ML20245F979

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 33 to License R-28

ML20245F979
Person / Time
Site:	University of Michigan
Issue date:	08/04/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245F960	List: ML20245F956 ML20245F974 ML20245F979
References
NUDOCS 8908150150
Download: ML20245F979 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.A to " coq UNITED STATES

?ga y.%, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

$,'\W}g[k

• .N ~ ,f

/j WASHINGTON. D. C. 205S5 f i

...s SAFETY,EVALUATIDH BY THE OFFICE OF NU LEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1

SUPPORTING AMENDHENT NO. 33 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-28 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, DOCKET NO.50-002

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letters dated May 8, 16, 23 and June 16, 1989, the University of Michigan (licensee) requesteo an amendment to its license for the Ford Nuclear Reactor which would revise certain Technical Specifications. The TS changes requested are mostly administrative in nature and non-substantive. The substantive changes are in Section 3.1.6 and 6.1.6.

2.0 MALUATION All changes have been identified by vertical lines in the margin followed by a "1" to ir.dicate that the change was made along with the first comprehensive reformatting i.e. page number changes etc., of the TS since license renewal.

The changes have also been underlined.

The substantive changes to the TS are found in Sections 3.1.6 and 6.1.6.

Section 3.1.6 addresses the situation where more than one and possibly all rods could be withdrawn from the core for inspection. The licensee has requested that the margin of negative reactivity be increased from 1% to 10%

whenever shim safety rods are removed for inspection but has used the term

" shutdown margin" to specify this condition. The use of the term, shutdown mdtgin, is not Consistent With the definition of shutdown margin ust.d in ANSI '

4 15.1 Section 1.3, which is "the minimum shutdown reactivity necessary to provida confidence that the reactor can be made sub-critical by means of the control and safety systeT. starting from any permissible operating condition although the moet reactive rod is in its most reactive pcsition, and that the ,

reactor will remain subcritical without further operator action." The term l

" shutdown margin" has also been used incorrectly in Section 3.1.7. The negative reactivity specified in Section 3.1.7, however,. is acceptable at 10%

and does not have to be changed. The licensee agreed to change these two j sections, in a telecon of May 31, 1989 (T. Michaels to R. Burn) to read as follows; 3.1.6 - The core shall have a negative reactivity of at least 10%

before shim safety rods are removed fron the core for insrection.

l 3.1.7 - The core shall have a negotive reactivity of at least 10'.;

whenever heavy water movements which con result in positive reactivity insertions are undertaken.

8908150150 890804 l PDR ADOCK 03000002 PDC

{

p

• ,- :Y

• i O

The staff agrees with the licensee that an int ease in negative reactivity from 1% to 10% in section 3.1.6 provides a greater margin of assurance that the core will not go critical whenever the shim safety rods are removed for inspection, and is therefore acceptable.

The other substantive change is in Section 6.1.6 where a licensed senior reactor operator is required to be on shift whenever the reactor is operating in addition to another senior reactor operator or a licensed reactor operator.

The present TS only require that two licensed operators be on shif t. This improves the operational surveillance of the reactor and is therefore acceptable.

Other changes that have been made are either administrative, or correct typo-graphical errors in the TS. These changes are listed in the licensee's application of May 8, 23, and June 16, 1989.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted drea as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and in the category of administrative procedures or 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 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) and (10). 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 increate 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 h(alth and safety of the public will not be J endangered by the proposed activities, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amend-ment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

l Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Dated: August 4, 1989 l

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _