ML19325E167

Requests Response to Items 1,2 & 3 of Encl Re Review of SAR 890508 & 0810 Submittals Concerning high-enriched U & low-enriched U Conversion at Facility

ML19325E167
Person / Time
Site:	05000199
Issue date:	10/30/1989
From:	Michaels T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Berlin R MANHATTAN COLLEGE, RIVERDALE, NY
References
NUDOCS 8911020159
Download: ML19325E167 (6)

Text

..

Octobsr 30, 1989 Docket No. 50199 Dr. Robert E. Berlin Reactor Admit.istrator Zero Powcr Reactor c/o Mechanical Engineering Department l

Manhatt n College i

Riverdale, New York 10471

SUBJECT:

QULSTIONS REGARDING HEU/ LEU CONVERSION AT MANHATTAN COI.LEGE We have reviewed the Safety Analysis Report for the Manhattan College Zero Power Reactor, submitted by your letters of May 8, 1989 and August 10, 1989, i

regarding the HEU to LEU conversion.

Ir. order to complete our review, please i

respond to items 1, 2 and 3 of the enclosure to this letter.

If you have any questions,pleasecallmeat(301)4921102.

Sincerely, j

Original signed by:

Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager Non. Power Reactor, Decommissioning and j

Environmental Project Directorate j

Division of Reactor Projects. III, 1

IV, Y and fpecial Projects Office of Nuclear Keactor Regulation 1

i

Enclosure:

i l

As stated l

cc w/ enclosure:

org See next page

• \\

1 h

j 1

l i

DISTRIBUTION I

E peetet; F11e 71 NRC & Local PDR PDNP r/f G. Holahan W. Travers S. Weiss T. Michaels E. Hylton J

l OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS(10)

.I 8911020159 891030 PDR ADOCK 05000199 l

lE:

P PDC l

PONP/1.A

PONP/P

PDNP/D j:

L u...:......,10..:....

'.....:. y NAME :E on

TMichaels:sr:SWeiss O

i l

DATE:10/2J89

10/A7/89

10/)C/89 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY Document Name: QUESTIONS MC

s reco

((o

'o.,

UNITED STATES

+

//

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yp/ ' I e

wAsHwo f oa. o. t.. tosss l

• • ,,,,, f j o,

a

,.o October 30, 1989 l

Docket No. 50 199 Dr. Robert E. Berlin i

Reactor Administrator Zero Power Reactor c/o Mechanical Engineering Departrent Manhattan College Riverdale, t'aw York 10471

SUBJECT:

OVEST10NS REGARDING HEU/L'U CONVERSION AT MANHATTAN COLLEGE We have reviewed the Safety Analysis Report for the Manhattan College 1ero t

Power Reactor, submitted by your letters of May 8,1989 and August 10, 1989, l

regarding the HEU to liU conversion.

In order to complete our review, ple9st respond to items 1, 2 and 3 of the enclosure to this letter.

If you have any l

t l

questions, please call me at (301) 492-1102.

i l

Sincerely, q.$. k

• Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager i

Non-Power Reactor, Decomissioning and l

Environnental Project 01.'ectorate t

Division of Reactor Projects - !!!,

!Y, V and Special Frojects Office of Nucitar Reactor Regulation i

Enclosure:

i As stated l

cc w/ enclosure:

See next page l

I i

8

Henhattan College Docket No. 50-199 cc: Municipal Reference & Research Center 31 Ctambers Street i

New York, New York 10007 Director Tecnnicai Development Programs State of New York Energy Office Agency Building 2

)'

Empire State Plaza Aloany, New York 12223 j

i i

t 4

l i

I l

P 4

P e

?

i 5

e

?

i

i

'~

ENCLOSURE

(

1.

Fuel Loading Plan j

i The fuel loading sequence as described on pages 20 and 21 of the April 1989 Manhattan SAR and in Table II of the Response to Questions, August 10, 1989, appears satisfactory, provided an acceptable definite approach to l

j criticality plan or procedure has been proposed. Although you propose to take console meter readings after removal of each 2-3 HEU fuel elements it t

is not clear how these readings will be correlated with the LEU fuel element loadings.

It is requested that a new core loading program be l

developed specifically for the LEU core, incorporating accepted reciprocal n.ultiplication and control rods in and control rods out techniques to predict This program, additionally, should j/m response is the next loading step.

ncorporate i

definite hold points and contingencies in case the loading t

net behaving as expected. The thought and preparation of this critical loading plan should be as though the LEU core were the first core ever loaded at Manhattan. This is especially true since the actual critical core load at Worcester Polytech Institute was over 101 less than cair:ula-l tions predicted.

i The fuel loading plan should include the specific procedures and l

instrumentation requirements. This dccument should also identify the l

personnel who will be involved with the startup and who have previous expertise with initial fuel-loading, power calibration and start-up of a non-power reactor.

2.

Reactor Power Level Determination l

b The reactor power level determination as described in Attachment II of l

the Response to Questions. August 10, 1989, needs to be reassessed in light'of the specific nuclear parameters particular to the Low Enriched Core. Your response to the question on power level determination was to refer to documentation previously generated for the High Enriched Core.

No comment was expressed as to whether this was considered adequate for l

the LEU core or whether the question of adequacy had even been i

considered. Specifically, two methods of power level detemination are l

discussed. Method I is an empirical formula which provides suberitical power level due to source multiplication. The main coment re I

this method is that it does not appear to provide sourceless (garding i.e.

J critical) rector power level, which is necessary to assure the maximum licensed power level is not exceeded. Method II is a gold activation method.

It is understood that for very low power levels gold activation techniques can afford an accurate and reliable method to determine reactor j

power. The concern with the literature provided by you is that many of the parameters in the formula are reactor specific and may not have been reevaluated for the particular neutronics inherent in the LEU core.

1 Cadmium ratios. (and their determination for 20% enriched uranium),_ pet. king factors, thermal power ratios, etc, may be different for the LEU core and should be specifically addressed. Constants in the formula on page 20-5, 1

-?-

l

- 1 should be explained and apparent typographical errors regarding the atomic weight of gold and Avogadros number should be corrected.

In general, it is reccwmended that the entire Method 11 power level determination process be revisited to be sure it is completely understood by those who will be using it and that it is entirely applicable j

to the LEU core.

Additionally, in the LEU rtart-up report (see item 4), you are expected to compare the results of all your methods of power level determination, t

and to explain the reasons for the final power level value you choose for compliance with your license, 3.

Emergency Shutdown It is recommended that the manual B4C emergency shutdown rod locateo on the wall of the reactor facility be placed in a position where it ney be nore expeditiously utilized, if necessary, during initial core loading, i

For instance, the emergency rod could be suspended in the reactor tank l

but removed from the core so that one simple release motion will permit it to cause a decrease in reactivity, if needed.

4 Reactor Start-Up Report The items that need to be addressed in the reactor start.

i port, which should be submitted six months following fuel loading, are the outline i

of the attachment to this enclosure.

l{

t I

f l

l

Attachment to Enclosure OUTLINt 0F REACTOR START-UP j

i REPORT AND COMPARISONS WITH CALCULATIONS

{

1 l

t l

1.

Critical Mass j

Measurement with HEU Measurement with LEU i

l Comparisons with calculations for both LEU and htU.

I 2.

Excess (operational) reactivity l

Measurement with HEU t

Measurement with LEU l

Comparison with calculations for both LEU sed HEU.

l 3.

Control and regulating rod calibrations l;

Measurements of differential and total rod worths, and comparisons l

i with calculations for both E U and LEU.

j 4.

Reactor power calibration j

I i

Methods and measurements that assure operation within the license limit.

Comparison between HEU and LEU nuclear instrumentation setpoints, detector positions, and detector output.

6 I

5.

Shutdown margin l

f Measurement with HEU l

Measurement with LCU l

l Comparisons between thessi and with computations for both.

l 6.

partial fuel element worths for LEU

[

Measured for different numbers of plat'es for which the fuel is capable; conparison with calculations.

7.

Themel neutron flux distributions.

Measurements with HEU and LEU, and comparisons with aach other and' calculations.

f

(

8.

Disenssion of how compliance with void and temperature coefficient values l

1e Technical Specifications is to be assured. Comparisons with any calculations for both HEU and LEU fuel.

i t

9.

Comparison of the various results, and discussion of the comparison, including an explanation of any significant differences which have en o

L impact on both nomal operation and potential accidents with the reactor.

l

10. Measurements.made during initial leading of the LEU fuel, presenting subcritical multiplication measurements, predictions of multiplication for next fuel additions, and prediction and verification of final criticality conditions.

i

.. a