ML20059C081
| ML20059C081 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07000113 |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1993 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059C076 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9311010004 | |
| Download: ML20059C081 (1) | |
Text
&-
T
, p ccoq
., ~
t UNITED STATES o
[?gg)((f
- k21
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 206SS-0001 g
OCT 2 71993 DOCKET:
70-113 LICENSEE:
Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT: APPLICATION DATED AUGUST 5, 1993, i
INCREASE POSSESSION LIMIT FOR HIGH-ENRICHED URANIUM Backaround By application dated August 5,1993, Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) requested amendment of License SNM-95 to increase the possession limit for high-enriched uranium from 100 to 132 grams. On October 5, 1993, supplemental information was received that justified this increase.
Discussion Penn State has requested that its possession limit for high-enriched uranium (Condition 8.A.) be increased from 100 to 132 grams to accommodate material that was brought to a University laboratory and stored in December 1992 by a-former faculty member, without the knowledge or consent of the University. On July 23, 1993, the additional material was inventoried by University personnel and inspected by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I, representatives.
Because there was no other licensee available at the present time to receive the material, it was concluded that it would be best to temporarily leave the material at the University with the licensee.
It is the intention of the licensee to dispose of this additional material by transferring it to another licensee. The licensee's current nuclear safety program should ensure that this additional material is handled in 4 safe manner and will not result in a diminished margin of safety.
Cateoorical Exclusica Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(c)(!4)(v), neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment is warranted for the proposed action.
Conclusion / Recommendation The staff concludes that this licensing action will not adversely affect the protection provided for the health and safety of the employees and the public or the environment. Therefore, approval of the application is recommended.
The Region I staff has no objection to this proposed action.
Princioal Contributors Marc Klasky Mary Adams 9311010o04 931027 Fi PDR ADOCK 07000113 h!
C ppg j