ML20108F623
| ML20108F623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07109788 |
| Issue date: | 04/15/2020 |
| From: | Garcia-Santos N Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | Kuprenas M US Dept of the Navy |
| Garcia N | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20108F615 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2019-LLA-0175 | |
| Download: ML20108F623 (3) | |
Text
CONVERSATION RECORD NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
DATE OF SIGNATURE TYPE OF CONVERSATION NAME OF PERSON(S) CONTACTED OR IN CONTACT WITH YOU DATE OF CONTACT ORGANIZATION E-MAIL TELEPHONE INCOMING OUTGOING SUBJECT
SUMMARY
ACTION REQUIRED (IF ANY)
NAME OF PERSON DOCUMENTING CONVERSATION SIGNATURE Page 1 Continue on Page 2 E-MAIL ADDRESS Continue on Page 3 TELEPHONE NUMBER DOCKET NUMBER(S)
LICENSE NUMBER(S)
CONTROL NUMBER(S) of 04/15/2020 Michael Kuprenas, et al. (DOE, Naval Reactors) 03/23/2020 michael.kuprenas@navy.mil (202) 781-6060
DOE, Naval Reactors 71-9788 NA NA 3/23/20 - 1:00 PM - Conference Call with DOE, Naval Reactors - Clarification of Applicant's Comments on CoC and SER for the CoC No. 9788 (Docket No. 71-9788, EPID L-2019-LLA-0175)
Attendees:
DOE Naval Reactors: Michael Kuprenas Contractors: Glenn Steiner and Dan Yu NRC:
Norma García Santos, Project Manager Daniel Forsyth, Criticality and Shielding Reviewer Patrick Koch, Structural Reviewer David Tarantino, Materials Reviewer
- 1. The NRC staff will schedule a separate telephone call to discuss Comment No. 19 related to the thermal evaluation.
- 2. The NRC structural reviewer will address the applicant's comments related to the puncture test.
Norma García Santos, et al.
2 Norma Garcia Santos Digitally signed by Norma Garcia Santos Date: 2020.04.15 06:52:22
-04'00'
SUMMARY
- (Continued from page 1)
NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
CONVERSATION RECORD (continued)
NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 2 of On March 23, 2020, staff from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Naval Reactors, (thereafter, the applicant) had a conference call to discuss the applicant's comments on the draft certificate of compliance (CoC) and safety evaluation report (SER) for revision 20 of CoC No. 9788. (The document enclosed to this document includes the applicant's comments.) The discussion focused on the following items:
- 1. Comment No. 7 related to the SER - Amount of residual liquid in the S5G reactor compartment disposal package.
In the application, the amount of residual liquid in the reactor vessel is 50 gallons. Condition No. 8 of the DOE Certificate No.
USA/9788/B(U) (DOE-NR) states that "...no more than 1,200 gallons may remain in the S5G..." The staff asked the applicant to explain the differences related to the No. of gallons because of radiolysis, which may produce gas. The applicant explained that the 50 gallons refers to the residual liquid in the reactor vessel, which is used for the radiolysis calculation and 1,200 gallons is the amount of residual liquid in the reactor compartment package, including pipes and other reactor components.
- 2. Comment No. 11 - Section 2.4.3 of the SER, puncture test - Bounding accelerations and deformations The applicant requested to revise the language of the draft SER that discussed varying accelerations and deformations because (in the applicant's view) the language in the SER did not accurately captured the applicant's assessment. The applicant also explained that the puncture test resulted on an opening 6 inches long and would:
- a. breach the containment boundary of the package, which includes the pipelines related the reactor,
- b. not breach the reactor vessel.
The applicant also pointed out that the resulting radiation from the residual liquid in the pipes would be less than A2.
- 3. Comment No. 12 - Section 2.6 of the SER - Uses confinement instead of containment and full\\partial penetration welds.
The staff changed the term confinement to containment in the SER.
The applicant pointed out that the containment boundary has a combination of full and partial penetration welds and that the SER states that the containment boundary only has full penetration welds. The staff will revise the SER, as needed, to address the applicant's comment.
- 4. Comment No. 14 - The applicant has no issue about using 300 feet as the submergence depth in the SER.
The staff incorporated this change in the SER.
- 5. Comment No. 16 - Section 3.1.2 of the SER - The applicant has no issue about using 9 watts as the decay heat.
The staff incorporated this change in the SER.
- 6. Comment No. 19 - Section 3.3 of the SER - The applicant had comments about the assumptions related to insolation of the package. This comment will be discussed in a separate phone call because the NRC reviewer was not able at the phone call.
The staff made the appropriate changes to the SER during the phone call with the exception of comment related to the puncture test.
The structural reviewer will be addressing the comments related to the puncture test. The staff will schedule a separate meeting to discuss comment No. 19.
2
ACTION REQUIRED (Continued from page 1)
NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
CONVERSATION RECORD (continued)
NRC FORM 699 (03-2013)
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Page 3 of