ML20056A265

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Provides Addl Info on Request for Change to Section 6.2 of Tech Specs.Basic Design Considerations Unchanged Re Performance,Matl,Design Pressure & Temp & Fabrication Code Requirements
ML20056A265
Person / Time
Site: National Bureau of Standards Reactor
Issue date: 08/01/1990
From: Rowe J
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS & TECHNOLOGY (FORMERL
To:
NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
NUDOCS 9008060252
Download: ML20056A265 (1)


Text

_._

UNITC'3 CT TE] DEPARTMENT OF COMMERC3 Ne'lonel Inst.itute of Ctander de and Technology

\\

/

Gathemtvo, Ma vem 20099 1

August 1,1990 l-l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington D.C. 20555 t

Subject:

Additional information on Request for Changs to Section 6.2 of the Technical Specifications, i

Docket No. 50-184.

In response to the telecon request from Mr. Ted Michaels, we respec'..t"j xibmit the following analysis of this change, as prescribed in 10 CFR 50.92(c).

(1)

This requested change does not involve a significant change in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. In the 1984 license renewal for NIST i

Test Reactor, (NBSR-9, Addendum 1) aloss-of flow accident (LOFA) was analyzed. The j

principal conclusion was that the fuel temperature rise is well below 'he melting point of L

the cladding, and that no fuel damage would result. The number and type of heat l

exchangers did not enter this analysis, and therefore neither the probability nor consequences of such an accident would be increased.

[

(2)

This requested change does not incur the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. In no accident evaluated do the number or type i

of heat exchangers enter; the proposed change will not affect this c'onclusion.

(3)

The proposed change does not invalve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The performance specWj.ons for the heat exchangers are unchanged, and they will be sized appropriately for a MW operation.1

^

4 l s In view of the above analysis, we conclude that the proposed change involves no significant hazards. The only purpose and effect of the proposed change is to allow full consideration of; the best possible heat exchangers, incorporating the best available technology. The basic design -

cor.siderations are unchanged with respect to performance, material, design pressure and temperature, and fabrication code requirements.4 l

Sinc cly,'

hdchael Rowe

^

Chief, Reactor Radiation Division

}Y

+ooeoso m aoosoi i

p PDR ADOCK 0D000184

+

A F DC k

U s.

-