ML20236V038

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 21 to License SNM-33

ML20236V038
Person / Time
Site:	07000036
Issue date:	07/23/1998
From:	Flelsher H, Soong S NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20236V020	List: ML20236V018 ML20236V030 ML20236V038
References
NUDOCS 9807310255
Download: ML20236V038 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . . _ _ .

y /"% 4 UNITED STATES j j g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055H001 July 23, 1998 DOCKET: 70-36 LICENSEE: Combustion Engineering - Hematite i

SUBJEC~- SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT: CHAPTER 4, " NUCLEAR CRITICALITY SAFETY" 8ACKGROUND The licensee's Criticality Safety Program Update (CSPU) Plan was started in 1996 to formalize and strengthen the licensee's criticality safety program. As part of the licensee's commitments in the CSPU Plan, the licensee submitted a letter dated April 17,1997, to amend SNM-33 to reflect changes and improvements in Chapter 4, " Nuclear Criticality Safety" of the license l application. By letter dated November 3,1997, NRC issued a request for additional information l (RAl), which asked both technical and clarification / consistency questions regarding the l licensee's requested changes to Chapter 4. By letter dated January 30,1998, the licensee submitted a response to the RAl. Based on telephone conversations in May and June 1998, between NRC sta'f and licensee staff, the licensee submitted supplementalinformation by letter dated June 11,1998, and stated that additional administrative changes to Chapter 4 would be submitted to the NRC as a license amendment by the end of 1999. After further telephone conversations with the licensee in June 1998, the licensee submitted supplemental information by letter dated July 10,1998, which provided additional responses to the RAl. The licensee's July 10,1998, submittal replaces Chapter 4 of the license application in its entirety.

DISCUSSION The licensee's requested changes included clarifying approved operations and license application statements, editorial and consistency corrections, deletion of unneeded text, and clarifications to approved container labeling and storage requirements in Section 4.1.6.

The licensee requested many editorial and consistency changes in titles, phrases, and descriptions of currently approved operations. Repetition of statements found elsewhere in the licente application were removed (e.g., Sections 4.1.5; 4.1.7; and 4.2.1.3 (d), (e), and (f)).

Procedures, which should not be in Part I of the license application, were removed (e.g , Sections 4.1.5,4.2.3.2, and 4.2.4 (q) and (u)). Unused criticality safety controls and limits were replaced with currently used controls and limits including (1) neutron reflection j

(Section 4.2.1.3 (1)), (2) container mass limits (Section 4.2.3.1), (3) amount of intermixed moderator per shelf (Section 4.2.4 (n)), (4) moderator limits in and around rod box storage matrix locations (Section 4.2.4 (p)), and (5) separation distance limits between shipping containers (Section 4.2.4 (t)).

9807310255 980723 PDR ADOCK 07000036 C PDR

l .

l

\

! , 2 The staff has reviewed the requested changes and determined that the changes are an improvement to Chapter 4, " Nuclear Criticality Safety" of the license application. Therefore, the

, licensee's request is acceptable.

l l

l ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW l

l These changes are considered administrative in nature. The staff has determined that the proposed changes do not adversely affect public health and safety or the environment and are categorically excluded from the requirement to prepare a site-specific environmental assessment. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(c)(11), neither an environmental

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is warranted for this action.

CONCLUSION i Based on the above discussion, the staff has determined that the proposed changes will have i no adverse effect on the public health and safety or on the environment. Therefore, the staff  ;

recommends that the amendment be approved.

]

The Region 111 inspection staff has no objection to this proposed amendment.

Princioal Contributors Harry Felshec Sean Soong l

l l

l