ML20136E694

Requests Addl Info in Order to Continue Review of PA State Univ Amend Request for Penn State Breazeale Reactor Submitted on 970206

ML20136E694
Person / Time
Site:	Pennsylvania State University
Issue date:	03/07/1997
From:	Mendonca M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Randy Erickson PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., HARRISBURG, PA
References
TAC-M79576, NUDOCS 9703130289
Download: ML20136E694 (5)

Text

. . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -

March 7, 1997 l Dr. Rodney A. Erickson Interim Vice President for Research l

Pennsylvania State University 1 207 Old Main Building University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-3396

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. M79576) l

Dear Dr. Erickson:

We are continuin ur review of the Pennsylvania-State University amendment request for Faci ity Reactor that was.subm;0perating License No.

itted on February.6, R-2 ;During 1997. for the Penn our review State Breazeale of the amendment request *, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification.~ Please provide responses to the enclosed Request for Additional Information within.30 days of the date of this letter.

Following receipt'of.,the, additional information, we will continue our evaluation of the amendment request. If:you have any questions regarding this review, please contact;me at (301) 415-ll28.D In accordance with10 CFR 50.30(b), your r'esponse should be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.

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, Original signed by:

Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-5

Enclosure:

As stated Jo\

cc w/ enclosure:

\\

See next page DISTRIByIEN:

. Docket ~ File 50-5 SWeiss MMendonca PUBLIC EHylton Region I PDND r/f AAdams TDragoun, RI TMartin TMichaels PIsaac PDoyle WEresian N

PDND:PM W P D :D MMendonca E on SWe ss J 0FFICIAL

/3 /97 RECORD COPY 3/ /97 3/ /97 DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\MENDONCA\PENNS AT.RAI l

9703130289 P" " " 9703078&i' NRC Fil.E CENTER COPY

h UNITED STATES

/ 2 j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'g

'2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666 4001

% ,,,g # March 7, 1997 Dr. Rodney A. Erickson Interim Vice President for Research Pennsylvania State University 207 Old Main Building University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-3396

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC N0. M79576)

Dear Dr. Erickson:

We are continuing our review of the Pennsylvania State University amendment request for Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Penn State Breazeale Reactor that was submitted on February 6, 1997. During our review of the amendment request, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed Request for Additional Information within 30 days of the date of this letter.

Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of the amendment request. If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at (301) 415-1128.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response should be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.

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

Sincerel ~

W_ Wawe N Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j Docket No. 50-5 '

l

Enclosure:

As stated 4 i

cc w/ enclosure: J See next page  ;

l

r. ~

O

q l

Pennsylvania State University Docket No. 50-5 cc:

Mr. Rodger W. Granlund

( University Health Physicist The Pennsylvania State University 228 Academic Projects Building University Park, PA 16802 Dr. Warren F. Witzig Penn State Breazeale Reactor The Pennsylvania State University i Breazeale Reactor Building University Park, PA 16802 l Mr. William P. Dornsefe, Director of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 13th Floor, Rachel Carson State Office Building i P. O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 l

l l

l l l i

l l

i

l I

l

.y ENCLOSURE l

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR DOCKET NO. 50-5

1. TSs 2.2 and others require a correlation of fuel temperature in the Maximum Elemental Power Density (MEPD) location to the fuel. temperature in i other core locations. Provide a description or reference to the

description for this correlation (e.g., the calculations or experiments to L establish and verify the location of the instrumented element). Also, provide a description of the administrative process that will be used if

this methodology is to be changed. i r .

l 2. The Bases for TS 3.1.1.a on reactor operational power level states in part that: *Small local variations can occur about the maximum allowed power i for a given core loading during normal operation and still provide a large '

margin of safety in that maximum fuel temperature remains well below the j See Safety Analysis Report, section IX." The License l safety limit.

! section 2.C(1) on " Maximum Power Level" and the subject TS do not have '

provisions for power operation above 1 megawatt (MW). Provide. specific l reference to the analyses that. shows that small local variations of power l will not adversely effect safety analyses results and provide a proposed license and specification change to allow operation in this manner or up l to a maxi, mum power level that is demonstrated acceptable by analyses.

License variations that have been found acceptable at other research reactors include specifying a steady-state power level up to the value for 100% power and a " Maximum Power Level" of less than or equal to the high power level trip set point. For example, the University of Michigan

license states

"The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at a i steady-state power level of 2.0 megawatt (thermal). .The maximum power l 1evel shall not be in excess of 2.2 megawatts (thermal)." It should be noted that the 2.2 megawatts corresponds to the Limiting Safety System l Setting and all safety analyses should be based on this value.

3. TSs ~ 3.1.4, 3.7.a and 3.7.b specify increased stepped reactivity insertion for pulse operation. This is greater than allowed by License section 2.C(1). Additionally, the License wording for reactivity' insertion is not .I

, consistent with relatively recent licenses for pulse power levels' (e.g., I Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute "... pulse power levels not to exceed a pulse reactivity insertion of 4.00 dollars"). Propose a License change to be consistent with TSs and current licensing practices.

I i

?

- n - , -,. - . . . -- ._ -

[. . ]

l<

I l

4. TS 3.1.5.d includes allowance for NormC ited Power (NP) to be greater than 2.2 with decreasing allowed pulse worth. 'he bases for this specification indicates that the maximum NP will be calculated by an accepted method per administrative procedure. Provide a description of the calculational technique that will be used, and a description of the administrative l process that will be used .if this calculational technique is to be l changed.

l .

! 5. TS 3.2.4, Table 2b, the minimum count rate on the source level interlock l was eliminated "since this channel reads in fraction of full power."

, Provide a TS value in fraction of full power that is acceptable for this l function (i.e., corresponds approximately to the previous "two neutron induced counts per second"), or justification as to why it is not needed and/or practical.

, 6. For TS 3.2.4, Bases b, provide a description or reference to the analyses i or rationale which established the acceptability of the power level scram l (e.g., reference to the SAR sections that establish the acceptability of the scram setpoint).

l

7. TS 6.6.2.a specifies that special reports are to be made "by telephone and i L confirmed in writing by telegraph or similar concurrence to the USNRC, l Operations Center, Washington, DC 20555, to be followed by a written '

report to USNRC, Document Control Desk" 10 CFR 50.4, specifies that written communications should be sent to the Document Control Desk.

Proposed changes to ensure that both written communications are addressed ,

to the Document Control Desk; I

8. Page IX-25 has changes (i.e., changes in LSSS setting from 700 C to 650 C) that are not marked by change bars. Provide verification that all changes are indicated by change bars in SAR and TS.

9. The Safety Analysis Report (SAR) Section for the loss of coolant accident analysis indicates on page IX-28 that it was assumed that the' reactor is operated continuously for one week at 1 megawatt (MW). Provide an analysis considering. continuous operation to equilibrium decay heat conditions for 1 MW operations.

l l

l l

I.

1 1

l i

l