ML20236K486

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 8 to License R-123

ML20236K486
Person / Time
Site:	University of Virginia
Issue date:	07/07/1998
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20236K478	List: ML20236K474 ML20236K480 ML20236K486
References
NUDOCS 9807090342
Download: ML20236K486 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ - _ _ -

e i

}

$* *E009

,o go & UNITED STATES

5 j

t NUCLEAR REGULATORY OOMMISSION WAsHINoToN, D.C. 20565 0001

\...../ MEETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R.123 l

THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA DOCKET NO. 50-396

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated April 6,1998, as supplemented on June 18,1998, the University of l Virginia (UVA or licensee), submitted a request for amendment to Appendix A of Facility Operating License No. R-123, Technical Specifications (TSs) for the University of Virginia CAVALIER Reactor. The requested amendment would transfer responsibility for overall management of the UVA CAVALIER Training Reactor (CAVALIER) from the School of Engineering to the Office of the Vice Provost for Reser.ich. The amendment also updates reporting requirements to reflect the transfer of the non-power reactor inspection program within NRC from Region 11 to the Office of Nuclear Raactor Regulation.

The staff's evaluation of the management changes also applies to decommissioning of the CAVALIER. An Order was issued to UVA on February 3,1992, authorizing dismantling of the facility and disposition of component parts. The licensee submitted an updated Section 2.3, " Decommissioning Organization and Responsibilities" and Figure 5 of the

" Decommissioning Plan for the University of Virginia 100W CAVALIER Reactor and the Application for the Termination of the CAVALIER Operating License." Figure 3 of the staff's safety evaluation dated February 3,1992, related to the Order is replaced by Figure 6.1 of the CAVALIER TSs.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensee has requested changes to technical specification (TS) 6.1, " Organization," TS 6.2, " Review and Audit," TS 6.6, " Reporting Requirements," and Figure 6.1,

" Organizational Structure of U.Va. Research Reactor Facility." The requested changes would result in the CAVALIER being an integral part of the UVA instead of the School of l Engineering and Applied Science. This proposed changes would transfer responsibility for i overall management of the CAVALIER from the School of Engineering and Applied Science {

to the Office of the Vice Provost for Research. Currently the Reactor Director reports to i the Chair, Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, who reports to the Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science who reports to the Provost.

The licensee has proposed that the Reactor Director report to the Vice Provost for Research 1

980709034290b707 PDR ADOCK 05000396 ,

P pop i

', F. _.- -

• j

,m.

.n 2-f who reports to the Provost. This results in the Reactor Director reporting to a higher level of University management with greater access to resources.

l The requested changes would also result in the Reactor Safety Committee advisin0 the

{

Vice Provost of Research instead of the Chair, Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and j Nuclear Engineering (TS 6.2). The licensee has proposed that the Reactor Safety  !

Committee report to the Chair of the Radiation Safety Committee instead of the President l

of the University. This change allows all NRC regulated activities at the University to have a focal point in the Chair of the Radiation Safety Committee. This reporting relationshigi currently exists for the licensee's other non-power reactor, the University of Virginia Research Reactor (UVAR). This proposed charge allows the Reactor Safety Committee to report to a level of university management that can focus on the Reactor Safety Committee. This was becoming difficult for the University President due to ever growing responsibilities. The Chair of the Radiation Safety Committee has the authority to commit university personnel and financial resources to the facilities under the Chair's control and the Chair has access to the highest lovels of the University administration.

Because of the proposed change in organization, a change in the person serving as the Vice Provost for Research would be reported to NRC, instead of a change in the Chair, Department of Meenanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering (TS 6.6).

Because the change to the organizational structure does not decrease management oversight of the CAVALIER, it is acceptable to the staff.

The licensees have proposed other minor changes to *e organizational chart to bring the chart up-to-date and 10 agreement with the organizational chart for the UVAR. The staff has determined that these changes are administrative in nature and are acceptable to the staff.

The licensee has requested changes to TS 6.6, Reporting Requirements. The licensee requested that Region I be removed from TS required notifications and submission of written reports. Notifications would be made to the NRC Operations Center and written reports submitted to the Document Control Desk. On August 4,1997, the non-power reactor inspection program was transferred for licensees in Region ll from the region to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. UVA was informed of the change by the region in a letter dated August 1,1997, and was instructed to direct correspondence, reports, and inquiries regarding non-power reactors to the Document Control Desk in headquarters. The licensee also updated some examples of reporting regulations in TS 6.6. The staff finds that these changes are administrative in nature, updates the reporting requirements in the license, and are therefore acceptable to the staff.

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 l

L L

l I

._ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - ~ ~ - ~

l.

• ,3)l

.-[,

W vy 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 staff has concluded, on the basis of the considerations discussed above, that (1) because 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 -

l' different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and does not involve a 3

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 )

i

. 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. -

4 I

Principal Contributor: A. Adams, Jr.

Date: July 7, 1998 3

(