ML20149H605

Advises That Application for High Enriched U to Low Enriched U Conversion & Change in Operability Power Should Be Handled as Two Step Process.Response to Encl Questions Re Application Should Be Submitted in 30 Days

ML20149H605
Person / Time
Site:	Ohio State University
Issue date:	02/16/1988
From:	Michaels T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Redmond R OHIO STATE UNIV., COLUMBUS, OH
References
NUDOCS 8802220019
Download: ML20149H605 (6)

Text

__ __ ________

February 16, 1988 Docket No. 50-150 Dr. Robert F. Redmond Executive Director Engineering Experiment Station Ohio State University 142 Hitchcock Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210

SUBJECT:

QUESTIONS REGARDING HEU/ led CONVERSION AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY We have reviewed the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the Ohio State University Research Reactor submitted by your letter of October 7,1987, and have decided that your application for HEU to LEU conversion and f change in operating power should be handled as a two step process. The i first step will be a review of your HEU to LEU conversion and issuance of

{ an order to convert with a license amendment. The second step will be a review of your preposed change in operating power and issuance of a license amendment.

I Enclosed is a set of questions which apply to the HE') to LEU conversion.

I Pleasc respond to these questions within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 492-1102.

Sincerely, original signed by Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate l

Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, Y and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i

Enclosure:

As stated DISTRIBUTION:

Docket m e EJordan NRC & Local PDRs JPartlow FDSNP Reading OGC-White Flint EHylton ACRS (10)

TMichaels LRubenstein j PDShP PDSNFf- 70 EHylte T}1ic' E LRu ein 00/ i*

'" ' % < 02///,

v a6 g 22;og n aogg;;o P

1. 'o UNITED STATES

~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[; 3 g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 y

%,,,,, February 16, 1988 Docket No. 50-150 Dr. Robert F. Redmond Executive Director Engineering Experiment Station Ohio State University 142 Hitchcock Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210

SUBJECT:

QUESTIONS REGARDING HEU/ LEU CONVERSION AT OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY We have reviewed the Safety Analysis Report (SAR) for the Ohio State University Research Reactor submitted by your letter of October 7, 1987.

and have decided that your application for HEU to LEU conversion and change in operating power should be handled as a two step process. The first step will be a review of your HEU to LEU conversion and issuai,ce of an order to convert with a license amendment. The second step will be a review of your proposed change in operating power and issuance of a license amendtrent.

Enclosed is a set of ouestions which apply to the HEU to LEU conversion.

Please respond to these questions within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please call me at (301) 492-1102.

Sincerely, M 5b w Theodore S. liichaels, Prc,< Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects III, IV, '

V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As stated CC: See next page

Ohio State University Docket No. 50-150 cc: Ohio Department of Health ATTN: Raa'iological Health Program Director P. O. Box 118 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Planning Environmental Assessment Section P. O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216 Mr. Richard D. Myser Reactor Operations Manager Engineering Experiment Station Ohio State University 142 Hitchcock Hall Columbus, Ohio 43210 4

l l

b 4

HEU LEU QUISTIONS OHIO STATE (1) During the conversion from HEU to LEU is there a time period when the fuel inventory of both cores will be at ths OSURR7 If So:

(a) Have the fuel storage facilities at OSURR been analyzed for safe storage for criticality concerns?

(b) Is the total fuel inventory of both cores allowed by the current OSURR license?

(2) What facility hardware modifications are being made for the LEU core

, i.e., core support, control rods, control rod drives, experiment -

facilities, or any other hardware changes necessary to accommodate the new core.

(3) What chtnges are being made in the instrumentation system for the LEU core? Is there new instrumentation not previously discussed in the HEU SAR?

(4) Page 1 It is suggested that you refer to the fuel enrichkent as "less than 20%', which qualifies it as LEU fuel, concwhere early in your discussion. It is further suggested that when you refer to the actual enrichment, you precede the .inrichment value with the woed nominal i.e., "cnriched to a nominal 19.5%."

i 4

i (5) Page 25 I

\

The developer of the fuel is mentioned. Please give specific l

references to publications you have used to support your analysis throughout this SAR. {

(6) Page 31 Partial fuel elements are mentioned. Are these all fabricated as partial elements or is it planned that plates are removable (or additive)bytheLicensee. A picture or drawing of a fuel assembly is requested.

(7) Page 95 It is indicated that a single standard fuel element contains eight

~

fueled plates. Please explain. ,

. i (8) P. age 105 Please furnish a reference for the VIM code.

(9) Page 106 Section 4.5 i

,, (a) In paragraph 2 you discuss the temperature coefficient of reactivity but do not distinguish between fuel-related and ,

moderator-related coefficients. Please discuss.

1 I

(b) In paragraph 3 you mention the THOR reactor, without providing a i'

description, or even a reference.

Please discuss the relevance o? the TH0R reactor to the OSURR.

1 l

w

l

. .  : l (10) Page 156 In Section 6.4 please refer explicitly to your agreement with DOE to accept irradiated LEU 3 U Si 2 Al fuel elements. What are the details of this agreement?

(11) What are your calculated maximum, axial,and radial thermal flux

. peaking factors? What are your calculated maximum, axial,and radial power peaking factors?

(12) For the Reactivity Insertion Accident:

(a) Is the 0.7% Ak/k step reactivity insertion the same as analyzed for the HEU core?

. (b) Please compare the consequence parameters for the HEU analysis -

and LEU analysis, i.e., peak power, energy release, maximum fuel, clad, and moderate temperature, and, if applicable, any fission product release.

(c) On page 108 you discuss the measured reactivity effects of different beam port configurations for the HEU core. What are these effects for the LEU core?

l (d) On page 200 you discuss the reactivity effects of flooding l either of the beam ports or the rabbit (0.5% Ak/k each) for l

. the HEU core. What do ycu estimate this effect is for the LEU core?

~

(c) What is the estimated reactivity effect of voiding the Central Irradiation Position?

2 1