ML20238A636

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 8 to License CX-22

ML20238A636
Person / Time
Site:	Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Issue date:	08/31/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20238A610	List: ML20238A607 ML20238A627 ML20238A636
References
NUDOCS 8709090374
Download: ML20238A636 (2)

Text

f, -

P Mog i o UNITED STATES

( [fLp ; gg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASWNGTON, D C. 20555 r,, lh ,  : j W...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY.THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO FACILITY LICENSE NO. CX-22 RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE DOCKET N0. 50-225 l

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated December 23, 1986, RensselaerPolytechnicInstitute(RPI) submitted to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) an amended Security Plan for the RPI. Reactor Critical Facility (RCF), dated-January 1987.. This Security Plan, which supersedes the approved Security Plan dated Ap.il 1983, was submitted as a result of a conversion from the l i

use of high enriched uranium reactor fuel to low enriched uranium reactor fuel. Thus, the January 1987 Security Plan specifies measures used by the licensee to protect special nuclear material (SNM) of low strategic-significance versus measures which were previously used by the licensee to protect SNM of moderate strategic significance. Based on an initial l review of the January 1987 Security Plan by the NRC staff however, it was ]

found that additional information was needed in order to find the amended .

Security Plan acceptable. Consequently, by letter dated May 13, 1987.

the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation transmitted to RPI the staff's findings. By letter dated June 9,1987, RPI responded to the staff's findings.

In addition to the above, the licensee by letter dated February 5,1987, ,

submitted to the NRC a request for approval to modify a fence and gate j for the new Civil Protection and Security Zones for the RPI PCF.

2. EVALUATION The commitments contained in the foregoing licensee documents have been found acceptable by the staff to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 73 for the protection of SNM of low strategic significance. The following summarizes how the licensee has provided for meeting the requirements.

The Security Plan:

• Describes the controlled access areas where special nuclear material is used and/or stored, including its features relative to other facility features, its physical barriers, and the means and criteria for controlling access; 8709090374 070831 PDR ADOCK 05000225 P PDR

i s

Describes intrusion alarms and procedures used for detecting unauthorized penetrations or activities: 4

" Describes the security response to un. ;horized penetrations or activities; and

• Deseribes events for which response procedures have been developed.

Based on the review of the documents 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 for SNM of low  ;

strategic significance.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

i

(

The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant {

increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the 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 eligibility criteria for categorical l exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). 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, {

j that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated, or j create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any  !

accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a significant reduction l in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant j hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health i and safety of the public will not be endangered by the proposed activities, j and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the l Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be j inimical to the common defense and security or the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: Donald M. Carlson, RSGB, NRR Theodore S. Michaels, PDSNP, NRR Dated:

I l

l l

1

_ _ _ . _ _ _ . _