ML20058F792
| ML20058F792 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Iowa |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F785 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312080283 | |
| Download: ML20058F792 (2) | |
Text
__
am
.r a
E UNITED STATES I
("
pj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- W g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
=....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-59 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-116 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 22, 1993, the Iowa State University (licensee) requested that the definition of " Confinement Secured" be added to their Technical Specifications (TS) in order to clarify the meaning of the term as used in TS 3.4.3.B.
2.0 EVALUATION The TS in Section 3.4.3.B state that "The reactor confinement boundary shall be secured during fuel transfer operations." The term confinement boundary secured is not defined in the present TS and the licensee, in order to be more specific on what is meant by this term, has added it in the Definition section of the TS. The new definition lists the doors and windows that must be closed in the event of an emergency and during fuel transfers. Also the new definition allows the doors to be open during fuel transfers as long as they are attended by a person with the ability to close the doors should an emergency arise.
The licensee, in its June 22, 1993 letter, also requested that the windows be allowed open during fuel transfers as long as they are attended by a person with the ability to close them.
However, in a subsequent telephone conversation between T.S. Michaels (NRC) and J.T. Adams (licensec) it was agreed that this provision was not needed, and therefore was removed.
Technical Specification 3.4.3.B is based on the maximum hypothetical accident (Reference 1) that could occur during movement of a fuel assembly and the importance of having the boundary secured during such an event. The licensee has explicitly defined the confinement boundary which must be secured, but also has provided the option of having part of the boundary open as long as a person is available with the ability to secure this boundary in case of an accident. The reason for this option is that there are offices and laboratories, whose doors form this confinement boundary, which may need access during fuel transfers. This mode of operation is acceptable since, in the event of a maximum hypothetical accident, the emergency plan requires the senior reactor operator on duty to initiate a building evacuation, which entails opening many of the doors of the confinement boundary. After the 9312080283 931129 PDR ADOCK 05000116 l
P PDR
~
. T evacuation is complete the doors would be secured. Therefore, this mode of operation is equivalent to the option of having doors open with the ability to close them and there is no reduction of safety by having some doors of the confinement boundary open as long as they can be readily closed.
The licensee has also included in the definition other areas of the confinement boundary, which do not have doors or windows but are required to be intact for a secure confinement boundary. The staff finds these definitions acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIM This amendment involves changes to administrative 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 statevent or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the censiderations 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.
5.0 REFERENCES
1.
Iowa State University, AJnLendment to the SAR for the UTR-10 Reactor Facility at lowa State University, submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in accordance with requirements of 10 CFR 50.64, November 1988, Section 6.4.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Date:
November 29, 1993 1
1