ML20236U203

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 32 to License R-28

ML20236U203
Person / Time
Site:	University of Michigan
Issue date:	11/24/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20236U194	List: ML20236U192 ML20236U196 ML20236U203
References
NUDOCS 8712020355
Download: ML20236U203 (1)

Text

.. , .

q j

& pnrstoq[*- g UNITED STATES  ;

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

7. j- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

\...../ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION

)

i SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 32 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. R-28 )

l .

\

UNIVERSITY 0F MICHIGAN l

DOCKET NO.50-002 I i l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated July 15, 1986, the University of Michigan submitted to l the United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) an amended Ford J Nuclear Reactor Security Plan (FNRSP) dated May 27, 1986. The FNRSP was submitted as a 10 CFR 50.90 amendment to the University's reactor l operating license because of revisions that were made which decreased security effectiveness. . The revisions resulted from the conversion from high enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU) and changes in i

the University's organization. Based on an initial review by the NRC staff, it was found that additional information and clarifications were ,

i needed in order to find the amended FNRSP acceptable. Consequently, by 'l letter dated October 2,1986, the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor i

l Regulation transmitted to the University the staff's findings. . By

letter dated October 13, 1986, the University responded to the staff's l findings by submitting a revised copy of the FNRSP with all. modifications i clearly delineated by underlines. The FNRSP is exempt from public disclosurepursuanttotheprovisionsof10CFR2.790(d). By letter 1 dated October 13, 1987, the University of Michigan informed the NRC that 1 all HEU fuel was shipped from their site to Savannah River, South i

Carolint.

! 2.0 EVALUATION. .

a. .

} The staff evaluated the FNRSP and found that the security plan: j Describes the controlled access area (CAA)'where unirradiated j special nuclear material (SNM) is stored, including its features

relative to other facility features, its physical barriers, and the

means and criteria for. controlling access; .j a

Describes access controls for the reactor security area where fuel, j which is exempt pursuant to 10 CFR 73.67(b)(1), is used; '

? Describes intrusion alarms and procedures used for detecting 4 unauthorized entry into the CAA and security area; l

Describes the security organization; j l

B712O20355 871124 2; DR ADOCK 0500 V  !

+

Establishes response procedures for attempted theft and theft of SNM; ar.d

• Describes the measures used for in-transit physicai protection.

Based on. review of the subject document. identified in Section 1.0, the staff has concluded that the protection measures identified in the physical- security plan . meet the requirements of'10 CFR' Part 73.67(f) and (g) for special nuclear material of low strategic significance.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

The staff has determined that this amendment involves m significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in- 0.4 types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the~eligibilit criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(y)(9)..

c 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, l that: (1) because the amendment does not' involve a significant increase l 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 s'afety of the public.

Principal Contributor: Donald M. Carlson, RSGB, NRR -

Theodore S. Michaels, PDSNP, NRR Dated: November 24, 1987 L