ML20136D721

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 29 to License R-103

ML20136D721
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	03/06/1997
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20136D713	List: ML20136D708 ML20136D716 ML20136D721
References
NUDOCS 9703120472
Download: ML20136D721 (3)

Text

_

O p 4 UNITED STATES j

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

• WASHINGTON, D.C. 2065&4001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR' REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 29 TO AMENDED FACILITY LICENSE NO. R-103 THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI - COLUMBIA DOCKET NO. 50-186

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated October 29, 1996, as supplemented on January 10, 1997, the University of Missouri - Columbia (UM or licensee) submitted a request for amendment to the Technical Specifications (TSs), Appendix A of Amended Facility License No. R-103 for the University of Missouri Research Reactor l

(MURR). The licensee has requested changes in the administrative structure l having oversight authority for the MURR and has requested a change that '

corrects an inconsistency in the TSs concerning meeting requirements of the l Reactor Advisory Committee.

{

2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Changes in Administrative Structure  !

The licensee has requested several changes in the administrative structure l concerning the line of authority for the management and operation of the MURR. '

This structure is depicted in Figure 6.0 of TS 6.1.

The first change requested by the licensee is to delete the specific title of the person in the Office of the Provost to whom the Reactor Facility Director reports. The Director would report to the Office of the Provost with no specific individual designated. The current TSs show the Director reporting to the Vice President for Research. This change will give the University the flexibility to give authority and responsibility for the MURR to the most appropriate person in the Office of the Provost. The licensee states that the Associate Provost will be given responsibility and authority for the MURR. UM states that the Provost will assure that the assignment of responsibility will not decrease the effectiveness of management oversight of the MURR. The staff has determined that this change is acceptable because the Reactor Facility Director will continue to report to the Office of the Provost and the Provost will assign an individual responsibility for the MURR who will maintain effective management oversight.

NO$0f86 PDR

i ,

~

5 I

The licensee has requested that the appointment and reporting of the Reactor Advisory Committee be. changed from the Chancellor to the Provost. This change

is due to a decision-to have the Provost provide closer administrative

oversight.of MURR activities. The Comittee will continue to report to and be appointed by upper University management above the Reactor Facility Director

! le' el . In addition, the Office of the Provost will be able to provide greater

oversight of the Committee than the Chancellor because the Office of the Provost will. exercise a narrower span of. control than that exercised by the i Chancellor. The steff has determined that this change is acceptable because l the Reactor Advisory.Comittee continues to report to and be appointed by upper. University management.

The licensee has proposed removing a comunications/ consultation line from the organizational chart. The current TSs show a line from the Reactor Facility Director to the Radiation Safety Officer (RS0) to the Vice President for

! Academic Affairs (VPAA)' This line existed when the University of Missouri

! . System held one materials license for. the University system, including the i Columbia campus and the MURR. This arrangement was later changed when the

! Columbia campus and the MURR received separate materials licenses from the

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Therefore, the University RSO and the VPAA have no' direct responsibility for radioactive materials at the MURR, and this comunications/ consultation line serves no purpose. The staff has

] determined that removing this organizational line from the TSs is acceptable because the RSO and the.VPAA no longer have. responsibility for activities involving radioactive material at the MURR.

The licensee has proposed a new comunications/ consultation line from the Reactor Health Physics Manager (HPM) to the Office of the Provost. This line of comunications/ consultation would allow the HPM access to upper University management if the Reactor Facility Management did not address radiation protection concerns to the satisfaction of the HPM. This change is acceptable to the staff because the new comunications/ consultation line improves organization comunication with upper University management.

The licensee has proposed several minor changes to the organizational chart.

-The licensee has proposed removing the title of Vice President for Administrative Affairs from the organizational chart because this position is not iri the direct line of license responsibility for the reactor and was only shown on the organizational chart for illustrative purposes. The licensee has added a legend to the organizational chart to clarify that niid lines are lines of control and dotted lines are lines of comunication. The staff has determined that these changes are acceptable because they are administrative in nature and clarify the organizational chart.

2.2 Changes to the Meeting Requirement of the Reactor Advisory Comittee TS 6.1.d concerning the Reactor Advisory Committee states, in part, that The Reactor Advisory Comittee shall meet at least once during each calendar quarter. A meeting of a subcomittee shall not be deemed to satisfy the requirement of the parent committee meeting quarterly.

1 The licensee has proposed changing this statement as follows:

The Reactor Advisory Committee shall meet at least once during each calendar quarter. A meeting of a subcommittee shall not be deemed to satisfy the requirement of the parent committee meeting at least once during each calendar quarter.

This proposed change corrects an inconsistency, thus making the time interval description in the two sentences identical. The staff finds this change acceptable because it clarifies the TSs.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(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.

4.0 CONCLUSION

.The stafi has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that'(1) bs'ause 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: A. Adams, Jr.

Date: March 6, 1997 i

l l

i l

1