when the excess reactivity 1
is less than 0.7 percent delta k/k, but under the same reactivity conditions trainees are required to be under the supervision of a Senior Reactor Operator.
(A trainee is a person preparing to become licensed at the facility or at a utility).
Reactor operational maneuvers would be adequately monitored under the supervision of a Reactor Operator, and the supervision of a Senior Operator does not provide significant additional assurance or licensed knowledge for this facility.
2.4 Pool Resistivity (Technical Specification 3.3(2))
The licensee has proposed that the minimum pool resistivity requirement be reduced from 0.5 to 0.2 megaohm-cm., on the basis that other similar facilities have the lower requirement.
The lower requirement would reduce the frequency of regeneration and water releases. There are other facilities of higher power with aluminum-clad fuel plates, for example the University of Lowell (1 megawatt (MW)) and the University of Michigan (2 MW), which allow a minimum resistivity of pool water of 0.2 megachm-cm.
Further, the NRC's draft "SAR Review Plan and Acceptance Criteria" has concluded that this minimum value of pool resistivity is acceptable to ensure no significant increase in radioactive material generated from the irradiation of the water. The modification of this requirement will not impact on the safe operation of the reactor, and the licensee's proposal is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
3.1 Reactor Maintenance Enaineer (Technical Specification 6.1.2). Health Physicist (Technical Specification 6.1.3). and Trainee and Student Operation (Technical Specification 6.1.3)
These portions of the amendment change recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, these portions of the 1
amendment meet the eligibility criteria for categorical excl.usion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10)(ii).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these portions of the amendment.
3.2 Pool Resistivity (Technical Specification 3.3(2))
This portion of the amendment changes the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this portion of 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
. 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.
F
4.0 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, and 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 changes, and (3) such activities will be conducted j
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 Date:
I 4
-.. -. -.- - l