ML12122A146

Request for Additional Information Regarding the Application for License Renewal

ML12122A146
Person / Time
Site:	Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
Issue date:	04/20/2012
From:	Huff L US Dept of Defense, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
TAC ME1587
Download: ML12122A146 (2)

Text

/a C FI561, 9c0 ARMED FORCES RADIOBIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE 8901 WISCONSIN AVENUE BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20889-5603 April 20, 2012 Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICATION FOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. ME1587)

Sir:

By letter dated July 19, 2010 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requested additional information necessary to allowv processing of our research reactor license renewal application (License R-84, Docket 50-170). Since that date, answers have been provided for all questions except Questions 3, 5, and 6. Answers to those three questions are enclosed and this submission completes our response to all requests for additional information.

If you need further information, please contact Mr. Steve Miller at 301-295-9245 or millers @ afrri.usuhs.mil.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foreg ing and all enclosed information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed n April 20, 2012.

Enclosure:

/ýIpL. AND W HUFF as

(

COL, USAF Acting Director 4o;OC

3. NUREG-1 537, Part 1, Section 4.6 recommends that an application shouldjustify the assumptions and methods, and validate results. Discuss the BLOOST code transient analysis in additional detail including the quantitative values of the mriajor parameters that enter the analysis. This should include the flux peaking factors used to represent the hottest fuel rod.

Please see the attached "BLOOST Code Validation Report" which provides more detail regarding the assumptions and methods of the BLOOST code. The "BLOOST Code Validation Report" also discusses a benchmarking study performed at the Sandia TRIGA Annular Core Pulse Reactor (ACPR).

S