ML20147B742
| ML20147B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000294 |
| Issue date: | 02/25/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147B704 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803020180 | |
| Download: ML20147B742 (2) | |
Text
. . _
- %j UNITED STATES
.[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20606
\ . . . . . [,
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-114 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-294
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 22, 1987, the Michigan State University (licensee) requested an amendment to their Technical Specifications (TS) that would eliminate the requirement for a semi-annual pulse in Section 4.3.1-d and the requirement for annual power calibrations in Section 4.3.2-c. The reactor operations have ceased since October 1987 and the licensee is planning to submit a femal decomissioning plan during the summer of 1988. The Itcensee is not going to operate the facility in order to allow the radioactivity in the fuel to decay in anticipation of shipping the fuel to the Department of Energy during the sumer of 1988. In a telecon of February 8, 1988, Theodore Michaels (NRR) to
, Bruce Wilkinson (licensee) the licensee further agreed to TS changes to Sections 3.1 and 3.3 which would limit the operation of the reactor to a suberitical mode and would eliminate the pulsing mode.
2.0 EVALUATION l The licensee, in his letter of December 22, 1987, has stated that the i reactor will no longer be operated in preparation for decomissioning.
Under this condition, Section 4.3.1-d and 4.3.2-c is no longer needed and would be contrary to the objectives of the licensee, which is to i
minimize the radioactivity in the fuel and promote decay. Section 4.3.1-d stated that "the *eactor shall be pulsed semi-annually at intervals not to exceed 8 months to compare fuel temperature measurements and peak power levels with these of previous pulses of the same reactivity value or the reactor shall not be pulsed for any other purpose until such comparative pulse measurements are performed." The basis for this surveillance requirement was that the reactor is pulsed at suitable intervals and a comparison made with previous similar pulses to determine if changes in fuel or core charactaristics are taking place.
Section 4.3.2-c stated that "a Channel Calibration shall be made of the power level monitoring channels by the calorimetric method annually but at intervals not to exceed 14 months." The basis for this surveillance.
requirement was that the power level channel calibration will assure that the reactor will be operated at the proper levels. Clearly, these TS are no longer needed if the reactor is not going to operate and would be counter productive to fuel removal and therefore should be deleted.
mP
!B!n BMlh4
, n In order to assure that this reactor will not go critical without the requirements of Sections 4.3.1-d and 4.3.2-c in place, the staff requested the licensee to propose further revisions to the TS. The
' licensee in a telecon of February 8, 1988 proposed that TS 3.1 be changed to not permit the reactor to go critical and TS 3.3 be changed to state that the pulse mode operation be deleted. The staff finds this acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 i and changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that 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 eli set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)gibility criteriatofor (9). Pursuant 10 categorical CFR 51.22(b), exclusion no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
- L
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by the operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendrent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Dated: February 25, 1988 I
f l
i i
s
.- * - , . ,- .--,y--.,--y,, . , . , - . . . , , - -