ML13106A010
| ML13106A010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oregon State University |
| Issue date: | 04/22/2013 |
| From: | Alexander Adams Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch |
| To: | Reese S Oregon State University |
| Adams, Al 301-415-1127 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13106A007 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML13106A010 (3) | |
Text
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING APPLICATION FOR FUELED EXPERIMENT LICENSE AMENDMENT OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA REACTOR FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-106 DOCKET NO. 50-243 By letter dated April 13, 2012, Oregon State University submitted a request for license amendment to allow the conduct of fueled experiments to demonstrate the production of molybdenum-99 (Mo-99). Based on its review of the application, the NRC needs the following additional information. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 45 days of the cover letter. Enclosure 1 is a non-public version of the request for additional information. Information which is BOLDED denotes proprietary information. is a public version of the request for additional information. Information that is redacted is denoted in [].
- 1. There appears to be inconsistencies between the table of contents for Appendix A of the safety analysis report (SAR) and the text of the SAR and also within the SAR. For example, it appears that the reference to Table 4 at the top of page 22 should be Table
- 5. Please review the SAR and revise as needed.
- 2. Several references in the text of the SAR appear to be missing. For example, a reference is missing at the bottom of page 55 and the top of page 56 of the SAR.
Please revise as needed.
- 3. Section II and V.VII. Please provide additional detail on the quality assurance measures applied to the fabrication of targets including testing of targets to help ensure they meet design criteria.
- 4. Section III, page 14. The SAR discusses the k-effective of targets stored in the in-tank racks. Do the values given reflect storage with the maximum allowed amount of fuel elements also in the storage racks? If not, what is the k-effective of the most limiting configuration of targets and fuel?
- 5. Section V.II. Please provide complete details as to the derivation of the source term
[ ] from the fuel in the target.
- 6. Section V.IV. Please evaluate the accident where there is a rapid insertion of reactivity into the reactor similar to your evaluation for your license renewal.
- 7. Section V.VI. Please provide an analysis of the loss or reduction of flow to the [
] target.
Enclosure 2
- 8.Section V.IX. Briefly describe why the severity of a loss of electric power event is not increased by the irradiation of the targets.
- 9.Section V.X. Briefly describe why the severity of external events is not increased by the irradiation of the targets.
- 10.Section V.XI. Briefly describe why the severity of mishandling or malfunction of equipment is not increased by the irradiation of the targets.
- 11. Figure 1 (in the SAR) and Figure 8 (in Appendix A) list values for the cladding thickness that do not match the value in Table 1. The cladding thickness is also displayed in Appendix B, Section B-B (page 93). Please revise as needed.
- 12.Section VI, LCO T4. Please revise this TS to remove proprietary information. For example, the specific fuel form can be removed from the proposed TS on target enrichment.
- 13.Section VI. Because of the additional complexity of fission in fueled experiments as compared to activation experiments, it is standard to have a TS that limits the fission product inventory in the target. For example, the TS could place an upper limit on significant fission products such as iodine and strontium. Also, it is common to have a TS requirement to prohibit boiling on the surface of the experiment. Please propose and justify such TSs or explain why such TSs are not needed.
- 14.Section VII. Please revise your proposed license condition to remove proprietary information. For example, the form of the uranium can be stated as experimental Mo-99 production targets.
- 15. Section 2.1, page 55. Please verify that the targets contain low-enriched uranium.
Enrichment of 20 percent as stated in the first sentence of this section is considered high-enriched.
- 16. Table 1 on page 11 and Table 6 on page 57 each lists [ ],
which differs from the text on page 56 which references [ ].
Further, the calculations using [ ] are based upon [ ].
Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 17. There appears to be a missing decimal for the [ ] on page 56. Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 18. The fuel volume is presented both as [ ] cm3 (page 56) and [ ] cm3 (page 60), using the same data. Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 19. Page 56, last sentence of first paragraph - the text uses multiplying. Should this be divided? Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 20. Equation 6 on Page 60 is the effective mass averaged thermal conductivity for the fuel meat. However, it appears that this equation does not reduce to equation 7 and the plotted value of keff in Figure 15 is incorrect. What appears to be displayed is an average of the conductivity values, but it has not been mass-averaged. Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 21. Equation 9 on Page 62 is the effective mass averaged volumetric heat capacity of the fuel meat. However, it appears that this equation does not reduce to equation 10 and the plotted value of Cp in Figure 16 is incorrect. What appears to be displayed is an average of the heat capacity values, but it has not been mass-averaged. Please discuss and revise as needed.
- 22. If you conclude that the thermal conductivity and heat capacity have been incorrectly formulated, please provide a revised thermal hydraulic analysis or justify why the existing analysis is still valid.