ML12201A070

Purdue University - Request for Additional Information Regarding the Purdue University Reactor License Renewal, Response to RAI

ML12201A070
Person / Time
Site:	Purdue University
Issue date:	07/13/2012
From:	Jenkins J H Purdue University
To:	Montgomery C K Document Control Desk, Division of Policy and Rulemaking
References
TAC ME1594
Download: ML12201A070 (4)

Text

PURDUEU K I V E R S I T Y SCHOOL OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING13 July 2012Document Control DeskUS Nuclear Regulatory CommissionOne White Flint North11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852Attn: Ms. Cindy Montgomery, Research & Test Reactors (NRR/DPR/PRLB), Mailstop 012 D20SUBJECT: PURDUE UNIVERSITY -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONREGARDING THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. ME1594), RESPONSES TO RAIs (ML1 03400115 and ML1 03400250)Dear Ms. Montgomery:Enclosed please find the responses to the Request for Additional Information regarding thePurdue University Reactor License Renewal dated 6 July 2011. Included with this submissionare responses to questions 49, 50, 53, 64, and 72. Should you have any questions or requirefurther information, please don't hesitate to call me at 765.496.3573, or e-mail atjere@purdue.edu.I hereby certify under penalty of perjury with my signature below that the information containedin this submission is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.or of Radiation LaboratoriesAttachments: As described.Cc: Duane Hardesty, USNRC Project Manager for PUR-1Leah Jamieson; Purdue University College of EngineeringJim Schweitzer, Purdue University REM, CORO ChairAhmed Hassanein, Purdue NE'~ Schoolo Nuc lear EnergBideingScol fNuclear Engineering Building

• 400 Central Drive. West Lafayette, IN 47907-2017(765) 494-5739

• Fax: (765) 494-9570

• https://engineering.purdue.edu/NE PUR-1: Partial Response to RAIs for license renewal (ML103400115 and ML103400250)REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO RAIsREGARDING THE PURDUE UNIVERSITY REACTOR LICENSE RENEWAL (TAC NO. ME 1594)49 SAR Section 2.3.2 indicates that buildings at Purdue are designed to withstand the wind loadof 17 pounds per square foot from the data indicating a maximum wind zone of 80 miles perhour. Please provide an evaluation of a safety analysis that indicates the safety margin of theDuncan Annex wind load rating relative to the maximum wind load.Response:The information provided in the SAR as submitted was transferred from the 1988 SAR approved by theNRC. Further investigation and discussions with Purdue Facilities engineers yielded the followinginformation.1. Per the original drawings, the design roof live load was 30 PSF. The design wind load was notstated, however, 20 PSF would be a reasonable assumption. The drawings are dated 1940. The1927 UBC (uniform building code) required a 20 PSF wind load.2. Historically, the design wind speed for this area had been 80 mph. Referencing the 1982 UBC,wind stagnation pressure at 30' was 17 PSF for 80 mph wind, and 21 PSF for 90 mph wind. Thispressure is then modified by other factors including importance factor (type of facility), exposurefactor (surrounding physical obstructions), Topographic factor (surrounding topography). Also,wind pressures are higher at edges and corners, and increase with elevation. Historically, auniform snow load of 30 PSF was used for this area.3. Currently, ASCE 7 is referenced by 2006 IBC as amended by 2008 Indiana Building Code as thestandard for structural loads for buildings including snow and wind. Design wind speed for thisarea is now 90 mph, and ground snow load for this area now is 20 PSF, which is then modifiedfor other factors including importance, exposure, thermal, and drift.4. These loads and the corresponding design would typically have a factor of safety above 1.5, butthe safety factors will vary depending on the type of member (roof, wall, etc.) and material underconsideration. In other words, the structure could sustain loads 1.5 times the design loads (this isconservative) and not fail.Based on the fact that the Duncan Annex building was originally designed as a high voltage laboratory,and the building is windowless, constructed with steel reinforced concrete, concrete block and brick, andthe reactor itself is contained in a pool constructed with steel reinforced concrete, lined with a stainlesssteel tank, it is very unlikely that high winds or snow loads could lead to core damage.50. NUREG 1537, Part 1, Section 3.2 provides guidance on describing the design for theprotection from meteorological conditions. Please indicate the maximum snow and ice loadthat the PUR-1 facility roof must be capable of withstanding to ensure safe reactor operationis not jeopardized. Please provide reference to local building codes, standards or othercriteria as part of your response.Response:Please see the answer to Question 49 above.Page 1 of 313 July 2012 PUR-1: Partial Response to RAIs for license renewal (ML103400115 and ML103400250)53. NUREG-1537, Part 1, Section 10 provides guidance for providing information on theexperimental facilities, the experimental program and its intended use. Please provide adescription of the general focus of the experimental program (radiation science, medical,materials testing, teaching, etc.), the experimental facilities, the basic type of experimentsthat are irradiated (incore, thermal column, external beam, etc.), any limiting experimentalcharacteristics (e.g., reactivity, contents) monitoring and control of the experiments, and theinteraction between the experiment and the reactor control and safety systems.Response:Section 10.2 describes the experimental facilities that exist for PUR-1, and they are also discussed inChapters 4 and 13. The general scope of the experimental program is for teaching, training and radiationscience. For teaching and training, reactor experiments such as "Approach to Critical" and "Control RodWorth" are routinely performed with senior undergraduate and graduate nuclear engineering studentsunder the direction of reactor operators. Radiation science experiments focus primarily on activations,training, and some material testing.Reactivity and content limitations for experiments are described in the Technical Specifications, andaccident analyses for the experiments (for failure of experiments with reactivity worth, as well as reactivityworth changes that would result from failure of experiments with reactivity worth or flooding of a dry droptube are described in Chapter 1364. SAR, Section 2.5.2 states "it is highly unlikely that any reactor water would be lost during anysevere seismic activity" but no indication is provided that damaging seismic activity to otherstructures, systems or components (SSC) is unlikely. Please provide an evaluation of asafety analysis indicating that if any seismic activity were to occur, the radiologicalconsequences are bounded, indicate where the analysis occurs in the SAR or justify why ananalyses is not required.Response:The reactor building and reactor infrastructure was built to seismic code in existence at the time. Due tothe low probability of seismic activity, and limited damage to Purdue buildings that would result fromseismic activity, core damage would be negligible. The only overhead equipment in the room that couldpotentially fall into the pool as a result of seismic activity would be the overhead crane, which is notparked over the pool when not in use, as a rule, and is used only rarely, generally less than once everythree years.72. NUREG-1537, Section 9.3 provides guidance for fire protection systems and programs at thefacility. SAR section 9.3 discusses the fire protection system as being "appropriate for thetypes of fires that could be encountered in the reactor room." However, Section 9.3 of theSAR does not discuss methods to detect, control, or extinguish fires. Please indicate themeans the facility has for preventing, detecting, and combating fires and the facilitycompliance with the local national fire codes. Please provide an evaluation of the safetyanalysis for fire protection with sufficient information describing potential radiologicalconsequences of a fire will not prevent safe reactor shutdown or result in a fire-relatedrelease of radioactive material or if such a release is possible, that release of radioactivePage 2 of 313 July 2012 PUR-A: Partial Response to RAIs for license renewal (ML103400115 and ML103400250)material would not cause radiation exposure that exceeds the requirements of 10 CFR Part20.Response:The reactor and the building where the reactor is located are intrinsically fireproof, and in the event of afire no special precautions are required. The fire protection system for the reactor facility is typical ofthose at most university low-power research reactors. There are two portable fire extinguishers in thereactor room located at either end of the room. These extinguishers are inspected annually by personnelfrom the Purdue University Fire Department (PUFD) to verify they meet fire codes as required. A fullyfunctional campus fire station, manned 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />s/day, is located on campus (-1/2 mile from the reactor)and is available on short notice to assist in case of a fire.If a fire should occur while the reactor is in operation, the reactor would be shut down and the supervisor,or alternate, would be notified. Normal fire procedures for the building are in place and are expected topreclude accumulation of flammable materials. If a fire occurs when the reactor is not in operation andreactor personnel are not present, the reactor pool will be adequate to prevent core damage for anextended period of time, until building fire alarms are tripped and PUFD responds.There is no sprinkler system in the reactor room due to the potential damage to the reactor I&C systemthat could result from leaks or failure of a sprinkler head. Fire inspectors visit the facility on a 3-5 yearrotation to verify that the reactor room meets applicable fire codes.Page 3 of 3 13 July 2012Page 3 of 313 July 2012