ML20033G611
| ML20033G611 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000083 |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Vernetson W FLORIDA, UNIV. OF, GAINESVILLE, FL |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033G612 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004100397 | |
| Download: ML20033G611 (2) | |
Text
!
l NUCLEAR ENG NEERING SCIENCES DEPARTMENT Nuclear Roochw FocNRy j
unNerseyofFlorida i
l
- c. -
"EE'". m.
March 27,1990 I
m we,w Updated Proposal To Meet Requirements of 10 CFR 0.64(c)(2) l l
1 i
l l
j Director I
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 I
i Re: University of Florida Training Reactor (UITR)
{
{
Facility License: R 56; Docket No,50 83 l
1 l
Dear Sir:
l Enclosed is an updated > posal intended to meet the requirements of 10 CFR I
$0.64(c)(2),
Except for scheduling, this pro;>osal is essentially unchanged from that
[
originally submitted with a cover letter dated March 26,1987 and later revised as to its i
schedule pursuant to a request from the NRC Project Manager Theodore Michaels dated l
April 17,1987. This revised schedule was submitted with cover letters dated May 14,1987, t
It is also essentially unchanged from the updated proposals submitted with letters dated l
March 22,1988 and March 27,1989 except for the revised schedule and the presence of j
substantive information on progress to date, t
i The updated written proposal outlines how the R 56 licensee intends to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.64 Paragraph (b)(2) to include certification that funding for conversion has been received through the Department of Energy for the first phase of the i
project and a tentative schedule for conversion based upon availability of replacement fuel l
acceptable to the Commission and upon consideration of the availability of additional l
funding, shipping casks, implementation of arrangements for the available financial support and allowing for commitments of reactor usage. The r,chedule has slipped significantly due to delays in work to qualify the SPERT fuel and due to delays in safety analysis as we awaited code implementation and availability of graduate students for the work. The delays in work with the SPERT fuel were most significant in 1988 and 1989 as the SPERT fuel i
had to be moved, under the SNM 1050 license, and then various license changes approved l
prior to initiation of the qualification work which was lengthy and subject to several j
equipment (x ray machine) failures. The non destructive testing of the SPERT fuel was completed successfully by April,1989; however, shielding and other structural changes i
necessitated by use of the SPERT fuel resulted in a decision in August,1989 to utilize l
plate type silicide fuel for the conversion with this decision made, work was then expected j
I
[82"288U: 8888Sp
~
ov&w p m 87o sI6 goQo
- - - ~
IIi
e Letter to Director, NRC Mardi 27,1990 j
to progress more rapidly as the code methodology for safety analys.es was being 4
implemented and tested in parallel.
Ilowever the decision by the graduate student performing this work to leave the university to pursue his degree elsewhere in summer,1989
)
plus the unavailability of another student to assume this responsibility has resulted in further delays. Nevertheless, a student project has resulted in some progress in assuring i
neutronics methodology is adequate though many calculations are being repeated it is hoped that this individual will remain on the project for his thesis workt if this effort is i
successful, the analyses will be able to move forward as projected in the attached updated proposal.
If further information is needed, please advise. Thank you for your ctmsideration.
Sincerely, lhibbxA William G ternetson Director of Nuclear Facilities WGV/Imc l
P.M. Whaley kdhM I#
Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee Notary Public Date wery Nuic swe or neve At taet; No.,is, shM awee l
l l