ML20210M778
| ML20210M778 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Idaho State University |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1997 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210M776 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708220205 | |
| Download: ML20210M778 (1) | |
Text
. - _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
pr_arg p
t UNITED STATES
[
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-0001 gs,...../
e 4
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO AMENDED FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-110 IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-284
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 23,1997, Idaho State University (the licensee) requested that License Condition 2.B.(2) be changed to increase the possession limit from 700 grams to 995 grams of low enriched Uranium 235.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee's reason for requesting an increase in the possession limit from 700 grams to 995 grams is to be able to receive replacement parts for a damaged fueled control olement. The staff finds that the increase in the possession limit is acceptable in that the replacement parts are similar in composition and form to those already possessed and used by the licensee. Further, the increase in possession limit does not raise the security level requirements of the facility.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted areas defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that this 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 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.
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 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, s
Priacipal Contributor: Theodore 3. Michaels Date:
A ugust 78,1997 9708220205 970819 PDR ADOCK 05000284 P
._________---_J