ML20206M409
| ML20206M409 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Ohio State University |
| Issue date: | 06/16/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M143 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607010171 | |
| Download: ML20206M409 (2) | |
Text
.. - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
pn gf %, UNITED STATES g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,4
$ :j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\+...*/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-75 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-150
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Ohio State University (OSU) submitted an application, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, for an amendment to the operating license for their 10kW pool-type research reactor on April 30, 1986.
The amendment request asked for the correction of an administrative error created during the implementation of Amendment No. 7 in January 1976.
Amendment No. 7 was issued to reduce the licensed inventory of U-235 from 8.0 kg to 4.6 kg. The 4.6 kg inventory limit was incorporated into the license in paragraph 28. However, paragraph 4 of the license, which contained the inventory limit of 8 kg of U-235, was not deleted when the amendment was issued.
2.0 EVALUATION OSU had shipped a fission plate containing approximately 4.4 kg of U-235 before Amendment No. 7 was issued. Since January 15, 1976, when the ~
amendment was issued, OSU has kept its U-235 inventory below the 4.6 kg limit of paragraph 2B of their license. Issuance of Amendment No. 11 corrects the license discrepancy discussed above and is purely administrative in nature.
Implementation of the amendment will not involve the shipment of radioactive material or an increase in radiation exposure to facility personal or any member of the public.
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: (1) the amendment involves no significant hazards con-siderations (as discussed below), (2) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and (3) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
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.
e607010171 e60616 0 DR ADOCK 0500
-2 t
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 consequences of accidents previously evaluated; or create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from rny accident previously evaluated; or involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, this a-andment involves no significant hazards considerations, (2) there is reasu able assurance that the health and safet will not be endangered by the proposed activities, and (3)such y of activities the public 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: John Dosa Dated: June 16, 1986 9
e
_.__.- _ . . - . _ . . . . . ~ - , , ,_-_ . . _ _ . -