ML100251324
| ML100251324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Washington State University |
| Issue date: | 01/28/2010 |
| From: | Dimeglio A Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch |
| To: | Wall D Washington State Univ |
| DiMeglio A, NRR/DPR/PRTA, 301-415-0894 | |
| References | |
| TAC ME1589 | |
| Download: ML100251324 (6) | |
Text
January 28, 2010 Dr. Donald Wall, Director Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University PO Box 641300 Pullman, WA 99164-1300
SUBJECT:
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. ME1589)
Dear Dr. Wall:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-76, Safety Analysis Report for the Washington State University Modified TRIGA Reactor, dated June 24, 2002 as supplemented on June 13, 2008, Revised Version of the Safety Analysis Report Regarding HEU/LEU Conversion, Final Report. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Our review conformed to the Interim Staff Guidance on the Streamlined Review Process for Research Reactors. As discussed in our teleconference conversation on January 6, 2010 and our meeting of June 13, 2010, please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 60 days after the date of this letter. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional time to respond to this request, please contact me at 301-415-0894 or by electronic mail at: francis.dimeglio@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA JQuichocho for/
A. Francis DiMeglio, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-27
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/encl: See next page
Washington State University Docket No. 50-27 cc:
Dr. Kenneth Nash Chair, Reactor Safeguards Committee Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University P.O. Box 641300 Pullman, WA 99164 - 1300 Mr. C. Corey Hines Reactor Supervisor, Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University P.O. Box 641300 Pullman, WA 99164 - 1300 Mr. David Clark Director, Radiation Safety Office Washington State University P.O. Box 641302 Pullman, WA 99163-1302 Director Division of Radiation Protection Department of Health 7171 Cleanwater Lane, Bldg #5 P.O. Box 47827 Olympia, WA 98504-7827 Office of the Governor Executive Policy Division State Liaisons Officer P.O. Box 43113 Olympia, WA 98504-3113 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611
January 28, 2010 Dr. Donald Wall, Director Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University PO Box 641300 Pullman, WA 99164-1300
SUBJECT:
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. ME1589)
Dear Dr. Wall:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-76, Safety Analysis Report for the Washington State University Modified TRIGA Reactor, dated June 24, 2002 as supplemented on June 13, 2008, Revised Version of the Safety Analysis Report Regarding HEU/LEU Conversion, Final Report. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Our review conformed to the Interim Staff Guidance on the Streamlined Review Process for Research Reactors. As discussed in our teleconference conversation on January 6, 2010 and our meeting of June 13, 2010, please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 60 days after the date of this letter. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, or need additional time to respond to this request, please contact me at 301-415-0894 or by electronic mail at: francis.dimeglio@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA JQuichocho for/
A. Francis DiMeglio, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-27
Enclosure:
As Stated cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC DPR/PRT r/f RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPrtb AFDiMeglio, NRR GLappert, NRR LTran, NRR RidsNrrDprPrta ACCESSION NO.:ML100251324 NRR-088
- via e-mail Office PRTA:PM*
PRTA:LA PRTA:BC PRTA:PM*
Name AFDiMeglio GLappert gkl JQuichocho for KBrock AFDiMeglio Date 1/25/10 1/25/10 1/28/10 1/28/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
ENCLOSURE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-76 DOCKET NO. 50-27 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-76, dated June 24, 2002, Safety Analysis Report for the Washington State University Modified TRIGA Reactor (2002 SAR), as supplemented on June 13, 2008, Revised Version of the Safety Analysis Report Regarding HEU/LEU Conversion, Final Report (Revised 2008 SAR). During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Our review conformed to the Interim Staff Guidance on the Streamlined Review Process for Research Reactors. Please address and provide the requested information to the following:
- 1.
The 2002 SAR, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.2 provides information current as of 2002.
NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 2.1.2, Population Distribution, (Section 21.2) requires that the data should be based on the most recent information available and also requires information regarding the distance to the nearest permanent residence (including but not limited to dormitories). Please update the population distribution to bring the information up to the most current data available and include the distance to the nearest permanent residence or dormitory.
- 2.
Chapter 3 of your 2002 SAR does not include explicit limitations on the operation of the crane and the requirement that the crane in the reactor building not be parked over the reactor pool. NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 3.1, Design Criteria requires that the applicant should identify design criteria for structures, systems and components; modes of operation ; location; applicable design criteria, etc. that help provide defense in depth against uncontrolled release of radioactive materials. Please explain how the crane in the reactor building is operated and what preventive actions exist ensuring that the crane is securely located, when not in operation.
- 3.
NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 4.2.4 Neutron Startup Source, requires that the applicant should provide information on the materials of the startup source. Chapter 4, Section 4.2.4 of the 2002 SAR does not identify the material of the encapsulation of the startup source. Please identify the material of the cylinder that contains the antimony -beryllium startup source
- 4.
NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 4.3, Reactor Tank or Pool requires that the applicant present all information about the pool necessary to ensure its integrity and should assess the possibility of uncontrolled leakage of contaminated primary coolant and
should discuss preventive and protective features. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of your 2002 SAR does not provide this information.
- a.
Please discuss the reactor pool water level monitoring system, alarm levels and required responses from operator and/or university personnel, if remote alarm signal is present.
- b.
Please discuss potential draining pathways of reactor pool water leakage, operator responses and radioactivity monitoring before release to sewage system.
- c.
Upon complete loss of coolant, water would drain to floor and into sump. Please discuss sump and holdup tank volume and radioactivity in coolant before releasing water to sewage.
- 5.
NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 7.3 Reactor Control System, requires that the process instruments be designed to measure and display such parameters as coolant flow, temperature, or level; etc. In some designs, this information may also be sent to the RPS. The thermal hydraulic analysis of the converted WSU reactor core as presented in Chapter 7, Section 7.3 of the Revised 2008 SAR dated June 13, 2008 assumes a core water inlet temperature of 30ºC with an administrative limit of 50ºC. It does not propose a Technical Specification (TS) limiting condition for the coolant water inlet temperature.
Please explain why a TS limit on water temperature is not needed.
- 6.
NUREG 1537, Part 1 Section 9.1, Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems, requires that the applicant address the prevention of uncontrolled releases of airborne radioactive effluents to the environment during normal operations. If the HVAC systems also are designed to mitigate the consequences of accidents, the engineered safety features should be noted in this section but described in detail elsewhere. The applicant should discuss the bases and purpose of technical specifications that apply to the HVAC systems including calibrations, testing and surveillance. In Chapter 9, Section 9.1 of the Revised 2008 SAR dated June 13, 2008, a flow of 2000 cubic feet/min (cfm) is taken credit for during the discussion of the maximum hypothetical accident (MHA) public dose calculation. The applicant states that the WSU reactor facility ventilation system is monitored for filter efficiency but does not discuss the calibration of the flow rate. Please discuss how the flow rate is calibrated.
- 7.
Chapter 11, Section 11.1.1 of your 2002 SAR does not include the occupational dose in the reactor room from Ar-41 and does not provide an estimate of the buildup of tritium in the pool water. NUREG 1537, Part 1 Section 11.1.1, Radiation Sources, requires that the applicant address the sources of radiation that are monitored and controlled by the radiation protection and radioactive waste programs. The sources should be categorized as airborne, liquid, or solid.
- a.
Please discuss occupational dose level from Ar-41during normal operation in the reactor room.
- b.
Please provide an estimate of the buildup of tritium in the pool water as a result of normal operation.
- 8.
Chapter 12, Section 12.1.3 of your 2002 SAR specifies that the senior reactor operator (SRO) can be reached by phone and does not address the ability to come to the site within a specified time. NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 12.1.3, Staffing, requires that the
applicant should discuss the availability of senior reactor operators during routine operation and should meet, at a minimum, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(1).
ANSI/ANS-15.1-1990, Section 6.1.3(1) specifies the minimum staffing when the reactor is not secured. The ANSI Standard calls for an SRO to be readily available on call and specifies this as within 30 minutes or 15 miles of the facility. Please describe how WSU expects to adhere to the guidance of the ANSI/ANS standard.
- 9.
NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 10.1 Experimental Facilities and Utilization, requires that the applicant provide sufficient information to demonstrate that no proposed operations involving experimental irradiations or beam utilization will expose reactor operations personnel, experimenters, or the general public to unacceptable radiological consequences. Regulatory Guide 2.2, Section C.1.c.(3) states that the materials of construction and fabrication and assembly techniques should be so specified and used that assurance is provided that no stress failure can occur at stresses twice those anticipated in the manipulation and conduct of the experiment or twice those which could occur as a result of unintended but credible changes of, or within, the experiment.
During NRC staff review of Chapter 14 technical specification (TS) 3.10(4), Limitations on Experiments, allows that explosive materials in quantities less than 25 mg may be irradiated in the reactor in a container provided that the pressure produced upon detonation of the explosive has been calculated and/or experimentally demonstrated to be less than the design pressure of the container. This is contrary to the suggested guidance. Please discuss whether the word half should be inserted after less than in TS 3.10(4)? If not, Please clarify TS 3.10(4).