ML092040407: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
=Text= | =Text= | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:July 28, 2009 Dr. Kenan Unlu, Director Radiation Science and Engineering Center | {{#Wiki_filter:July 28, 2009 Dr. Kenan Unlu, Director Radiation Science and Engineering Center Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-2301 | ||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534) | PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534) | ||
==Dear Dr. Unlu:== | ==Dear Dr. Unlu:== | ||
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. | The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. | ||
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov. | |||
Sincerely, | |||
/RA/ | |||
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-005 | |||
==Enclosure:== | |||
As stated cc w/enclosure: See next page | |||
Pennsylvania State University Docket No. 50-005 cc: | |||
Mr. Eric J. Boeldt, Manager of Radiation Protection The Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504 Dr. Eva J. Pell Vice President and Dean of the Graduate School Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504 Director, Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 | |||
July 28, 2009 Dr. Kenan Unlu, Director Radiation Science and Engineering Center (RSEC) | |||
Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-2301 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534) | PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534) | ||
==Dear Dr. Unlu:== | ==Dear Dr. Unlu:== | ||
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. | The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation. | ||
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov. | If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov. | ||
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager | Sincerely, | ||
/RA/ | |||
Docket No. 50-005 | William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-005 | ||
==Enclosure:== | ==Enclosure:== | ||
As stated | As stated cc w/enclosure: See next page DISTRIBUTION: | ||
PUBLIC DPR/PRT r/f RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPrta RidsNrrDprPrtb WKennedy, NRR Glappert, NRR ACCESSION NO.:ML092040407 Office PRTA:PM PGCB:LA PRTA:BC PRTA:PM Name WKennedy CHawes KBrock WKennedy Date 7/27/09 7/27/09 7/28/09 7/28/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY | |||
cc w/enclosure: | |||
ACCESSION NO.:ML092040407 Office PRTA:PM PGCB:LA PRTA:BC PRTA:PM Name WKennedy CHawes | |||
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY BREAZEALE NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-2 DOCKET NO. 50-005 | |||
: 1. Provide clarification as to whether the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 accounts for the power peaking effects caused by vacant core positions (i.e., water holes). Additionally, provide a discussion of requirements in the technical specifications (TS) that ensure the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 is conservative for any allowed core configuration. 2. The table at the top of page 22 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, shows that the maximum deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures was 13.2 percent for element I-13 located in core position G-8. A discussion of the deviation applied to steady-state fuel temperatures follows the table. | : 1. Provide clarification as to whether the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 accounts for the power peaking effects caused by vacant core positions (i.e., water holes). Additionally, provide a discussion of requirements in the technical specifications (TS) that ensure the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 is conservative for any allowed core configuration. | ||
Provide a similar discussion of the deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures as it applies to maximum fuel temperature during a pulse. Explain any uncertainties in the calculation and measurement of the maximum pulse fuel temperature. Explain how the uncertainties are treated to ensure that the maximum pulse fuel temperature will not exceed the safety limit for any core configuration allowed by the TS. 3. Your application describes qualified locations within the reactor pool for operation of the reactor. Page 7 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, states: | : 2. The table at the top of page 22 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, shows that the maximum deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures was 13.2 percent for element I-13 located in core position G-8. A discussion of the deviation applied to steady-state fuel temperatures follows the table. | ||
Provide clarification as to whether the qualification of a new operating location requires an evaluation, consistent with the criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.59(c), to determine that the new operating location does not require a license amendment. 4. TS 5.1.b requires that the hydrogen-to-zirconium atom ratio shall be a nominal 1.65 hydrogen atoms to 1.0 zirconium atoms. Section 4.2.1 of the safety analysis report states that this ratio is 1.7 to 1.0 for 8.5 weight percent fuel elements. Clarify this apparent discrepancy. Additionally, provide a discussion of any controls in place that ensure TS 5.1.b is satisfied for new fuel received at the facility (e.g., review of vendor quality assurance documentation). | Provide a similar discussion of the deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures as it applies to maximum fuel temperature during a pulse. Explain any uncertainties in the calculation and measurement of the maximum pulse fuel temperature. Explain how the uncertainties are treated to ensure that the maximum pulse fuel temperature will not exceed the safety limit for any core configuration allowed by the TS. | ||
: 5. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(a)(1), provide bases for proposed TS 5.1 through 5.6. Your response should include the proposed TS for license renewal (Sections 1-6) in their entirety.}} | : 3. Your application describes qualified locations within the reactor pool for operation of the reactor. Page 7 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, states: | ||
Qualification of a new operating location is governed by operating procedures. | |||
New locations are analyzed for reactivity coupling effects in addition to stresses and radiation effects. | |||
Provide clarification as to whether the qualification of a new operating location requires an evaluation, consistent with the criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.59(c), to determine that the new operating location does not require a license amendment. | |||
: 4. TS 5.1.b requires that the hydrogen-to-zirconium atom ratio shall be a nominal 1.65 hydrogen atoms to 1.0 zirconium atoms. Section 4.2.1 of the safety analysis report states that this ratio is 1.7 to 1.0 for 8.5 weight percent fuel elements. Clarify this apparent discrepancy. Additionally, provide a discussion of any controls in place that ensure TS 5.1.b is satisfied for new fuel received at the facility (e.g., review of vendor quality assurance documentation). | |||
: 5. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(a)(1), provide bases for proposed TS 5.1 through 5.6. | |||
Your response should include the proposed TS for license renewal (Sections 1-6) in their entirety. | |||
Enclosure}} | |||
Latest revision as of 03:57, 14 November 2019
| ML092040407 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Pennsylvania State University |
| Issue date: | 07/28/2009 |
| From: | William Kennedy Research and Test Reactors Licensing Branch |
| To: | Unlu K Pennsylvania State Univ |
| Kennedy W, NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRT, 415-2784 | |
| References | |
| TAC MC9534 | |
| Download: ML092040407 (4) | |
Text
July 28, 2009 Dr. Kenan Unlu, Director Radiation Science and Engineering Center Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-2301
SUBJECT:
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534)
Dear Dr. Unlu:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-005
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure: See next page
Pennsylvania State University Docket No.50-005 cc:
Mr. Eric J. Boeldt, Manager of Radiation Protection The Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504 Dr. Eva J. Pell Vice President and Dean of the Graduate School Pennsylvania State University 304 Old Main University Park, PA 16802-1504 Director, Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection P.O. Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105-8469 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter University of Florida 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611
July 28, 2009 Dr. Kenan Unlu, Director Radiation Science and Engineering Center (RSEC)
Breazeale Nuclear Reactor University Park, PA 16802-2301
SUBJECT:
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE PENN STATE BREAZEALE REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9534)
Dear Dr. Unlu:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is continuing the review of your application for renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-2 for the Pennsylvania State University Penn State Breazeale Reactor dated December 6, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated October 31, 2008, and April 2, and June 11, 2009. During our review, questions have arisen for which we require additional information and clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed requests for additional information no later than August 28, 2009. In accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 50.30(b), your response must be executed in a signed original under oath or affirmation.
If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-2784 or by electronic mail at William.Kennedy@nrc.gov.
Sincerely,
/RA/
William B. Kennedy, Project Manager Research and Test Reactors Branch A Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No.50-005
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
PUBLIC DPR/PRT r/f RidsNrrDpr RidsNrrDprPrta RidsNrrDprPrtb WKennedy, NRR Glappert, NRR ACCESSION NO.:ML092040407 Office PRTA:PM PGCB:LA PRTA:BC PRTA:PM Name WKennedy CHawes KBrock WKennedy Date 7/27/09 7/27/09 7/28/09 7/28/09 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY BREAZEALE NUCLEAR REACTOR LICENSE NO. R-2 DOCKET NO.50-005
- 1. Provide clarification as to whether the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 accounts for the power peaking effects caused by vacant core positions (i.e., water holes). Additionally, provide a discussion of requirements in the technical specifications (TS) that ensure the peak-to-measured pulse fuel temperature ratio of 1.6 is conservative for any allowed core configuration.
- 2. The table at the top of page 22 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, shows that the maximum deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures was 13.2 percent for element I-13 located in core position G-8. A discussion of the deviation applied to steady-state fuel temperatures follows the table.
Provide a similar discussion of the deviation between the measured and calculated pulse fuel temperatures as it applies to maximum fuel temperature during a pulse. Explain any uncertainties in the calculation and measurement of the maximum pulse fuel temperature. Explain how the uncertainties are treated to ensure that the maximum pulse fuel temperature will not exceed the safety limit for any core configuration allowed by the TS.
- 3. Your application describes qualified locations within the reactor pool for operation of the reactor. Page 7 of the supplement to your application dated October 31, 2008, states:
Qualification of a new operating location is governed by operating procedures.
New locations are analyzed for reactivity coupling effects in addition to stresses and radiation effects.
Provide clarification as to whether the qualification of a new operating location requires an evaluation, consistent with the criteria of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.59(c), to determine that the new operating location does not require a license amendment.
- 4. TS 5.1.b requires that the hydrogen-to-zirconium atom ratio shall be a nominal 1.65 hydrogen atoms to 1.0 zirconium atoms. Section 4.2.1 of the safety analysis report states that this ratio is 1.7 to 1.0 for 8.5 weight percent fuel elements. Clarify this apparent discrepancy. Additionally, provide a discussion of any controls in place that ensure TS 5.1.b is satisfied for new fuel received at the facility (e.g., review of vendor quality assurance documentation).
- 5. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.36(a)(1), provide bases for proposed TS 5.1 through 5.6.
Your response should include the proposed TS for license renewal (Sections 1-6) in their entirety.
Enclosure