ML20044D666
| ML20044D666 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Missouri-Columbia |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044D663 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305200133 | |
| Download: ML20044D666 (2) | |
Text
-
cpouco
'f i
3 UNITED STATES 1
o 5
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20066
'*o......o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 23 TO AMENDED FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-103 l
DOCKET NO. 50-186 THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA f
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 11, 1993. the University of Missouri at Columbia (UM or j
the licensee) submitted a request for amendment to Amended Facility License No. R-103 for the University of Missouri at Columbia Research Reactor (MURR).
l The requested change would add to the technical specifications the requirement to have written procedures for the shipping of byproduct material produced under the reactor license.
i 2.0 EVALUATION l
l The licensee has requested a change to technical specification (TS) 6.1.b.
i l
which provides the license requirements for written procedures. The proposed l
change would add procedures for shipping of byproduct material produced under i
the reactor license to the list of required procedures. TS 6.1.b. is also amended to add the procedures for byproduct material shipping to the list of procedures that the manager cf reactor health physics reviews annually.
l As the result of an enforcement action concerning the shipment of byproduct i
material produced under the reactor license, on December 2,1992, the NRC staff issued a demand for information asking the licensee to provide a l
statement describing the position of the licensee as to whether the procedures that have been established to control the preparation and shipment of i
radioactive materials should be incorporated into the reactor license. On January 15, 1993, the licensee responded stating that procedures existed and that the requirement to have the procedures were implicitly included in TS 6.1.b. and c.
This request for amendment makes the implicit requirement specific to the license.
This change is acceptable to the staff because it clarifies the existing implicit requirements of the technical specifications by making the requirement for the procedures explicit.
4 l
9305200133 930517 l
PDR ADDCK 05000186 l
P PDR
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in category of recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, this 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 amendment.
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 con.aquences 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:
A. Adams, Jr.
Dated:
May 17, 1993 J