ML20151L659

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 11 to License R-83

ML20151L659
Person / Time
Site:	05000128
Issue date:	03/23/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20151L649	List: ML20151L645 ML20151L654 ML20151L659
References
NUDOCS 8804220103
Download: ML20151L659 (2)

Text

__ ___ -

• # [%, UNITED STATES

[

5 e g

j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../ SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 11 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-83 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-128

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated February 23, 1988, Texas A&M University requested a change in the Technical Specifications for the Nuclear Science Center Reactor. The change would alter the title in one of the blocks of the organizational structure, namely, "Head Nuclear Engineering Research" to "Director Nuclear Research Reactor Programs."

2.0 EVALUATION This change will streamline comunications between the Nuclear Science Center and the Texas A&M University (the licensee) by assigning the Director of Nuclear Research Reactor Programs, who is directly involved in the development of programs and utilization of the reactor, to advise the licensee on licensing matters and operations of the Nuclear Science Center Reactor.

The change is administrative and the staff finds it acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves an administrative change. 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 that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, I this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion l set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no l environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be I prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. l

$$$ $D$k aga P

1 l

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) because the anendment 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 consideratier.,

(2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public t'ill 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 i 4

Dated: March 23,1988

.- -_ .. _ -- , _ _ -- _ _ - - .