ML20042E596
| ML20042E596 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Carolina State University |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1990 |
| From: | Alexander Adams Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Monteith L North Carolina State University, RALEIGH, NC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004260085 | |
| Download: ML20042E596 (5) | |
Text
}
1 April 18,1990 bocketNo.50-297 Dr. Larry K. Monteith Chancellor North Carolina State University Post Office Box 7001 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7001
Dear Dr. Monteith:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FO' ADDITIONAL INFORMATI0H We are continuing our ceview of the documentation su'mitted in support of u
your application for re'ewal of your operating license for the North Carolina State University PULSTAR Research Reactor that was submitted on December 18, 1989.
During our review if your applicction, questions have arisen for which we require additional info mation and clarification.
Please provide responses the enclosed Request for Additional Information within 90 days of the date i
or this letter.
Following receipt of the additional information we will continue our eveluation of your application.
If regarding this review, please contact me at (301)you have any questions 492-1121.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
Alexander Adams, Jr., Project Manager Non-Power Reactor, Deconnissioning and Environmental Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - Ill, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket < file a NRC & Local PDRs PDNP r/f WTravers EHylton AAdams OGC EJordan ACRS (10) aooa s,oog mon m Plant file FDR Mux c 050002:-
f\\
pdc
[AA LTR2 BPoulton]
/
PDNP:Pf-)3 PDNP:D #p P t TA SWeiss'dw Jon AAdams j
4/j{/90 4/ @ /90 4//g /9 I
7
~
r
_ ps Mouq'o
. UNITED STATES
/
.. a
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
g
[ g,([3 g
.p*
.- E W ASHINGTON, D. C,20665
.\\"
3 A
Aprilf18, 1990.
4
-Docket No. 50-297 r-
.s Dr. Larry K. Monteith,-
1 Chancellor North Carolina State University Post Office Box 7001
-Raleigh,' North Carolina 27695-7001
Dear Dr. Monteith:
i "s
e i
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION'
'a We are continuing our review of the documentation submitted in support of your application for renewal of your operating license for the North Carolina-1 State' University PULSTAR Research Reactor that was submitted on December 18,;
1989. During our review of your application, questions have arisen for which:
we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responsesL
-to the enclosed Request for Additional-Information within~90 days of the da.te '
of this letter. Following. receipt of the additional.information we will.
' continue our evaluation of your application.regarding this review,please con. tact me If
~
- 492-1121.,
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained.in this lettei\\ affect-fewer than ten respondents;-therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P. L.96-511..
x
.1 Sincerely, (Ob1 h.
Alexander Adams, Jr., Pro Manager Non-Power Reactor, Decomissioning and.
1 Environmental Project Directorate.
Division ~of= Reactor Projects;- III, IV, V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
See next page 1
l l
h l=
i
+
.v
Y.y i
1 4
i North Carolina. State University Docket No. 50-297 h
-l L-cc:
.i l
Office of Intergovernmental Relations 116. West Jones Street-Raleigh,' North Carolina 27603 Mr. Garry D. Miller, Associate Director Nuclear Reactor Program North Carolina State University _
P. O. Box 7909' 1
Raleigh,- North Carolina 27695-7909 Dr. T. S. E11eman, Head Nuclear Engineering Departure North Carolina State University P. O. Box 7909 Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7909 Dr. William Vernetson
-i
-Director of Nuclear Facilities t
Department of Nuclear Engineering Sciences University of Florida 2
202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, Florida 32611 Dr. Ratib A. Karam, Directnr Neely Nuclear Research Center Georgia Institute of Technology 900 Atlantic Drive,1 N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Dr. R. V. Mulder, Director Reactor Facility University of Virginia Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protection Branch Division of Facility Services N. C. Department of Human Resources 701 Barbour Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008
A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY DOCKET NO. 50-297-1.
Ar-41 in unrestricted areas The methods you have used to compute doses at the D.- H. Hill Library and Carroll Hall are sufficiently conservative and acceptable. However,-your 4L methods for the " nearest permanent housing" and'the " maximum ground-location" do not.seem to be conservative nor do they seem to adequately; follow the guidance of your references.
In addition to the-references-
_y you have quoted, we recomend NUREG 0851 " Nomograms for-Evaluation of DosesFromFiniteNobleGasClouds"(1983).-
Our concerns with your methods are the followinti:.
a)
The Pasquill Class F stability category is "the most stable."
Although none of the references you have quoted explain in. detail, in general this class is not likely to be applicable if the terrsin j
is rough (or in urban areas with buildings) or for very large 0
distances from the point of release.1 Uncriticalz use of Class F parameters might lead to calculated doses much less than are actually likely. For example, ANSI /ANS 15.7 warns you in several paragraphs that Class F may not be-sufficiently. conservative for.
1 elevated releases.
b)
The semi-infinite cloud model assumes-that the receptor is. immersed in a cloud much larger than the gamma ray mean freepath in which the concentration of radionuclides is spatially uniform.
If the-actual 4
concentration;is not uniform and an inappropriate value to charac--
j terize the cloud concentration is used in the analyses,- use of -
Table B-1 in Regulatory Guide 1.109 might give.an' incorrect dose.
Notice that R. G. 1.109, paragraph 2, page 20 provides Table. B-1 for use with ground-level receptors and ground-level releases, but its 1
use with elevated releases is not addressed. Because your elevated i
receptors are at the same height as.the axis of the plume, the-calculated doses seer acceptable. However..it does not seem to be either appropriate or conservative to use Table.B-1 in the way you:
have for calculating doses to ground-level receptors and an elevated s
- release, j.
c)
Regulatory Guide 1.109 does discuss-doses to ground-level' receptors duetoanelevatedrelease(p.19). You will notice that the.
formalism includes the gama ray shine, integrated over the volume of the non-uniform distant plume.
In your analyses for' an elevated release, the calculated dose at the ground due to that shine is not -
o included. Therefore, your calculated doses within a few hundred-i meters of the stack are not done correctly, and underestimate the likely doses by several orders of magnitude, l
A_
__________x______
g 4
C.
.~2'.
~
In light of the discussion above, please review and revise your analyses for potential immersion doses in the unrestricted area duetto the airborne radioactive noble gas, Ar-41.
I 2.
Fuel Pin Clad Failure I
a)
Unrestricted Area (1) Most of the concerns expressed above about your Ar-41 calcula-tional.methoos also apply to the analyses of total body doses due to the airborne radioactivity in this event. Please provide revised analyses of_this postulated accident scenario.
b)
Restricted Area (1) We are not able to reproduce.the values, within several orders of magnitude, that you list for the thyroid doses.
Please.
~
address this, and provide-either a more detailed' explanation of' f
your method, or revised values for doses.-
.i c)
Fractional Releases of Fission Products (1) We are not able-to reproduce the same~(fractional) release to the gap for Xe-138 as you list on page 31 of your answer-to question number 63 in your submittal dated December-18,1989.
Please review-and address this.
(2) We refer you to ANSI /ANS 5.4 (1982).
Can you confirm'that your gap releases are consistent, both in method and in magnitude, with the guidance in this document? Please-discuss.
's k
l f
l J
.