ML14031A199

Oregon State University - Redacted Non-Proprietary Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Allow the Conduct of Fueled Experiments to Demonstrate the Production of Molybdenum-99

ML14031A199
Person / Time
Site:	Oregon State University
Issue date:	02/07/2014
From:	William Schuster Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch
To:	Reese S Oregon State University
Schuster W
Shared Package
ML14031A203	List: ML14031A156 ML14031A199
References
TAC ME8443
Download: ML14031A199 (2)

Text

OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR FUELED EXPERIMENT OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY TRIGA REACTOR FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-106 DOCKET NO. 50-243 By letter dated April 13, 2012 (redacted version under Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12124A266), as supplemented by letter dated August 23, 2013 (redacted version under ADAMS Accession No. ML13252A181), Oregon State University (OSU, the licensee) submitted a license amendment request to allow the conduct of fueled experiments to demonstrate the production of molybdenum-99 for the Oregon State University TRIGA Reactor.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has reviewed the information provided in your application and determined that additional information is required in order to complete its review.

Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information (RAI) within 30 days of the date of this letter. Enclosure 1 is a proprietary version of the RAI. Information which is BOLDED denotes proprietary information. Enclosure 2 is a public version of the RAI.

Information which is redacted is denoted in [ ].

1. Safety Analysis Report (SAR)Section III. The amendment SAR evaluated excess reactivity of the reactor core based upon the normal core configuration under beginning of life (BOL) conditions. The OSU Conversion SAR indicates that BOL is not the most limiting condition for the core. Provide either: 1) additional analysis at most limiting configuration(s) and condition(s) over core life; or, 2) wording for an additional technical specification (TS) to ensure that excess reactivity limits are not exceeded; or, 3) provide justification as to why an additional TS is not needed

2. Response dated August 23, 2013. The accident analysis used [

]. The supplied reference documents

[

]. As calculated accident doses are directly proportional to the [ ]; the doses provided in the RAI response may underestimate offsite and facility worker doses. Provide an updated accident analysis using more conservative values for [ ] or provide additional justification for the RAI response analysis.

Enclosure 2

3. SAR Section V. In reviewing the accident scenarios, the suggested bounding conditions of a release in air and irradiation time of one year are more conservative than the anticipated conditions for this fueled experiment. In consideration with the response provided to question number two above:

a. Fueled experiment accident scenarios commonly involve a release in water.

Provide an updated accident analysis for a release in water at the end of irradiation.

b. It is assumed there will be a cool down period before the target is removed from the pool. Provide an updated accident analysis for a release in air upon removal from the pool. Also, please propose and justify a TS for the proposed cool down time or explain why a TS is not needed.

4. SAR Section III page 14 and Response dated August 23, 2013. The response to Question 4 states that the amendment is specifically written to allow use of no more than three targets... However, in the response to Question 14, the proposed licensed possession limit of 1.0 kilograms of contained uranium-235 would permit possession of more than three targets. The amendment SAR analyzed in-pool storage of three unirradiated targets. Provide revised analysis for target storage in-tank based on the new possession limit or explain why additional analysis is not needed.