ML20236J116
| ML20236J116 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Reed College |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1998 |
| From: | Frantz S REED COLLEGE, PORTLAND, OR |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236J120 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9807080055 | |
| Download: ML20236J116 (4) | |
Text
. _ _
REED COLLEGE Portland, Oregon 97202 l ,
! asacroa rAcu.rry J
July 2,1998 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk j Washington, DC 20555 Docket: 50-288 Ih: R-112
Subject:
Request forTechnical Specification Amendment l
The Reed Reactor Facility hereby requests an amendment to its Technical Specification. 'Ihe amendment would make the following changes:
I
- 1. Define allowable surveillance intervals.
l
' 2. Reduce the frequency of fuel inspection to 1/5 of core every two years; the entire core over j a ten yearperiod.
- 3. Allow for use of stainless steel clad control rods.
- 4. Allow for use of any gamma sensitive dose-rate meter to replace RAM when necessary (not just a portableion chamber).
- 5. Conect " microhm" to "micromho" and renxwe gender-specific language.
Thejustification for the requested changes is as follows:
l
- 1. The allowable surveillance intervals are taken from ANSI 15.1 for research reactor technical specifications and are standard in the research reactor community. Our technical specification simply never defined them before.
- 2. Reducing the frequency of fuel inspection to 1/5 of core every two years and the entire core j/,
over a ten year period will reduce the likelihood of an accident while handling the fuel and
'/
will reduce damage to the fuel during inspection. Experience throughout the research reactor community has not shown that inspecting the fuel rods has allowed a facility to ,yc identify a faulty fuel element prior to its leaking. 'Ihe Reed reactor is a low use facility bD~ J having no pulsing capability and averaging less than ten hours of operating time per week l l
3203 SE hadsonek RIwl Parola d no a r,n, oso9 Tel. (503)777 7222 Fa*(503)777 7274 rex 4 reed.edu 9807000055 990702 ft.
with a maximum power level of 250 kW. Any damage done to f ue elements is undoubtedly the inspection process itself. Inspecting all the elem n year period sh,ould allow time to identify major problems que. that can be found
- 3. Stainless steel clad contml rods are our ageused and power.at other T We have received three spare stainless steel clad contml rods fm e Westinghouse TRIGA and may want to use them if our contml rods need replac ement. Using stainless steel clad control rods will increase the personnel dose during cont pection (due to Co-60), so additional health physics concerns procedure. will be addressed e inspection
- 4. Allowing for use of any gamma sensitive dose-rate meter to repla (RAM) when necessary provides more flexibility and equal protce Ra gamma sensitive ion chamber. Technology has changed over the y energy compensated GM tube is already installed. an additional
- 5. editorial Correcting changes.
" microhm" to "micromho" and removing gender-spec anguage are simply Sincerely,
/
p~bY
[
Stephen Frantz Dutctor, Reed College Reactor Page 2
- - '- Reed Reactor Facility 10CFR50.59 Review
. Thle: Technical Specification Amendment Sununary ofPronosed Change:
1 Define allowable surveillance intervals. Reduced the frequency of fuel inspection to 1/5
- of core every two years; the entire core over a ten year period. Allow for use of stainless steel clad control rods. Allow for use of any gamma sensitive dose-rate meter to replace RAM when necessary (not just a portable ion chamber). Correct "miemhm" to "micromho". Remove gender-specific language.
Lht of SneciRe Sections of Facility Documents Related to the Proonsed Change:
Technical Specification A.7, D.2, D.3, F.1, G.1, I.1, and J.1 i
Detennination of Aoolicability of 10CFR5039 to Provosed Change:
Part 1: Does the Proposed change involve a change in the license including the incorporated TechnicalSpecifications? X.nsfNo Part 2: Does the proposed change constitute an unreviewed sqfety question; specifically, a) Does the change increase the probability ofoccurrence or consequences ofan accident or malfunction of equipment important to sqfety? Yes/5.g The allowable surveillance intervals are taken fmm' ANSI 15.1 for research reactor technical specifications and are standard in the rescaich reactor community. Our technical specification simply never defined them before.
Reducing the frequency of fuel inspection to 1/5 of cose every two years and the entire core over a ten year period will redum the likelihood of an accident while handling the fuel and will reduce damage to the fuel during inspection.
Experience throughout the research reactor community has not shown that inspecting the fuel rods has allowed a facility to identify a faulty fuel element prior to its leaking. The Reed reactor is a low use facihty having no pulsing capability and averaging less than ten hours of operating time per week with a maximum power level of 250 kW. The major damage done to fuel elements is undoubtedly the inspection process itself. Inspecting all the elements over a ten
_ year period should allow time to identify major problems that can be found with this technique.
Stainless steel clad control rods are used at other TRIGA Reactors of our age and power. We have received three spare stainless steel clad contml rods from the Westinghouse TRIGA and may want to use them if our control rods need replacement. Using stainless steel clad control rods willincrease the personnel dose during contml rod inspection (due to Co-60), so additional health physics concems must be addressed in the SOP.
L_-
s
) ,
" ' .., Allowing for use of any gamma sensitive dose-rate meter to replace RAM when necessary provides more flexibility and equal protection to using a portable gamma sensitive ion chamber. Technology has changed over the years and a spam energy compensated GM tube is aheady installed.
Correcting microhm to micromho and cleaning up gender-specific language will not increase the probability of occurrence or consequences of an accident.
b) Does the change create thepossibilityfor an accident or malfunction ofa dgerent type than evaluatedpreviously? Yes/Nn See comments under a).
c) Does the change reduce the margin ofsafety as defined in the basisfor any technicalspecifications? Yes/N.a See comments under a).
Submitted by Nb M- Date d'YN
.(( f Approved by Au, .
s Date 7,/2,/'7 #
l L