ML20112F489
| ML20112F489 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Aerotest |
| Issue date: | 04/30/2020 |
| From: | Geoffrey Wertz NRC/NRR/DANU/UNPL |
| To: | Slaughter D Aerotest |
| Wertz G, NRR/DANU/UNPL, 301-415-0893 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2019-LLA-0065 | |
| Download: ML20112F489 (8) | |
Text
April 30, 2020 Dr. David M. Slaughter President and Reactor Administrator Aerotest Operations, Inc.
3455 Fostoria Way San Ramon, CA 94583
SUBJECT:
AEROTEST OPERATIONS, INC. - REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION RE:
AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR POSSESSION-ONLY LICENSE FOR THE AEROTEST RADIOGRAPHY AND RESEARCH REACTOR FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-98 (EPID NO. L-2019-LLA-0065)
Dear Dr. Slaughter:
By letter dated March 21, 2019 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML19084A051), as supplemented by letters dated June 28, and August 14, 2019 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19184A112 and ML19231A127, respectively),
Aerotest Operations, Inc. applied for an amendment to Facility Operating License No. R-98 for the Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor (ARRR). The requested amendment would modify Facility Operating License No. R-98 to a possession-only license in support of your decision to permanently cease operation of the ARRR.
By letter dated March 26, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20098D415), ARRR staff provided responses to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs request for additional information (RAI) letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML20034G445). The NRC staff reviewed and discussed your RAI responses during a telephone conference call conducted on April 9, 2020.
During the call, the NRC staff indicated that additional clarification was needed to complete the RAI responses. The NRC staff requests a response to the enclosed RAI clarifications, or a written request for additional time to respond, including the proposed response date and a brief explanation of the reason, by 60 days from the date of this request. Following receipt of the clarifications to the RAIs, the NRC staff will continue its review of the ARRR possession-only license amendment.
The responses to the RAI must be submitted in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.4, Written communications, and pursuant to 10 CFR 50.30(b), Oath or affirmation, and be executed in a signed original document under oath or affirmation.
Information included in the response that you consider sensitive or proprietary, and seek to have withheld from public disclosure, must be marked in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding. Any information related to safeguards should be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21, Protection of Safeguards Information:
Performance Requirements.
Based on the response date provided above, the NRC staff expects to complete its review and make a final determination on the possession-only license amendment by July 8, 2021, as previously provided by NRC staff letter dated July 30, 2019 (ADAMS Accession
D. Slaughter No. ML19193A077). This date could change due to several factors including a need for further RAIs, unanticipated changes to the scope of the review, unsolicited supplements to the application for amendment, and others. If the forecasted date changes, the NRC staff will notify you in writing of the new date and an explanation of the reason for the change. In the case that the NRC staff requires additional information beyond that provided in the response to this RAI, the NRC staff will request that information by separate correspondence.
If you have any questions regarding the NRC staffs review or if you intend to request additional time to respond, please contact me at contact me at 301-415-0893, or by electronic mail at Geoffrey.Wertz@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
Geoffrey A. Wertz, Project Manager Non-Power Production and Utilization Facility Licensing Branch Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-228 License No. R-98
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-34 Sacramento, CA 95814 Radiologic Health Branch P.O. Box 997414, MS 7610 Sacramento, CA 95899-7414 Test, Research and Training Reactor Newsletter Attention: Ms. Amber Johnson Dept of Materials Science and Engineering University of Maryland 4418 Stadium Drive College Park, MD 20742-2115
ML20112F489 *concurred via e-mail NRR-088 OFFICE NRR/DANU/UNPL/PM* NRR/DANU/UNPL/LA* NRR/DANU/UNPL/BC* NRR/DANU/UNPL/PM*
NAME GWertz NParker GCasto GWertz DATE 4/22/2020 4/22/2020 4/27/2020 4/30/2020 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION REGARDING AMENDMENT FOR A POSSESSION-ONLY LICENSE FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. R-98 AEROTEST OPERATIONS, INC.
AEROTEST RADIOGRAPHY AND RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-228 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is continuing its review of your license amendment request (LAR) to modify Facility Operating License No. R-98, and its supporting technical specifications (TSs) to a possession-only license in support of your decision to permanently cease operation of the Aerotest Radiography and Research Reactor (ARRR), as provided by letter dated March 21, 2019, as supplemented by letters dated June 28, and August 14, 2019 (available on the NRCs public web site at www.nrc.gov under the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession Nos.: ML19084A051, ML19184A112, and ML19231A127, respectively).
By letter dated March 26, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20098D415), ARRR staff provided responses to the NRC staffs request for additional information (RAI) by letter dated February 13, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20034G445). The NRC staff has reviewed your responses and identified clarifications are needed to the previously issued RAIs. There are no new RAIs in this request. The RAI numbering corresponds to the RAIs provided by NRC letter dated February 13, 2020. The clarifications are stated in italic font below.
- 3. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 50.9, Completeness and accuracy of information, require all submissions to be complete and accurate in all material respects.
Further, the guidance in NUREG-1537, Part 1, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Format and Content, issued February 1996 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042430055) Section 17.2.1, An Application for a Possession-Only License Amendment, provides guidance that, In the safety analysis the licensee should describe and analyze the shutdown facility and the provisions to control reactor-related radioactivity to protect the health and safety of the public. NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 17.2.1.2, Technical Specifications, provides guidance that, the proposed technical specifications should be based on conditions analyzed in the possession-only safety analysis. Further, NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 17.2.1.4, Possession-Only License Amendment Safety Analysis, provides guidance that, [t]he purpose of a possession-only license amendment safety analysis is to show that the facility can be possessed in a way that protects the health and safety of workers, the public, and the environment.
By letter dated June 28, 2019, Enclosure 1 states, in part, There is no conflict with the new direction and authority concerning the existing SAR [Safety Analysis Report]
(Aerojet-General Nucleonics Industrial Reactor - Hazards Summary report, AN-1193, September 1964); thus, changes are not needed or proposed. However, the NRC staff is not clear as to the applicability of the referenced Aerotest SAR to provide a basis for the Enclosure
proposed TSs, and to provide analyses that demonstrate that the facility can be possessed in a way that protects the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment.
More specifically, the NRC staff requests the following information which was not found in the SAR:
3.1 Provide a description of the proposed fuel storage location, and any proposed limits on its movement.
The ARRR response indicated that the storage of the fuel will be on the bottom of the core tank, but also added that a wall mounted fuel element storage rack 6 feet above the floor could contain fuel elements.
3.1.1 Provide clarification that the fuel is being stored on the pool floor and in the wall-mounted racks.
3.1.2 Clarify if canaster is misspelled. If so, confirm the correct spelling.
3.2 Provide a description of the conditions necessary to maintain the fuel in a safe condition.
3.2.1 Clarify what is meant by dry storage by providing a description. It is not clear to the NRC staff if the fuel elements are to be maintained in dry storage (i.e., not in the pool), or the fuel elements inside the canisters are maintained in dry storage, or the canisters are maintained in dry storage.
3.2.2 All three Conditions have dose rates in parenthesis. Provide the location(s) for dose rate measured for Condition 1, and for the dose rates calculated for Conditions 2 and 3.
3.2.3 Explain if the doses calculated/measured are considered the highest or limiting dose rates.
3.2.4 Explain the beam stop in Condition 3, and its effect on reducing the dose rate.
3.3 Provide the results of safety reviews done to ensure that the possession-only fuel remains in a safe condition.
3.3.1 Provide the results of the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) analysis, including verification that the keff for all storage racks, including the canister racks and wall-mounted racks, given their designed maximum reactivity (i.e., all locations loaded with fuel) are all less than or equal to 0.80.
3.3.2 Clarify if pervious is misspelled. If so, confirm the correct spelling.
3.4 Provide a description of any accident scenarios associated with the possession-only fuel in long term storage.
3.4.1 The RAI response provided by letter dated March 28, 2020, stated only that an unlikely credible accident involved an element dropping from the transfer cask a few feet in air to the floor. More details are needed to evaluate this accident scenario. For example, does this accident scenario represent the most credible radiological release? Provide a more detailed description of the event.
3.4.2 Provide the results of the MCNP analysis, including the maximum occupational dose rate, as well as the maximum dose to a member of the public, located at the nearest unrestricted location for up to one year or until the accident dose is terminated.
Provide the information requested above, or justify why no additional information is needed.
- 5. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.9, require all submissions to be complete and accurate in all material respects. NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 17.2.1.5, Changes to Facility Without License Amendment, provides guidance that a licensee should propose a method for making operational or procedural changes under a possession-only license because the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, tests and experiments, apply only to an operating reactor license. Further, NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 9, Changes to the Decommissioning Plan, of Appendix 17.1, Format and Content of Decommissioning Plan for Non-Power Reactors, provides an example of a method for making operational or procedural changes.
The NRC staff reviewed Aerotests response to RAI No. 5, and noted that Aerotests proposed TS 1.10 and TS 12.2.1.4 make provisions for facility changes. However, the proposed TSs do not appear to be in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, or consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1537, Part 1, Appendix 17.1, Section 9. For example, proposed TS 12.2.1.4 would require that changes that did not require a TS change be made by the licensee without NRC approval, but this appears to conflict with 10 CFR 50.59 which requires NRC review and approval of certain changes that do not necessarily require changes to the TSs.
Additionally, the NRC staff notes that 10 CFR 50.59(b) states, in part, [10 CFR 50.59]
applies toa reactor licensee whose license has been amended to allow possession of nuclear fuel but not operation of the facility. As such, the provision in the TSs for making changes using a process similar to 10 CFR 50.59 may not be necessary if Aerotest plans to continue to maintain authorization in its possession-only license to possess fuel, and thus the requirements in 10 CFR 50.59 would remain applicable to Aerotest. Update the proposed TSs for making facility changes in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, or delete proposed TSs 1.10 and 12.2.1.4.
- 6. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.9, require all submissions to be complete and accurate in all material respects. Further, NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 9.2, Handling and Storage of Reactor Fuel, provides guidance that the licensee should provide analyses and discuss how subcriticality is ensured (i.e., keff not to exceed 0.90) under all conditions.
The NRC staff reviewed the LAR, including the ARRR Aerojet-General Nucleonics Industrial Reactor Hazards Summary Report, September 1964, and could not find a reference to an analysis or discussion on how the subcriticality of the fuel is ensured.
Provide an analysis or discussion that demonstrates the fuel storage is ensured with a keff of 0.8 or less, or justify why no additional information is needed.
6.1 The criticality assessment referenced in the Foushee report, Storage of TRIGA Elements, does not appear to include 12 weight percent Uranium-235 TRIGA fuel elements. Provide an analysis which demonstrated that the keff of less than 0.8 can be maintained for all TRIGA fuel elements being stored in the floor racks.
6.2 Provide an analysis demonstrating that the keff of less than 0.8 can be maintained for all TRIGA fuel elements in the canister storage racks.
- 7. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.9, require all submissions to be complete and accurate in all material respects. Further, NUREG-1537, Part 1, Chapter 14, Technical Specifications, provides guidance for the content of the proposed TSs, and states that the NRC staff will review the proposed TSs to ensure that they are complete and comprehensive.
By letter dated June 28, 2019, Enclosure 2, the licensee proposed TS 6.0, Reactor Safety System, which stated, Reactor operations sequences, interlock and safety systems need not be operable since no fuel and/or reflector elements shall be allowed in the core lattice.
However, by the same letter, the licensee proposed TS Table 1, Safety System Functions, which provides safety system trip devices, sensors, annunciation and alarm set point. The NRC staff does not understand the description in proposed TS 6.0, which indicates no safety system functions, versus the proposed Table 1, which appears to contain safety system functions.
Clarify proposed TS 6.0 and/or TS Table 1, for description consistency, or justify why no change is needed.
7.1 The licensee proposed to insert additional wording into proposed TS 6.0. However, the wording is provided in response to RAI No. 7, in the markup in Enclosure 2, and in the clean version provided in Enclosure 3, all differ.
7.1.1 The response to RAI No. 7 states, Safety systems functions described in Table 1 will be performed as long as fuel is being stored.
7.1.2 Enclosure 2 states, Safety System Functions in Table 1 will still be performed as long as fuel is being stored.
7.1.3 Enclosure 3 states, Safety Systems Functions table 1 will be performed as long as fuel is being stored in the pool.
Provide confirmation as to the exact wording being requested.
- 12. The regulations in 10 CFR 50.9, require that all submissions shall be complete and accurate in all material respects. Further, NUREG-1537, Part 1, Chapter 17, Decommissioning and Possession-Only License Amendments, Section 17.2.1.2, provides guidance that the TSs should contain a surveillance section that includes surveillance provisions for each limitation on possession. The NRC staff noted during its audit review by letter dated February 3, 2020 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20017A278), that some ARRR fuel elements were being stored in canisters due to cladding damage. To ensure the development of proper surveillances for storage of the fuel, the NRC staff needs the following information:
12.2 Provide any information available on the design of the canisters, including the composition materials, the expected design lifetime of the canisters in the current and any future storage environment. Indicate if replacement of the canisters is needed due to age or material condition degradation.
12.2.1 It is not clear as to the meaning of dry storage. Is the fuel in the canisters maintained dry or are the canisters located without water shielding, i.e.,
dry external environment? Explain.
12.3 Provide any surveillance requirements needed to ensure the integrity of the canisters to properly encapsulate the fuel element.
12.3.1 It is not clear as to the different storage configurations, i.e., wet vs. dry, and/or if different surveillance tests are being proposed for different configurations (i.e., weighing vs. radiation measurements). Discuss whether these surveillances need to be included in the proposed TSs, and if so, provide surveillances that appropriately address actions and frequency for surveillance tests.
12.3.2 Describe actions (in TS or procedures, surveillances, etc.) deemed appropriate if canister leaks are found during surveillances.
Provide the information requested above, or justify why no additional information is needed.