ML20195H069
| ML20195H069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000139 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195H051 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811300205 | |
| Download: ML20195H069 (2) | |
Text
._ - -___ ______ _ _ _ _ - - __- - -__ - _ - - ___- -____._--_____ _ _ _ -
- ~
UNITED STATES
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,0 C.20066
,o' SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 14 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-73 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DOCKET NO. 50-139
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 6,1988, the University of Washington (licensee) requested an amendment to their Technical Specifications (TS) that would suspend the requirement for certain surveillance requirements when there was no fuel in the core. The fuel elements have been removed from the core and placed in storage tubes in the floor of the facility. Arrangements are being made with 00E to ship the fuel offsite.
^
2.0 EVALUATION
(
The licensee is currently in the process of determining the long term disposition of the reactor facility. The surveillance requirements that would be suspended if there is no fuel in the core are the determination of rod drop times, shutdown margin, reactivity insertion rate of control rods, power calibration of safety channels, and maintaining and measuring primary water resistivity. These surveillance requirements either involve measuring parameters that do not change if the reactor is shutdown (which is the case with no fuel in the reactorc or involve verifying operational performance which does not impact the ability to maintain the facility in a shutdown condition. Should the licensee decide to refuel the reactor the surveillance requirements would be reinstated.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in inspection and surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that this amendment involves (1) no significant hazards consideration, (2) no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant chan effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) thatgethere in the types, is no of any significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Nk $0N. N '.
P
6
4.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1)becausetheamendmentdoesnotinvolveasignificantincrease 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 proposed activities, and (3)activities such publ}c will willbenot be endangered conducted in by the compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Dated: November 18, 1988
)
e