ML20247C203

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Application for Renewal of License R-52

ML20247C203
Person / Time
Site:	05000113
Issue date:	05/16/1989
From:	Michaels T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Nelson G ARIZONA, UNIV. OF, TUCSON, AZ
References
NUDOCS 8905240369
Download: ML20247C203 (5)

Text

- _ _ _ _ - . _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ - =_

j t.' .

May 16, 1989 Docket No. 50-113 I

.]

SDr.GeorgeW. Nelson, Director 2 Nuclear Reactor Laboratory University of Arizon-Tucson, Arizona 857/1 l

Dear Dr. Nelson:

l '

SUBJECT:

REQUEFT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We are continuir.g our review of documentation that has been submitted in support of your application for renewal of the operating license for your reactor facility. An additional review was performed during our visit to your facility on May 2 and 3, 1989. During these reviews, several questions have arisen for which we require answers. You are requested to provide written responses to-the enclosed questions no later than June 19, 1989. Following receipt of this information we will continue our review.

If you.have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 492-1102.

Sincerely,

/s/

Theodore S. Michaels, Project 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 w/ enclosure:

'See next page DISTRIBUTION:

Docket File 4 30 NRC & Ll6calTPDRs

$ g PDSNP R/F to o EHylton 88

'*O

.TMichaels EJordan ox BGrimes

$o OGC-Rockville 9

$@ ACRS (10)' /

ca

(

Scr (LTR TO DR. GEORGE NELSON) I l So L PhSNP D:PDSNP M PM:PDSNPh.

CMiller[A

. pon TMichaels:cw .

L .05//J/89 05/4/89 Y ____ 05/ D/89_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ __ _ _ = - _ . _ _ _ _

'. UNITED STATES

/  %,

y )w . g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 yi .

'4 j May 16, 1989

( .J.... /

Docket No. 50-113 Dr. George !!. Nelson, Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona 85721

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION We are continuing our review of documentation that has been submitted in support of your application for renewal of the operating license for your reactor facility. An additional review was performed during our visit to your facility on May 2 and 3, 1989. During these reviews, several questions have arisen for which we require answers. You are requested to provide written responses to the enclosed questions no later than June 19, 1989. Following receipt of this information we will continue our review.

If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact me at 492-1102.

Sincerely, whI Theodore S. Michaels, Project Manager Standardization and Non-Power Reactor Project Directorate Division of Reactor Projects - III, IV, l

l V and Special Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

l As st6ted l cc w/ enclosure:

See nta t page l

l l

N

, c i

' University of Arizona-

~

Docket No. 50-113 i

cc: ' Office of the Mayor

.P. O. Box 27210 Tucson, Arizona 85726-7210 l Arizona. Radiation Regulatory Ageracy 4814 S. 40 Street-Phoenix, Arizona 85040

__.____ _m_.__ __.___.___.__________z_ _ _ ____m.____ ___ _ _ _ . .. . _ _ __ __

4 ENCLOSURE l

University of Arizona Questions for License Renewal

1. How close is the nearest residence to the reactor and where is it located?

2. Is there any heavy industry in the vicinity of the University of Arizona campus and if so, where is it located? How far is Interstate 10, Southern Pacific and AMTRAK from the reactor?

3. The hydrology section, Section D, pg. 7, should contain information that  ;

quantifies the flood potential at the site. For example, provide the maximum historic flood elevation of nearby streams and compare them to the elevation of the site. Provide judgements as to whether or not there is any potentihl to flood the site and reactor building or other safety related equipment, then discuss the effects of flooding such as the concentration of radionuclides at the secure boundary and how they compare to 10 CFR Part 20 limits.

4. Submit justification for a power increase that would permit reactor trip testing and power level setpoint calibration consistent with operation at a power level of 100 Kw.

5. What is the maximum allowed core excess reactivity in the Technical Specifications?

6. Are there credible paths for reactor pool water to get into the campus water or the sewer system? If so, please assess the radiological consequences.

7. Please discuss the operation of the HVAC systems serving the reactor laboratory, including at least the following:

~

(a) The air flow rates into and out of the laboratory for both normal and abnormal reactor operation, including accident scenarios.

(b) How it is ensured that airborne radioactivity cannot enter the HVAC system of the rest of the engineering building under any conditions of either the HVAC system and the reactor and its special ventilation systems.

(c) How air flow from the reactor laboratory to adjacent regions of the Engineering Building is prevented during reactor operations.

8. Please provide a description of the ALARA program at the University of Arizona reactor facility. Also a definite ALARA statement signed by high University officials is necessary.

9. Assuming zero escape of the AR-41 from the pool water in your analysis is nonconservative, assume a conservative and defendable release fraction and recalculate dose rates in the restricted and unrestricted areas.

10. What is the predicted AR 41 exposure to the nearest residence?

l i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ . _

.. i

10. In Table 4.1 of the Environmental Impact Appreisal:

(a) In'1983-84 one person received a total dose in the range 101-500 mR.

What was the source of this radiation?

(b) Please provide the information requested in the Table in 10 CFR 20.407 for the years 1984, 85, 86, 87 and 1988.

11. What is the natural background radiation level in the University of Arizona area?

12. The NRC position, on the basis of the Columbia University hearings, is that the maximum hypothetical accident for a TRIGA is the instantaneous failure in air and consequent release into the reactor room air of all the fission products in the fuel element gap, containing the highest power density, immediately following operation at the maximum authorized power level of sufficient length for all these fission products to reach their saturated activity levels. Assuming this scenario and using defendable conservative techniques:

(a) Calculate the Whole-body Imersion Dose and the Thyroid Committed Dose in the restricted area over a time span sufficient to evacuate this restricted area (1 to 5 min); and (b) Calculate the same doses for the public exposure immediately outside the restricted area over a time span sufficient to evacuate this area (1 to 2 hr).

13. Assuming an instantaneous loss of vessel water:

(a) What is maximum fuel temperature?

(b) What is resultant dose rate, i.e., what would Table 7.1 values be at 10 sec.?

14. Page 11, last paragraph Give details of the histcry of the used stainless-clad elements. When were they new, where were they used, how were they used -pulses, steady-state power level, any history of failures from among the " lot?"

15. Please resubmit page 50 of your SAR so that the last line reads "at a maximum of 110 kilowatts."

16. Resubmit your Technical Specifications to include the changes agreed upon during our meeting of May 3, 1989.

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - -