ML20247C544
| ML20247C544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Idaho State University |
| Issue date: | 05/17/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247C540 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8905240497 | |
| Download: ML20247C544 (3) | |
Text
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ _ - . - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ __
/ % UNITED STATES
+ ' ' * *
/ n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{-
,g
'e WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~% ,,,, /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUFFORTING AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-110 IDAHO STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-284
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated October 28, 1988, and supplemented by letters dated February 15 and April 14, 1989, the Idahe State University (licensee) requested an amendment
,totheirlicensewhichwouldrevisecertainTechnicalSpecificatio..(TS).
The TS changes requested are mostly administrative in nature, which reflect either typographical errors, the addition of an approved radiography experiment, the addition of shielding when operating at power levels above 0.5 watts, the removal of a reference to an accelerator room and changes with regard to organization and titles.
2.0 EVALUATION All changes have been identified by vertical lines in the margin of the TS.
The changes made to correct typographical errors are on pages 6 and 10. On page 12, Section 3.4.c.2 has been revised to not require that the thermal column be filled with water whenever the approved neutron radiography collimator is used, since the collimator displaces some of the water in the thermal column. The licensee, in the letters of February 15, 1989 and April 14, 1989, submitted data to show radiation levels in representative locations of the reactor laboratory with and without the collicMor installed. These radiation levels were taken at 5 watts and with the movable shield door above the thermal column in a closed position. The results show that in some part of the laboratory there is no rise in the radiation level with the collimator in or out. For instance, there is no change at the operator location. At other locations there is a small rise in the radiation level with the collimator in place. However, the increased radiation levels will not preclude operation in these locations but instead will reduce the amount of time an experimenter can spend in these areas with the collimator installed.
The licensee has also proposed to change the basis for Section 3.4 of the TS in light of the data provided in the letters of February 15 and April 14, 1989.
The previous basis said that " radiation surveys ....in the reactor room, at the closest approach to the reactor is less than 100 mrem /hr at reactor power levels less than 1.0 watt." The data provided in the licensee's submittal of April 14, 1989 justify a revision to the basis to read " radiation surveys....
in the reactor room, at the closest approach to the reactor outside the designated high radiation area is less than 100 mrem /hr at power levels less than 5.0 watts." The data taken by the licensee justifies a value less than
's90524049{
ADOC y$ ppc 264 PDR P
.s/ ; . . -
100 mrem /hr at 5 watts as a basis for TS Section 3.4. Licensee dose measurements taken at various locations within the reactor room (see licensee letter of April 14,1989) show that the highest measured radiation level outside the designated high radiation area is 14.5 mrem /hr (combined gama and neutron) at the experimenter 4 position. Therefore, the licensee (A. E. Wilson), in a telecon of April 28, 1989 with T. S. Michaels, agreed to reduce the dose rate level in the basis to 25 mrem /hr. This is acceptable since this level is more in line with the maximum expected dose rates in the reactor room.
On page 12, Section 3.4.c.3, a requirement has been added that the movable shield doors above the thermal column should be maintained in a closed position whenever the reactor is operated at a power greater than 0.5 watts.
The licensee has been following this procedure and is now proposing that it become a TS requirement. The licensee has provided data in the April 14, 1989 letter which shows that a considerable reduction is obtained in the high radiation area when the shield doors are closed. This reduction is significant at a power level of 5.0 watts and is part of the licensee's As Low as Reasonably Achievable Program to reduce exposure.
On page 12, the first paragraph o' the basis has been changed to eliminate the reference to dose rates in the accelerator room since the reactor was moved in 1976 from the Physic.al Science Building, where the accelerator was located, to the Lil11 bridge En;fneering Laboratory Building.
On pages 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 changes to the Organization have been made to reflect current status. These changes are acceptable and where applicable conform to ANSI /ANS-15.4-1977.
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 and in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, or 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.
s < p *, . . *
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.
Principal Contributor: Theodore S. Michaels Dated: May 17, 1989 '
er I
j
. - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - .