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 ,

Sinc cly,'  ;;

l

^

hdchael Rowe _

Chief, Reactor Radiation Division

+ooeoso m aoosoi

}Y

. i p .

PDR ADOCK 0D000184 k

+

A F DC U s. '

, _ _ _ _ . -