ML14192A201

Texas Engineering Experiment Station/Texas A&M University System - Request for Additional Information Review of the Fuel Pool Temperature on Fuel Temperature for License Renewal for the NSC Triga Reactor

ML14192A201
Person / Time
Site:	05000128
Issue date:	07/15/2014
From:	Wertz G A Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch
To:	McDeavitt S Texas A&M Univ
Wertz G A
References
TAC ME1584
Download: ML14192A201 (5)

Text

July 15, 2014

Dr. Sean McDeavitt, Director

Nuclear Science Center

Texas Engineering Experiment Station 1095 Nuclear Science Road MS 3575 College Station, TX 77843

SUBJECT:

TEXAS ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION/TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RE: REVIEW OF THE FUEL POOL TEMPERATURE ON FUEL TEMPERATURE FOR THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE NUCLEAR SCIENCE CENTER TRIGA REACTOR (TAC NO. ME1584)

Dear Dr. McDeavitt:

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is continuing its review of your application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-83, dated February 27, 2003 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML102920025), as supplemented, for the Texas Engineering Experim ent Station/Texas A&M University System (TEES/TAMUS), Nuclear Science Center (NSC), TRIGA reactor. The license renewal review included an NRC staff review of your responses to our request for additional information (RAI) by letter dated August 31, 2010 (a redacted version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML102650318). We require additional information and clarification on the supporting analysis

provided in your response to RAI No. 1. Provide responses to the enclosed RAI within 30 days from the date of this letter.

In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.30(b), you must execute your response in a signed original document under oath or affirmation. Your response must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4, "Written communications."

Information included in your response that is considered sensitive or proprietary, that you seek to have withheld from the public, must be marked in accordance with 10 CFR 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding." Any information related to security should be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21, "Protection of Safeguards Information:

Performance requirements." Following receipt of the additional information, we will continue our evaluation of your renewal request.

S. McDeavitt If you have any questions or need additional time to respond to this request, contact me at (301) 415-0893 or by electronic mail at Geoffrey.Wertz@nrc.gov.

Sincerely,

/RA/ Geoffrey A. Wertz, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket No. 50-128 License No. R-83

Enclosure:

RAI cc: See next page

ML14192A201; *concurrence via email NRR-088

Texas A&M University Docket No. 50-128 cc:

Mayor, City of College Station P.O. Box Drawer 9960 College Station, TX 77840-3575

Governor's Budget and Planning Office P.O. Box 13561 Austin, TX 78711

Texas A&M University System ATTN: Dr. Dimitris C. Lagoudas Deputy Director Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station 241 Zachry Engineering Center 3577 TAMU College Station, TX 77843

ATTN: Jerry Newhouse Assistant Director

Nuclear Science Center Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station 1095 Nuclear Science Road MS 355 College Station, Texas 77843

Greg Stasny Manager, Reactor Operations Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station 1095 Nuclear Science Road MS 3575 College Station, Texas 77843 Radiation Program Officer Bureau of Radiation Control Dept. Of State Health Services

Division for Regulatory Services 1100 West 49 th Street, MC 2828 Austin, TX 78756-3189 Technical Advisor

Office of Permitting, Remediation &

Registration Texas Commission on Environmental Quality P.O. Box 13087, MS 122 Austin, TX 78711-3087

State Energy Conservation Office Comptroller of Public Accounts P.O. Box 13528 Austin, TX 78711-3528

Test, Research and Training Reactor Newsletter 202 Nuclear Sciences Center University of Florida

Gainesville, FL 32611

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE TEXAS ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT STATION/TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY SYSTEM NUCLEAR SCIENCE CENTER TRIGA REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-83; DOCKET NO. 50-128 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is continuing its review of your application for the renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-83, dated February 27, 2003 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML102920025), as supplemented, for the Texas Engineering Experim ent Station/Texas A&M University System (TEES/TAMUS), Nuclear Science Center (NSC), TRIGA reactor. The license renewal review included an NRC staff review of your responses to our request for additional information (RAI) by letter dated August 31, 2010 (a redacted version is available under ADAMS Accession No. ML102650318). The RAIs below reference the analysis provided in your response to RAI No. 1, entitled, "Evaluation of Pool Temperature on Fuel Temperature and MDNBR [Minimum Departure from Nucleate Boiling Ratio Minimum Departure] for the NSC TRIGA Reactor," by Jesse Johns, dated August 4, 2010. Provide responses to the RAI within 30 days from the date of this letter [indicates page number of August 31, 2010, report].

1. The values provided for the departure from nuclear boiling ratio (DNBR) at pool coolant inlet temperatures of 30 degrees centigrade (C) and 60 degrees C were stated as 3.12 and 2.24, respectively. The methodology and calculations for the DNBR were not clearly stated or provided in the analysis. Provide the methodology and calculations for the DNBR values of 3.12 and 2.24. [page 11]

2. The discrepancy in the results of the DNBR calculated by General Atomics (GA), 2.42, and by TAMUS, 3.12, were left as "unresolved." Explain. [page 11]

3. The error between the results of the DNBR calculated by GA, 2.42, and by TAMUS, 3.12, was 29 percent. This error was subsequently applied to the DNBR calculated by TAMUS at 60 degrees C, and resulted in a DNBR of 1.59. Explain the acceptability of applying this error to the DNBR calculation. [page 11]

4. The analysis stated that if a linear relationship was assumed for the decrease in the DNBR from the 30 degrees C and 60 degrees C calculations (resulting in a change of 0.88) and was applied to GA's calculated DNBR, the resulting DNBR would be 1.54. Explain the acceptability of the linear relationship in calculating the DNBR of 1.54. [page 11]

Enclosure