ML20134M706

Forwards Request for Addl Info,In Order to Complete Review of 960715 Application to Increase Power Level of Texas A&M Univ Sys Nuclear Science Center Reactor Up to 1,500 Kilowatts

ML20134M706
Person / Time
Site:	05000128
Issue date:	11/21/1996
From:	Michaels T NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Reece W TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX
References
NUDOCS 9611260008
Download: ML20134M706 (5)

Text

.. . _

l

, November 21, 1996..

l Dr. W. D. Reece, Director

-, Nuclear Service Center 4

Texas Engineering Experiment Station Texas A&M University System

College Station, Texas 77843-3575 4

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL'INFORhATION

Dear Dr. Reece:

In order to complete our review of your application of July 15, 1996, to increase the power level of the Texas A&M University System Nuclear Science Center Reactor up to 1500 kilowatts (thermal), we need additional information.

Please provide answers to the questions in the enclosure to this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1102.

This requirement affects nine or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not subject to office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.

I Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY i

Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate i Division of Reactor Program Management l

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-128 i'

Enclosure:

As stated I cc w/ enclosure:

{ See next page

! DISTRIBUTION:

)  ; Docket File'50-128' TMartin 0GC (015-B-18) i PUBLIC SWeiss TMichaels

PDND r/f EHylton Region IV PDND

PM P  :

TMichae on SWeiss

////q/96 //// /96 // /2//96 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\MICHAELS\ TEXAS

{M mm p gse*Y >

!sA2*tB8M 8tas812e P PDR

pug g y #*,

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20686 4 001 g0 9g, November 21, 1996 i

Dr. W. D. Reece, Director Nuclear Service Center Texas Engineering Experiment Station Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3575

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Dear Dr. Reece:

In order to complete our review of your application of July 15,1996, to increase the power level of the Texas A&M University System Nuclear Science Center Reactor up to 1500 kilowatts (thermal), we need additional information.

Please provide answers to the questions in the enclosure to this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 301-415-1102.

This requirement affects nine or fewer respondents and, therefore, is not subject to office of Management and Budget review under P.L.96-511.

Sincerely, b-Theodore S. Michaels, Senior Project Manager i Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning  !

Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-128

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

4 c

Texas A&M University Docket No. 50-128 v

cc:

Mayor, City of College Station P. O. Box Drawer 9960 College Station, Texas 77840-3575 Governor's Budget and Planning Office P. O. Box 13561 Austin, Texas 78711 Bureau of Radiation Control State of Texas 1100 West 49th Street Austin, Texas 78756 Dr. Warren D. Reece Director Nuclear Science Center Texas Engineering Experiment Station Texas A&M University System F. E. Box 89, M/S 3575 College Station, Texas 77843

. l l

l l

i i

4 4

'b

)

Texas A & M Reactor Power Increase Amendment

Request for Additional Information I. The SAR analyses and proposed Technical Specifications should cover all j anticipated modes of reactor operation. Therefore, provide an analyses i and T.S. consistent with the requested maximum steady state power.

Ti I 2. The analyses for the proposed power increase are based on the parameters j and operating conditions of the existing FLIP-fueled core. Provide an

analysis for other type of reactor fuel that would be inserted into the f reactor core or a statement that no other fuels will be used without i prior NRC review.

l-

} 3. On the use of the PARET code; l a. Discuss any sensitivity calculations performed, and benchmarking against measurements.

{

l

b. Discuss input assumptions in the PARET code, including how the .

l coolant flow is handled as the fuel temperature increases.

l c. (Bottom of page 35, .SAR) Please provide references and other

{ justification for all of the conditions that you state PARET can address.

!- 4. The fuel-rod spacings and the number of rods in the core of the initial ,

MARK III and TAMU reactors are not the same. Discuss how these factors-i affect the power per rod, maximum fuel temperatures, and overall safety of the TAMU reactor, as it relates to the MARK III data.

5. Because the maximum integral power per fuel rod will depend on the number of rods in the core, perhaps a T.S. is needed that ensures that i the proposed power per fuel rod limit would not be exceeded (e.g., see page 53, SAR).

6. Table 5, page 32; please provide comparable relevant information about fuel temperatures, in addition to the coolant temperatures.

7. Figure 25, page 44; you have proposed a possible reason for the discrepancy between calculations and measurements. Discuss what has been done, or is being done to resolse the discrepancy.

l I

- - . - . - - - - - -. -. ~ . . . . - - - -. .- . -. -.

1 l i

8. Page 63, LSSS; the safety limit on TRIGA fuel (e.g., 950*C) is based on L internal gas pressures and yield-strength of the cladding.

i

a. Please discuss the thermal-hydraulics conditions in the coolant if the peak fuel temperature in a fuel rod were 950*C and also at

! 541*C (see page 69, SAR) at " steady-state" power. Specifically,

! provide margins to onset of nucleate boiling, departure from j nucleate' boiling, and initiation of coolant flow instability, and

! critical heat flux and integral power'in the hottest fuel rod.

! Discuss safety and operational considerations for the TAMU reactor 2

i core as it would be configured and burned up upon authorization to I operate at 1.5 MW.

! b. Discuss why setting the thermocouple trip 11 the derived Limitina Safety System Settino (LSSS) would be sufficiently conservative to l

j ensure no fuel damage during steady-state operation, considering i

various relevant uncertainties (e.g., page 63, SAR).

l' c. Discuss the planned fuel inspection program for operation at

! 1.5 MW.

]

9. Page 64, limiting pulse size; i a. Please discuss the validity of extrapolating equation (7) above j

! pulse sizes of approximately 1.65$.

! b. In 1979, TAMU reactor fuel exhibited some damage. Please discuss

! procedures planned to ensure that similar fuel damage will not occur due to anticipated higher steady-state power levels

! available under the proposed license amendment.

i

10. Page 79, Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA); please provide proposed T.S. ,

I that will ensure the scenario assumptions; for example, integral power l of 126.82 kW/ rod, and operation of 170 hours0.00197 days <br />0.0472 hours <br />2.810847e-4 weeks <br />6.4685e-5 months <br /> / week at 11.49 MW. Discuss l procedures to ensure limiting reactor operation to avoid exceeding the scenario assumptions (e.g., 104.3 [70x1.49] MW. hrs) of operation.

11. Discuss what tests, calibrations, measurements, etc., you plan to perform during and after the initial power increase above 1.0 MW.