ML19310A660
| ML19310A660 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | University of Lowell |
| Issue date: | 05/30/1980 |
| From: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Wallace T MASSACHUSETTS, UNIV. OF, LOWELL, MA (FORMERLY LOWELL |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8006200609 | |
| Download: ML19310A660 (3) | |
Text
__
~
.t s.
l l
ygy 3 o 1530 Mr. Thomas Wallace Nuclear Reactor Supervisor thiversity of Lowell One University Avenue Lowell, Massachusetts 01854 l
Dear Mr. Wallace:
On April 29, 1980, you requested Information concerning the specific analysis and documentation that would be needed to allow an increase in power level from 1 !!4 to 2.5 MW.
In order to support such a license amendment request, you will need to
- 1) resubmit tne Safety Analysis Report, 2) submit revised technical speco ifications and, if increases in fuel Joading or inventory are anticipated,
- 3) revise the Physical Security Plan. Enclosure 1 contains some of the topics that should be addressed in the revised SAR.
The project unager assigned to your reactor is Mr. J. Wilson. He can be contacted at (301) 492-7930.
Sincerely,
^
ORIGINAL i. -r.. I', 3'Q DI'STRIBUTION:
J "FS E..'!!'7 ~t /
y.dgD James R. Miller, Chief t Mc ket-F Standardization and Spedial
'NRR Rdg.
Project: Branch NRC PDR
~
Division of' Licensing TERA Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NSIC JWilson RTedesco KCyr DEisenhut AE00-JHeltemes Gray File IE-3 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS POOR QUALITY PAGES 8006200
/
I omet h S.%.?.
5*.B QL_b Il Q.:pt. '...j..
suRNwrk.h.U SG w h MII.Ter...
rte. des
..l.
.....l.........
,,,p.55/a?
W 90
. sou80..
.l.
NRC F03M 313 ;9 76) MCM 'U3 CU.S. GOVERNMENT ORtNT AG OF7 sOE:.w 1 ?89 365
= --. : : -.
- o, POWER I
- K; EASE SAR TC;ICS In jour letter of April 29, 1930, you requested infer.ation :n 9 t a.alysis and documentation would be required to support a request for ;;..er increase from 1 MW to 2.5 MW.
In order that we may have the data to evaluate your safety analyses, the folicwing, while not all-inclusive, is provided to assist you in developing your safety analysis report:
1.
Maximum Burnup Levels - Discussion on maximum burnup levels at 2.5 fM.
Compare this data with that experienced for the present ULR fuel.
2.
Thermal Power Density - (KW/ft3 or W/cc) - Discussion on maximum power density expected at 2.5 MW and compare with present operating conditions.
3.
Geometry - Discuss any geometry differences that may exist when at 2.5 MW.
~
4.
Core Configuration - Discuss any differences in core configuration that may be required when at 2.5 ;M.
Include differences in fuel loading, fission density distribution, etc.
5.
Thermal Characteristics - Discuss the maximum fuel and surface temper-ature, maximum surface heat flux, coolant flow requirements, etc.,
expected at 2.5 MW operation and compare with the present operating level.
6.
Manufacturing Data - Describe the manufacturing process of the fuel and include all necessary data to support the conclusion the fuel will perform safely at the higher power level.
7.
Fuel Density - Include a discussion of the affects on fuel density when operating at 2.5 MW.
8.
Failure History - Discuss the average or projected rejection rate for the fuel and any reactor failure history or estimates at 2.5 MW.
Compare these values with statistical / historical data for the fuel at 1 MW.
9.
Fuel Swelling or Blist ing - Discuss the degree of dimensional stability as a function of specific power, burnup, and fuel temperature. Th6se, parameters considered to be design limits -sho~uld be included as TS and compared with similar values at 1 MW.
10.
Corrosion Behavior - Discuss corrosion rates for the fuel cladding under projected typical water chemistry conditi6n. at 2.5 MW and com-pare with similar data at 1 MW operation.
Include the bases for any changes. required in water chemistry and surveillance specifications.
5: # e ~ h '/! i c - dis 0uss !"E c".inges in pcwer l u x S t d e u tr : n : t '. E ' *.y
- LP'og c;eratiOn at 2.5
. ccc;ared to cperatico, at i ".. '.
12.
Esc:r.dary System - Ci::uss changes in the ::::atary syste s -"at sill be required for operation at 2.5 MW.
13.
Environmental Considerations _ - Discuss the envircnmental impact at 2.5 MW.
Include any changes and ccmposition of fission products, in-crease in the amount of effluents, and any increase in the potenti,'
for accidental releases.
14.
Design Basis Accident - Discuss what is to be considered the design basis accident (DBA), when operating at 2.5 MW and ccmpare with the DBA at the 1 MW.
This may be the same accident in both cases, as a DBA is considered to be one step beyond the most credible accident.
15.
Procedures for Power Ascension - Discuss your proposed program fct in-creasing power from 1 lG to 2.5 MW, including all tests, etc.
O m
h 1