ML20247H239
| ML20247H239 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Virginia |
| Issue date: | 07/20/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247H182 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8907280320 | |
| Download: ML20247H239 (2) | |
Text
c-_ _ _
.l a us
/
'g UNITED STATES 8"
~
- g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- {
h.
....+
e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-66 DOCKET NO. 50-62
.A1D AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-123 DOCKET N0. 50-396
-THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 25, 1989, the University of Virginia requested a change in the Technical Specifications for Facility Operating License No. R-66 for the University of Virginia Reactor (UVAR) and for Facility Operating License No. R-123 for the University of Virginia CAVALIER Research Reactor. The change would increase the level of detail in the facility organizational chart and would have the Reactor Health Physicist report to-the Chairman of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics instead of the Radiation Safety Officer.-
j 2.0 EVALUATION Both research reactors are' located in the same facility and have:the same organizational structure. The licensee has updated the organizational chart-for-the reactors by increasing the amount of detail that appears on the chart.
This increased detail involves showing additional channels of communication and additional breakdown of responsibility within the reactor facility. Based
.on a telephone conversation between the NRC Project Manager for the facility and the facility Director on June 14, 1989, the Director agreed to remove the Reactor Facility Secretary from the organizational chart. This position has no affect on the safe operation of the facility and need not appear in the Technical Specifications.
The licensee has proposed that the Health Physicist (HP) responsible for the reactor facility report to the Chairman of the Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics (NE) instead of the Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) through the University Radiation Safety Officer (RS0). This change would allow the university department to which the HP is assigned (NE) to to have administrative control (payroll, appraisals, etc.) over the HP.
8907280320 890720 jDR ADOCK05oogg2 l
1
Although the day-to-day management of health physics at the reactor facility will no longer be conducted by EH&S, EH&S will continue to audit and support operations at the reactor facility. The responsibilities of EH&S and NE with respect to radiation safety at the reactor facility will be clearly documented by the university. The HP will continue to have access to the RS0 on all matters concerning radiation' safety. The Technical Specifications 2
requirement for a health physicist who is organizational independent of the reactor facility operations group will continue to be met.
1 The staff concludes that these changes are administrative in nature and will not affect radiological safety at the reactor facility. The HP will continue to be independent from the reactor operations staff and will continue to have access to the resources and expertise of the RSO. The staff finds this to be acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve changes in the category of recordkeeping, reporting, and administrative procedures and requirements. Accordingly, these amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance i
of these amendments.
4.0 CONCLUSION
1 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that-(1) because the amendments do not involve a significant increase in the 1
{
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 do not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendments do 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 3
in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Alexander Adams, Jr.
Dated: July 20, 1989 j
J um__m.
_____u__-._.__m--__.
_ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _