ML20137E333

Requests That Responses to Encl RAI Be Provided within 60 Days in Order for NRC to Continue Review of Licensee Request to Make Changes to Univ Triga Research Reactor Tss,Submitted on 950925

ML20137E333
Person / Time
Site:	Washington State University
Issue date:	03/25/1997
From:	Mendonca M NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Tripard G WASHINGTON STATE UNIV., PULLMAN, WA
References
TAC-M79607, NUDOCS 9703270159
Download: ML20137E333 (5)

Text

w

~

March 25, 1997 Dr. Gerald E.~Tripard, Director Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99164

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC N0. M79607)

Dear Dr. Tripard:

We are continuing our review of your request to make changes to the Washington l State University TRIGA Research Reactor Technical Specifications which you submitted on September 25, 1995, and supplemented on January 8, 1996, and February 23, 1996. During our review of your request, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information within 60 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of your request, e '

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

If you have any questions regarding 'this review, please con' tact me af _

(301) 415-1128. . ,

,. s m ,

Sincerely [, r Original; signed by:

j 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. 50-27

Enclosure:

^'"'

cc w/ enclosure:

1R0 FiliCErHER COPY /

See next page I QISTRIBUTION:

Docket-File 50-27 SWeiss OGC (015-B-18) TMichaels k PUBLIC MMendonca PIsaac WEresian i PDND r/f EHylton Region IV, DRP TMartin AAdams PDoyle MLSlosson b..f PDND:PH

• Pph PDN :D MMendonca EH on SWeiss 3/y'/97 3 97 3/JJ97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\SECY\MENDONCA\WASHSTAT.RAI 9703270159 DR 970325 p ADOCK 050000g7 PDR

> Y

!, j$a arc

[' ' k UNITED STATES j,

o

]

' 1" NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. ?0555 0001 March 25, 1997

'%+. ...

Dr. Gerald E. Tripard, Director Nuclear Radiation Center Washington State University Pullman, Washington 99164

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (TAC NO. M79607)

Dear Dr. tripard:

We are continuing our review of your request to make changes to the Washington State University TRIGA Research Reactor Technical Specifications which you submitted on September 25, 1995, and supplemented on January 8, 1996, and February 23, 1996. During our review of ycur request, questions have arisen for-which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information, within 60 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of your request.

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

If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at j (301) 415-1128.  ;

Sincerely, l

% h ~.wsc/cwc___ )

1 Marvin M. Mendonca, Senior Project Manager j Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning i Project Directorate i Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-27

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure:

See next page

, Y .j

. i

. .1 1

-Washington State University Docket No. 50-27 l j

)

i cc: i l

State Planning Division I

- Office of Financial Management -

Room 105, House Office Building Olympia, Washington 98504 i

l 1

l i

i 1

l i

,. V REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTOR DOCKET N0. 50-27

1. Provide a list of the physical modifications and associated changes that could be made under the provisions of the current license. For these changes, provide the rationale and verification of the benefit of the associated Technical Specification (TS) changes to gain additional l experience for future operation of the facility. The changes should  ;

allow the testing and operation of the facilities so that additional experience can be gained to the maximum extent possible. Alternatively, delete the proposed TS changes that can be done under the provisions of the current license.

2. The proposed TS changes are oriented toward the use of the facility for medical therapy in the future. Since medical therapy is not being requested at this time, provide TS changes that do not include provisions for medical therapy. For examples, i

a. the applicability and objective sections would need to be changed to eliminate the medical therapy provisions.

b. specifications that deal solely with medical therapy should be deleted (e.g., TS 3.15.(1), 3.15.(2), 3.15.(11), 3.15.(16)(b)(ii) and 3.15. (18), and parts of other TSs) .

c. references to patients, human therapy, human patients, patient visualization, patient irradiation, physicians and authorized users etc. should be deleted or changed to be consistent with the provisions that no medical therapy is allowed or to be conducted.

3. Some of the provisions specified in the TS (e.g., (8) and (11)) refer to definitions that are later in the TS. Provide clarification to ensure understanding of the application of the definitions and terms.

4. Provide a description of the independence and redundancy of the reactor scram and bridge movement functions related to the treatment room shield door opening in TS 3.15.(3)(b).

5. For manual movement of the bridge in accordance with TS 3.15.(5)(d),

provide verification and analyses that

a. this is in addition to the automatic movement and can not interfere with the automatic function, and

b. the speed of the manual movement provides an acceptable backup to the automatic function.

,. \a'. '

l

'a l 4

i l

6. Provide description of indication of reactor condition (e.g., criticality i and power) in and around the facility for the medical therapy facility. i Provide verification that these functions can be monitored from and 1 around the medical therapy facility.

7. The proposed TS 3.15.(10) discusses cameras but does not discuss monitors or the fact that the emergency lighting provides backup to normal lighting. Provide verification of the monitors that are required for visualization of the treatment room and the backup function of the emergency lighting.

8. TS 3.15.(14)(d) should be clarified to establish if the reduction in dose includes consideration of bridge movement or not.

9. TS 3.15.(16)(c) specifies " closures." This term should be made consistent with other definitions in the TS (e.g., scrams or shutdowns).

10. The bases discuss a viewing window which should also be specified in TS as an alternate observation point.

11. Although not germane for the current changes because medical therapy is not requested or allowed, when medical therapy is to be requested, you should consider providing:

).

a. provisions for authorized use and medical use through the agreement state.

b. clarification of _" medical use licensee" terminology specifying the  !

requirement or definition (e.g., certified medical physicist or physician authorized user).

c. a more detailed description of the medical therapy facility.

d. the Quality Management Program.

l i

,