ML101950002
| ML101950002 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | MIT Nuclear Research Reactor |
| Issue date: | 07/16/2010 |
| From: | William Kennedy Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch |
| To: | Bernard J Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) |
| Kennedy W, NRR/DPR, 415-2784 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML101950002 (4) | |
Text
July 16, 2010 Dr. John A. Bernard, Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology 138 Albany Street Cambridge, MA 02139-4296
SUBJECT:
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MA6084)
Dear Dr. Bernard:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-37 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor dated July 8, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2000, January 29, 2004, February 22, May 29, August 15, August 21, August 26, October 6, October 7, November 7, and December 1, 2008, May 26, August 27, October 5, October 9, and November 19, 2009, and March 30, 2010. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. As agreed to during our phone conversation of July 13, 2010, please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information no later than August 13, 2010. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed of the original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-020
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Docket No.50-020 cc:
City Manager City Hall Cambridge, MA 02139 Department of Environmental Protection One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 Director Radiation Control Program Department of Public Health 90 Washington Street Dorchester, MA 02121 Nuclear Preparedness Manager Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency 40 Worcester Road Framingham, MA 01702-5399 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611
July 16, 2010 Dr. John A. Bernard, Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of Technology 138 Albany Street Cambridge, MA 02139-4296
SUBJECT:
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MA6084)
Dear Dr. Bernard:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-37 for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor dated July 8, 1999, as supplemented by letters dated May 8, 2000, January 29, 2004, February 22, May 29, August 15, August 21, August 26, October 6, October 7, November 7, and December 1, 2008, May 26, August 27, October 5, October 9, and November 19, 2009, and March 30, 2010. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. As agreed to during our phone conversation of July 13, 2010, please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information no later than August 13, 2010. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed of the original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-020
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC DPR/PRT r/f RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPrta RidsNrrDprPrtb WKennedy, NRR GLappert, NRR ACCESSION NO.:ML101950002 Office PRLB:PM PRLB:LA PRLB:BC PRLB:PM Name WKennedy wbk EHylton egh JQuichocho jq WKennedy wbk Date 7/14/10 7/14/10 7/15/10 7/16/10 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-37 DOCKET NO.50-020 The following request for additional information (RAI) pertains to the technical specifications (TS) proposed for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology research reactor by letter dated March 30, 2010. The response to this RAI may include replacement pages for Revision 5 of the TS submitted March 30, 2010, or a complete, revised copy of the TS.
- 1.
Proposed TS 1.2.2, 3 and the basis for proposed TS 4.6 reference American National Standards Institute American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard ANSI/ANS-15.1-1990. Revise the proposed TS to reference ANSI/ANS-15.1-2007, or provide justification for not updating the references.
- 2.
Proposed TS 2.1.1 specifies safety limits for reactor operation with forced convection cooling based on reactor power, primary coolant outlet temperature, primary coolant height, and primary coolant flow. The reactivity transient analysis submitted by letter dated October 9, 2009, states that the transient results in a peak cladding temperature well below the cladding softening temperature of 450 degrees Celsius. However, the analysis does not specify that the transient results in a peak reactor power less than the safety limit specified in proposed TS 2.1.1 (for conditions of primary coolant outlet temperature, primary coolant height, and primary coolant flow at the most limiting values allowed by the proposed TS). Clarify whether or not the peak reactor power during the transient is greater than the safety limit established in proposed TS 2.1.1. If so, revise the transient analysis and/or the proposed TS, as appropriate, to show that the reactivity transient will not result in exceeding a safety limit.
- 3.
The note to the response to RAI TS 3.3.6 dated March 30, 2010, states that the conductivity limit specified in proposed TS 3.3.6 was changed to 10 microsiemens from 5 microsiemens and that the higher value is still conservative. Provide justification for the statement that the higher value is still conservative, and update the basis to be consistent with the specification. Also, revise the basis for proposed TS 3.3.6 to include the basis for proposed TS 3.3.6.4.
- 4.
Proposed TS 3.7.2.2 specifies that the cooling tower spray should be shutdown in the case of indication that the tritium concentration in the secondary coolant water is 1 microCurie per liter. Clarify whether the should should be changed to shall (note:
the proposed TS submitted with the initial license renewal application contained the word shall). Also, clarify whether the specified tritium concentration should be greater than or equal to 1 microCurie per liter.
- 5.
Proposed TS 4.7.1.1 requires channel checks of the area and effluent radiation monitors on any day that the reactor is operating above 100 kilowatts for at least 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. The response to RAI TS 4.7.1 dated March 30, 2010, states that the limit on reactor power above which the channel checks are required should be changed to 250 kilowatts.
Revise proposed TS 4.7.1.1 to be consistent with the response to the RAI. Additionally, the RAI response explains that the channel checks can only be performed when the reactor has been operating at some appreciable power level. However, the proposed TS states that the channel checks shall be done prior to any reactor startup, if the reactor has been shut down for more than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. This appears inconsistent with the explanation in the RAI response. Explain this apparent inconsistency, and revise the proposed TS as appropriate.
- 6.
Proposed TS 6.6.2.1.3 states,...an evaluation will be made... Clarify whether the word will should be changed to shall, and revise the proposed TS as appropriate.
- 7.
Proposed TS 6.6.2.1.4 states,...fueled region are filled... Clarify whether the word are should be changed to shall be, and revise the proposed TS as appropriate.
- 8.
The last paragraph of the basis for proposed TS 6.7 on page 6-67 contains an explanation of why a limit on the initial amount of uranium-238 in fueled experiments is unnecessary. The explanation states that calculations yield a limit of 31 grams of uranium-238, as set by potential off-site radiation dose resulting from a release from an experiment. The limit of 31 grams appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of the basis explanation. Explain this apparent inconsistency, and revise the basis as appropriate.
- 9.
Proposed TS 7.8.3 was revised to include TS 7.8.3.g to be consistent with the records retention requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Section 50.36.
Given the revision, proposed TS 7.8.3.f appears to be redundant with proposed TS 7.8.3.g. If proposed TS 7.8.3.f is redundant, consider removing it to eliminate the redundancy.