ML111610454
| ML111610454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Lowell |
| Issue date: | 06/13/2011 |
| From: | Cindy Montgomery Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
| To: | Division of Policy and Rulemaking |
| Montgomery C | |
| References | |
| TAC ME6139 | |
| Download: ML111610454 (1) | |
Text
June 13, 2011 NOTE TO:
FILE FROM:
Cindy Montgomery, DPR/NRR
SUBJECT:
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS LOWELL - DISCUSSIONS REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR AN INCREASE IN POSSESSION-LIMIT OF BYPRODUCT AND SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL IN THE FUEL BEING RECEIVED FROM WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE RESEARCH REACTOR After careful review of the University of Massachusetts Lowells (the licensees) application dated April 25, 2011, I called Mr. Leo Bobek, Reactor Supervisor, on May 23, 2011, in regards to the application for an amendment to the license. During my review of the application, overview, and analysis; a telephone call to Mr. Bobek was required. It was requested for him to clarify whether the presence of byproduct materials and special nuclear materials (SNM) in the fuel would change the licensees security plan, the licensees evaluation on the storage and K-effective for stored fuel as well as the licensees technical specification (TS) 5.4. It was also requested for him to clarify the wording of the license condition 2.B.(5). He agreed to answer these questions in a supplemental letter to the application.
To clarify the licensees security plan, Mr. Bobek and I discussed if the presence of byproduct material and SNM contained in the fuel from the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI)
Research Reactor would change his analysis on meeting the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30 and 10 CFR Part 70 for byproduct and SNM of the moderate strategic significance category.
During my review of the Safety Evaluation supporting Amendment No. 13; it concluded that the storage of WPI fuel meets license TS 5.4. I requested the licensee to provide a statement to clarify whether the presence of byproduct and SNM materials in the fuel will affect the evaluation for fuel storage and k-effective and whether it will affect meeting the requirements of TS 5.4.
In the application dated April 25, 2011, the licensee requested to possess, but not separate, such byproduct material and SNM regarding license condition 2.B.(5) but did not request to receive it. I asked him to clarify the wording so the licensee could receive the fuel.
After receipt of the responses (dated May 25, 2011) to our discussion on May 23, 2011, I called Mr. Bobek on June 3, 2011, to obtain clarification on the wording on license condition 2.B.(4) because the wording for license condition 2.B.(4) was inconsistent within Amendment No. 13 with respect to receiving, possessing, using and separating uranium-235 in the WPI fuel. In addition, I pointed out that in his May 25 response he only included byproduct material in answering the questions regarding his security plan and storage/k-effective. He stated that he meant to add SNM, and he agreed to clarify these three items in an additional supplemental letter to the application.