ML100840239

University of Maryland, Request for Additional Information Regarding License Renewal Technical Matters (Tac ME1592)

ML100840239
Person / Time
Site:	University of Maryland
Issue date:	04/06/2010
From:	Traiforos S Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch
To:	Al-Sheikhly M Univ of Maryland
Traiforos S, NRR/PRPB, 301-415-3965
References
TAC ME1592
Download: ML100840239 (5)

Text

April 6, 2010 Dr. Mohamad Al-Sheikhly, Professor and Director Radiation Facilities and Nuclear Reactor Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building 090 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742

SUBJECT:

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE MARYLAND UNIVERSITY TRAINING REACTOR (TAC NO. ME1592)

Dear Dr. Al-Sheikhly:

We are continuing our review of the Application for Renewal of Facility Operating License No.

R-70, Docket No. 50-166 for the University of Maryland. The application was submitted on May 12, 2000.

During our review of the Safety Analysis Report for the application, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information no later than April 30, 2010.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the requested information, we will continue our evaluation of your application. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-3965 or by electronic mail at Spyros.Traiforos@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/

Spyros A. Traiforos, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Projects Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-166 License No. R-70

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: See next page

ML100840239 NRR-088 OFFICE PRPB: PM PRPB: LA PRLB: BC PRPB : PM NAME STraiforos GLappert KBrock STraiforos DATE 3/25/10 4/5/2010 4/6/2010 4/6/2010

University of Maryland Docket No. 50-166 cc:

Director, Dept. of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program Energy & Coastal Zone Administration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 Mr. Roland G. Fletcher, Program Manager IV Radiological Health Program Maryland Department of Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 750 Baltimore, MD 21230 Mr. Vincent G. Adams Facility Coordinator Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Building 090 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Tom OBrien Radiation Safety Officer Department of Environmental Safety 3115 Chesapeake Building 338 University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611

ENCLOSURE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, MARYLAND UNIVERSITY TRAINING REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-70 DOCKET NO. 50-166 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-70, dated May 12, 2000, Safety Analysis Report for the Maryland University Training Reactor (2000 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, NUREG-1537, Part 1, NUREG-1537, Part 2 and Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR). Please address and provide the requested information to the following:

1.

Requirements for limiting conditions for operations are addressed in 10 CFR Section 50.36(c)(2). NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 4.5.3 Operating Limits provides an acceptable way of meeting the 10 CFR Section 50.36(c)(2) requirements by establishing a shutdown margin with the most reactive control rod withdrawn from any operating conditions. Chapter 4, Section 4.5.3 of the 2000 SAR provides a discussion indicating that the shutdown margin is $0.9 with the core at maximum excess reactivity of $3.5 and most reactive control rod Shim II withdrawn. Please identify the steps leading to the $0.9 value with the two control rods inserted having $2.3 and $2.7 reactivity worths.

2.

According to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, the reactor core and protection systems shall be designed with appropriate margin to assure that specified acceptable fuel design limits are not exceeded during any condition of normal operation, including the effects of anticipated operational occurrences. NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 4.5.3, Operating Limits also states that the detailed analysis should be included in Section 4.6.

a.

Section 4.6 of the 2000 SAR states that the maximum fuel temperature would approach 400 degrees celsius (ºC) when the pool water would approach the boiling point of water, 100ºC. Please provide a reference analysis or data supporting the maximum fuel temperature value.

b.

Section 4.5.3 of the 2000 SAR states that the safety limit for the MUTR is for a maximum fuel temperature of 1000°C. To preclude reaching this point the limiting safety system setting for the MUTR has been defined at less than 175°C as measured by the instrumented fuel element (IFE). Proposed Technical Specifications (TS), dated December 18, 2006, Section 2.2 also sets the limiting safety system setting at 175°C as measured by the IFE in the periphery of the core and allows locating the IFE at any location in the core. Please provide a reference analysis or data supporting the bounding power peaking analysis that the temperature at the hottest fuel element would be no greater than 350°C, when the IFE is at 175°C at any allowable location.

3.

According to 10 CFR Section 20.1301(a)(1) the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Section 11.1.1.1 of the 2000 SAR estimates that in a typical operation year the total Ar-41 release would be 100 mCi. In your response to RAI 46 dated September 4, 2004, University of Maryland estimated that the occupational dose from the argon-41 (Ar-41) release would be 177 mrem. Please discuss the potential maximum dose consequences to the maximally exposed member of the public, due to potential release of Ar-41 from the facility and discuss whether it is in compliance with 10 CFR Section 20.1301(a)(1).

4.

According to 10 CFR Section 20.1201(a) the occupational dose limits for adults, the total effective dose equivalent to an adult may not exceed 5.0 rems (0.5 mSv). Section 13.2.1 of the 2000 SAR discusses the Maximum Hypothetical Accident (MHA) providing dose consequences to the member of the public in compliance with 10 CFR Section 20.1301 Dose limits for individual members of the public. Please discuss the potential maximum dose consequences to an adult due to the MHA considering the facility evacuation plan and whether it is in compliance with 10 CFR Section 20.1201(a).

5.

According to 10 CFR Section 20.1301(a)(1), the total effective dose equivalent to individual members of the public from the licensed operation cannot exceed 0.1 rem (1 mSv) in a year. Section 13.2.3 of the 2000 SAR states that in a complete loss of coolant accident the dose rate at any point outside the biological shield would be less than 1.2 rem/hr at 1 hr after shutdown, and less than 31 mrem/hr at 8 hr after shutdown. Please provide accumulated dose results to the closest member of the public after a complete loss of pool water for the period of the hypothetical loss of coolant accident and indicate whether it is in compliance with 10 CFR Section 20.1301 (for example, at the perimeter of the rear parking lot, where the facility has a high-bay door providing no shielding to the outside).