ML17121A333
| ML17121A333 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | National Bureau of Standards Reactor |
| Issue date: | 05/15/2017 |
| From: | Xiaosong Yin NRC/NRR/DPR/PRLB |
| To: | Dimeo R US Dept of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) |
| Yin X, NRR/DPR/PRLB, 301-415-1404 | |
| References | |
| TAC MF9371 | |
| Download: ML17121A333 (5) | |
Text
May 15, 2017 Dr. Robert Dimeo, Director NIST Center for Neutron Research National Institute of Standards and Technology U. S. Department of Commerce 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 8561 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8561
SUBJECT:
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, NON-ACCEPTANCE OF AMENDMENT REQUEST WITH OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT, FOR THE RENEWED FACILITY LICENSE NO. TR-5 FOR THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS TEST REACTOR (TAC NO. MF9371)
Dear Dr. Dimeo:
By letter dated March 2, 2017 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System ML17068A164), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) submitted a license amendment request (LAR or application) for the NIST Center for Neutron Research Test Reactor. The proposed LAR would modify the technical specifications (TSs) to remove apparent limitations in the present version of the TSs that prohibit use of a test procedure and would change the organizational chart. In addition, the proposed LAR would allow transfer of instrumentation calibration and testing sources from a materials license to the reactor license.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this LAR. The acceptance review was performed to determine if there is sufficient technical information in scope and depth to allow the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify whether the LAR has any readily apparent information insufficiencies in its characterization of the regulatory requirements or the licensing basis of the facility.
Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), an amendment to the license (including the TSs) must fully describe the changes requested, and follow as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10 CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations.
The NRC staff requests that you supplement the application to address the information requested in the enclosure within fifteen (15) days from the date of this letter. This will enable the NRC staff to begin its detailed technical review. If the information responsive to the NRC staffs request is not received by the above date, the application will not be accepted for review pursuant to 10 CFR 2.101, and the NRC staff will cease its review activities associated with the application. If the application is subsequently accepted for review, you will be advised of any further information needed to support the NRC staffs detailed technical review by separate correspondence.
The information requested and associated time frame in this letter were discussed with Dr. Thomas Newton of your staff on May 8, 2017.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-1404, or by electronic mail at Xiaosong.Yin@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Xiaosong Yin, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-184 License No. TR-5
Enclosure:
As stated cc: w/enclosure: See next page
National Institute of Standards and Technology Docket No. 50-184 cc:
Director, Department of State Planning 301 West Preston Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Director, Air & Radiation Management Adm.
Maryland Dept. of the Environment 1800 Washington Blvd., Suite 710 Baltimore, MD 21230 Director, Department of Natural Resources Power Plant Siting Program Energy and Coastal Zone Administration Tawes State Office Building Annapolis, MD 21401 President Montgomery County Council 100 Maryland Avenue Rockville, MD 20850 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611
ML17121A333; *concurred via email NRR-058 OFFICE NRR/DPR/PRLB/PM* NRR/DPR/PRLB/LA* NRR/DPR/PRLB/BC NRR/DPR/PRLB/PM NAME XYin NParker AAdams XYin DATE 5/3/17 5/3/17 5/11/17 5/15/17
Enclosure OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION NEEDED FOR LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER FOR NEUTRON RESEARCH LICENSE NO. TR-5; DOCKET NO. 50-184
- 1) The proposed amendment refers to an unknown core loading and gives examples. Are the neutronics, thermal-hydraulics and compliance of the core with the TSs of unknown cores unknown? Discuss the modeling performed to predict core behavior before core loading including compliance with TS requirements. Discuss the attributes of your core loading procedures (hold points, intermediate acceptance criteria) that help ensure that the unknown core is within the licensing basis and compliant with the TSs.
- 2) The proposed amendment implies that natural convection operation would only occur for unknown core loading. If this is true, your proposed TS should include this restriction. If not true, the difference between unknown core activities and normal natural convection mode operation needs to be described in your application and reflected in your proposed TSs.
- 3) You proposed that TS 2.2(2) not be applicable to natural convection operation. Provide a safety analysis or a reference to your existing safety analysis that shows that a limit on coolant temperature in natural convection mode operation is not needed.
- 4) Some TSs discussed in your application do not appear to have any proposed changes to the specifications (e.g. TS 3.1.2). Confirm what changes you are proposing to the TSs.
- 5) It is not clear if you are requesting that some TSs (e.g., 3.1.2, 3.2.1 (3)) not be applicable during operation with an unknown core or if compliance can be shown by calculations or other means until measurements can be taken. Clarify what you are proposing and submit a safety analysis to support your request.
- 6) The basis of proposed TS 3.1.3 is changed to remove shim arm failure. Confirm that the shim arm stops will continue to be able to perform their function during forced convection operation. One of the unknown core activities in your application is shim replacement.
How would operators know that a shim arm had failed in natural convection mode operation with open grid positions that prevented the shim arm stops from performing their function.
- 7) Several proposed TS changes discuss the reflector dump. Clarify the heavy water levels used in the application. Explain the reactivity difference from dumping the reflector from difference starting levels (e.g., 154 inches and 70 inches).
- 8) The proposed basis added for TS 3.9.2.1 stated that [U]ntil main pump flow is used the flow forces are not present to cause the lifting of the elements if they are not latched. Explain how a fuel element is confirmed to be properly seated without latching it and what is the
mechanism verifying it. What prevents operation of the primary cooling system when the reactor is in natural convection mode? Perform a safety analysis to support this statement.
- 9) Your application contains a section discussing change of the basis for TS 3.7.1(1).
However, it appears you have not proposed any changes to the TS. Provide your proposed revised wording.