ML20033C579
| ML20033C579 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 10/24/1978 |
| From: | Reid R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ohanian M FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19283A221 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-339 NUDOCS 8112030457 | |
| Download: ML20033C579 (4) | |
Text
.
s
-.e-I G-
- )*'{u
[g UNITED STATES
,1 $
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5,.
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 4;., *...Og October 24, 1978 Docket No.: 50-83 i
Dr. M. J. 0hanian, Chairman College of Engineering University of Florida Department of Nuclear Engineering i
Sciences-202 Nuclear Sciences Center.
Gainesville, Florida 32601
Dear Dr.- Ohanian:
We are in receipt of your letter of October 10, 1978, that describes the, schedule of events leading to submission of information needed to complete the application for renewal of the University of Florida L
Training Reactor (UFTR) License No. R-56.
We note your efforts with
[
the Department of Energy to change the UFTR to low enriched uranium l
oxide fuel. - Although this will affect our review schedule for license i
renewals, we agree that it would be more efficient to issue 'a renewed license with the new fuel authorized rather than a license followed l
immediately with an amendment. However, we may choose to issue the i
renewal when all pertinent items are completed, caveating those portions l
of the Technical Specifications that will have to be revised when the conversion to the new fuel occurs. As discussed with Dr. Diaz, we understand you may also be requesting a' power increase. -If this is the case, we request that your submittal for a power increase be.made as soon as you have made that decision in order that we can issue the pre =
scribed prenotice in the Federal Register.
Enclosed is a list of items you should include in your safety analysis for the new fuel. The list is not all inclusive but should assist you.
l Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Steve L. Ramos, for any questions you may have.
1 Sincerely,
.3 q.<
'N
^ }/.vM<
Robert W. Reid, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #4 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Topics to be Included in Safety Analysis Report-
-for New LEU Fuel for UFTR si12030457 810909 PDR FOIA POLLOCK81-339:.PDR
~
i -
im -
(
r 1
5 u
TOPICS TO BE INCLUDED IN SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORTL
~
i:!
J FOR NEW LEU FUEL FOR UFTR 1.
Maximum Burnup Levels _ - Discussion on maximum burnup levels that have been experienced with the LEU fuel. Compare this data with that for the present UFTR fuel.-
Tnennal Power Density (kw/ft or W/cc) - Discussinn on maximum power 2.
density experienced with the LEU fuel and compare with the present UFTR fuel.
Geometrl-Discuss any geometry differences that may exist between 3.
~
the LEU fuel and the present URTR.
4.
Core Configuration _ - Discuss differences in core configuration using Include differences in fuel loading, fission density the LEU fuel.
distribution, etc.
- 5..Therml Conditions - Discuss the maximum fuel and surface temperatures, maximum surface heat flux, coolant flow requirements, etc., experienced and expected in the UFTR with the LEU fuel.
Manufacturing Differences _ - Describe the manufacturing process of 6.
the LEU fuel and any pertinent differences that could reduce theInclude margin of safety of the new fuel over the present UFTR fuel.
all data necessary to support the conclusion the LEU fuel is as safe ~
or safer than the present fuel.
Manufacturing Specifications - State any technical changes from your 7.
standard fuel procurement specification when obtaining the LEU fuel, (i.e.) Quality Assurance / Quality Control changes.
Enrichment - Compare the enrichment of the LEU with the present UFTR
?
8.
fuel and discuss physics changes.
In view of the Nor: proliferation Act of 1978, you should include infonnation on the amount of total Plutonium and Pu 239 buildup as a result of reducing the enrichment.
It is assumed that you will have to increase the uranium Wt% when you
' decrease the enrichment.
Fuel Density Comparison - Include quantitative data of the void
[
9.
volume existing in the fuel matrix of the LEU'and present fuel.
Provide a ' discussion on the uniformity of the fuel dispersion in the LEU and propensity' for hot spots.
e 5
t t
V. -i V ~;.a- _
gL 4k
- isii during Failure History. - Discuss the. average or projected rejection r
' " " - ~
Compare these
^
isnufacture and reactor failure history for the LEU.
UFTR fuel.
~ 10.-
values with statistical / historical data for the present Fuel Swelling. - Discuss the degree of dimensional stability as a
.at Tunction of specific power, burnup, and fuel temp
~
11.
j be compared with similar values for the present fuel elements, LEU fuel.
L l cladding Corrosion Behavior _ - Discuss corrosion rates for t with present under typical UFTR water chemistry conditions and ~comp L12.
t required in water chemistry and surveillance requiremen s.
fuel assen:)1ies.
f the Environmental Considerations - Discuss the environmental im
-i Include changes a'nd composition of fission products, is any 13.
significant changes in the types of and whether or not there EED fuel.
increase in the amounts of effluents, any changes in authoriz i
l levels and any significant increase in the potential for acciden design p[
releases.
Design Basis Accident - Discuss w' hat is to b
~
p 14.
with the DBA 'or the present UFTR.
i e
kr i
l' 3
i s
l
^
a 4
9 4
6 4
- P 3
- ~ ~
,ee
-m
- ~ '~
g w
=
- -- z b7 l
c 50-83 UNIVERSITY GF' FLORIDA RENEWAL 10/21/77 _ Le'tter from applicant requesting renewal. for 22 years -
No attachments 12/15/77 Nctice of Proposed Renewal published in Federal Register.
07/17/78 Letter from.NRC to applicant requesting additional information for renewal 10/10/78 Letter from applicant giving information on submission of -
additional information - June,1979 i-i 10/24/78 Letter from NRC to applicant - requests additional information and a list of items to' include in SA for new fuel 06/08/7_9 Letter from applicant submitting operator requalification program -
06/19/79 Letter from arplicant giving dates for submission of. financial information (June 1979), Environmental Information (August 1979),-
and SAR/ Tech Snecs (February 1980) 11/26/79
-Operator Requalification Program approved 07/25/80 Letter from applicant stating they cannot submit a PSP by 5/18/80 but will submit by 8/8/80 08/07/80 Letter from applicant submitting PSP 08/07/80 Letter NRC to applicant requesting that all information in support of renewal be supplied by 9/12/80 08/19/80 TAR sent for PSP 09/10/80 Letter from applicant giving schedule for submission 12/08/80 Letter from applicant submitting financial qualifications 12/19/80 Letter from applicant requesting extension for information on-renewal to'01/31/81 12/24/80 TAR sent for Financial Qualifications 01/08/81 Letter NRC to applicant expressing concern over the protracted schedule for review. Reminded applicant he was commited to 1/31/81-for submission of remaining documents w-t