ML082390724

University of Missouri at Columbia - Request for Additional Information License Amendment on Fueled Experiment Conditions

ML082390724
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	08/26/2008
From:	Alexander Adams Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch
To:	Rhonda Butler Univ of Missouri - Columbia
ADAMS A, NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTA 415-1127
References
TAC MD5782
Download: ML082390724 (5)

Text

August 26, 2008 Mr. Ralph Butler, Director Research Reactor Center University of Missouri-Columbia Research Park Columbia, MO 65211

SUBJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT COLUMBIA C REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: LICENSE AMENDMENT ON FUELED EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS (TAC NO. MD5782)

Dear Mr. Butler:

We are continuing our review of your amendment request for Amended Facility License No. R-103 for the University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor which you submitted on June 8, 2007, as supplemented. During our review of your amendment request, a question has arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 30 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of your amendment request.

If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at (301) 415-1127.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-186

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page

University of Missouri-Columbia Docket No. 50-186 cc:

University of Missouri Associate Director Research Reactor Facility Columbia, MO 65201 Homeland Security Coordinator Missouri Office of Homeland Security P.O. Box 749 Jefferson City, MO 65102 Planner, Dept of Health and Senior Services Section for Environmental Public Health 930 Wildwood Drive, P.O. Box 570 Jefferson City, MO 65102-0570 Deputy Director for Policy Department of Natural Resources 1101 Riverside Drive Fourth Floor East Jefferson City, MO 65101 A-95 Coordinator Division of Planning Office of Administration P.O. Box 809, State Capitol Building Jefferson City, MO 65101 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611

August 26, 2008 Mr. Ralph Butler, Director Research Reactor Center University of Missouri-Columbia Research Park Columbia, MO 65211

SUBJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT COLUMBIA C REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: LICENSE AMENDMENT ON FUELED EXPERIMENT CONDITIONS (TAC NO. MD5782)

Dear Mr. Butler:

We are continuing our review of your amendment request for Amended Facility License No. R-103 for the University of Missouri - Columbia Research Reactor which you submitted on June 8, 2007, as supplemented. During our review of your amendment request, a question has arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 30 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of your amendment request.

If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at (301) 415-1127.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-186

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/enclosure:

See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Public RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPrta RTR r/f RidsNrrDprPrtb ADAMS Accession No: ML082390724 OFFICE PRTA:LA PRTA:PM PRTA:SC NAME EBarnhill eeb AAdams aa DCollins dsc DATE 8/26/08 8/26/08 8/26/08 Official Record Copy

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-186

1. Your response to RAI 4 dated January 10, 2008, described the six major steps in the LEU-Modified Cintichem process. Your responses to RAI 1 dated January 10, 2008, indicated that your quality control checks, including leak testing of the seal welded container, will be implemented prior to irradiation. Is the first step, annular target fabrication, going to be performed at MURR in Columbia, Missouri, or by others at an offsite facility? If it is at an offsite fabrication facility, what quality assurance program is in place to control these activities? If offsite, briefly describe your planned periodic audit of the fabricators quality assurance program. If no audit is planned, please justify.

Describe the receipt inspection procedure for receiving nuclear materials, such as the encapsulated targets, at your facility.

2. The radiological calculations presented in your responses to RAI 1 and 3 dated January 10, 2008, are based on a 5-gram LEU target and the radioiodine and noble gas activities produced by irradiation at a thermal neutron flux of 1.5 x 10+13 n/cm2-sec for 150 hours0.00174 days <br />0.0417 hours <br />2.480159e-4 weeks <br />5.7075e-5 months <br />. Describe the tolerances specified in the experimental plan for the LEU target mass, the thermal neutron fluence, and irradiation time to validate the assumptions in the radiological calculation?

3. The radiological calculations presented in your responses to RAI 1 and 3 dated January 10, 2008, are based on assuming a 2 minute total evacuation time for the containment building following actuation of the isolation system. Are periodic evacuation drills conducted to verify this? Are all unescorted persons inside the containment required to have periodic evacuation training as one of the requirements for unescorted access?

4. The radiological calculations presented in your responses to RAI 1 and 3 dated January 10, 2008, determine the radiological impact to members of the public from potential failure of the fueled experiment radiation container. These calculations are sensitive to the building ventilation system exhaust stack release flow rate. Is the exhaust stack flow monitored periodically to validate the assumptions in the radiological calculation?

5. Your amendment request letter dated June 7, 2007, stated that the encapsulated LEU-foil target will be held in place in the irradiation position by a sample-handling device and flux mapping of the position will be performed prior to conducting the experiment.

Describe the procedure(s) to accomplish flux mapping, fueled experiment target handling, and securing the target in place in the irradiation position. Have these tools and handling devices been used for other experiments at the MURR or will they be developed especially for this experiment? What are the training and qualifications for personnel authorized to perform this work?

6. Your amendment request letter dated June 7, 2007, stated that the reactivity worth of the encapsulated LEU-foil target will be measured prior to an irradiation run to assure the limits stated in Technical Specification (TS) 3.1.j are not exceeded. Describe the procedure for measuring the reactivity worth of the LEU-foil target. Will this be measured before each irradiation run? Will only one LEU-foil target be irradiated during a reactor operating period? Do you expect any significant change in reactivity worth of the encapsulated LEU-foil target during an experimental run?

7. TS 3.6.n limits the maximum temperature of fueled experiments to at least a factor of two below the melting temperature of any material in the experiment and first-of-a-kind experiments will be instrumented to measure temperature. Has this temperature been determined for the encapsulated LEU-foil target experiment? If so, briefly describe the methodology used. Describe the instrumentation to measure the temperature of the irradiation container.

8. Your response to RAI 1 dated January 10, 2008, stated that the proposed experiment was calculated to produce a heat flux of approximately 19.5 W/cm2 under the assumed operating conditions, which is about half of the administrative limit. What parameters determined the establishment of the facility administrative heat flux limit of 38 W/cm2 ?

9. The proposed TS 3.6.o amendment refers to the pressure specification in TS 3.6.i for irradiation containers. Briefly describe how the maximum internal pressure for the irradiation container for the LEU-foil target experiment was determined for the highest temperature predicted during the irradiation run?

10. What are the electric power requirements during a LEU-foil target experimental run for the experiment instrumentation, cooling, reactor building ventilation, radiation monitoring, or other support equipment? Describe how the experiment is maintained in a safe condition upon loss of normal power?