ML072390006

Kansas State University - Request for Additional Information License R-88 Renewal

ML072390006
Person / Time
Site:	Kansas State University
Issue date:	09/11/2007
From:	Hughes D E NRC/NRR/ADRA/DPR/PRTA
To:	Whaley M Kansas State University
Hughes D, NRR/DPR/PRT, 301-415-1631
References
TAC MC9031 05000088
Download: ML072390006 (5)

Text

September 11, 2007Mr. Michael Whaley, ManagerNuclear Reactor FacilityDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering112 Ward HallKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS 66506-5204

SUBJECT:

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAND ASSURANCE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING RE: LICENSE R-88RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9031)

Dear Mr. Whaley:

We are continuing our review of your September 12, 2002, request for license renewal for theKansas State University research reactor and associated supplements. During our review ofyour license renewal request, questions have arisen for which we require additional informationand clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information(RAI) within 30 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your responses and the statement of intent must beexecuted in a signed original under oath or affirmation.If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-1631.Sincerely,

/RA/

Daniel E. Hughes, Project ManagerResearch and Test Reactors Branch ADivision of Policy and RulemakingOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-188

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/ enclosure: Please see next page Kansas State UniversityDocket No. 50-188 cc:Office of the GovernorState of KansasTopeka, KS 66612 Mayor of ManhattanP.O. Box 748Manhattan, KS 66502Thomas A. Conley, RRPJ, CHP, Section Chief Radiation and Asbestos Control KS Dept of Health & Environment 1000 SW Jackson, Suite 320Topeka, KS 66612-1366 Test, Research, and Training Reactor NewsletterUniversity of Florida202 Nuclear Sciences CenterGainesville, FL 32611 September 11, 2007Mr. Michael Whaley, ManagerNuclear Reactor FacilityDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering112 Ward HallKansas State UniversityManhattan, KS 66506-5204

SUBJECT:

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAND ASSURANCE OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING RE: LICENSE R-88RENEWAL (TAC NO. MC9031)

Dear Mr. Whaley:

We are continuing our review of your September 12, 2002, request for license renewal for theKansas State University research reactor and associated supplements. During our review ofyour license renewal request, questions have arisen for which we require additional informationand clarification. Please provide responses to the enclosed request for additional information(RAI) within 30 days of the date of this letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.30(b), your responses and the statement of intent must beexecuted in a signed original under oath or affirmation.If you have any questions regarding this review, please contact me at 301-415-1631.Sincerely,/RA/Daniel E. Hughes, Project ManagerResearch and Test Reactors Branch ADivision of Policy and RulemakingOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationDocket No. 50-188

Enclosure:

As statedcc w/ enclosure: Please see next pageDISTRIBUTION

PUBLICPRTA r/fDHughesOGCJEadsMVothMCaseRUleckDCollinsEHyltonADAMS ACCESSION NO: ML072390006 TEMPLATE #: NRR-088*See previous concurrence OFFICEPRTA:PMPRTA:LAPRTA:BCPRTA:PMNAMEDHughes dehEHylton eghDCollins dscDHughes dehDATE8/27/20078/27/20079/11/20079/11/2007OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH REACTORDOCKET NO. 50-1881.TS 2.2.3 - Your safety analyses has shown that under the proposed TechnicalSpecifications (TSs) the request of a licensed power of 1250 kW thermal (kW(t)) isappropriate. In addition, the accident analyses would allow a Limiting Safety SystemSetting (LSSS) of 1250 kW(t) and it would meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.36. It isappropriate that the TSs provide the limits of operation and allow the licensee toadministratively determine the actual setpoint and operation power, based on theaccuracy and precision of the instrumentation, to assure that the limits are notexceeded. TS 2.2.3, as written, establishes a "no operation zone" between the licensedpower and the LSSS and causes unnecessary confusion. Please propose a change inthis TS to remove this confusion. 2.TS 5.1.3 (3) - In a previous RAI most TSs related to the use of aluminum clad TRIGAfuel were eliminated. TS 5.1.3 (3) is not adequately supported in the SAR and TSs. Please remove this TS if that was the intention, otherwise provide proper bases in theSAR and supporting TSs. The next eight RAIs correct typos or improve clarity of the specification.

3.TS 3.4.3 - The description of the (standard) control rod interlock in the basis does notmatch the function as described in Table 2. Clarify the TS.4.TS 3.8.4 - Action C uses "ASAP" as a completion time. This is not defined. Define theterm or change it to a defined term.5.TS 3.5.4 - Operable is misspelled in Required Action A.2.d. Please correct.

6.TS 6.2 - This TS contains 2 subsections listed as "e." Please correct.

7.TS 6.8 - This TS contains the title "Director, Division of Reactor Licensing, NRC." Theuse of "NRC" would be more generic and appropriate.8.TS 6.11.a) - Add Region IV to this 24 hr notification TS to meet the requirements of 10CFR 50.36(c)(7)(ii). 9.TS 6.11.b) - Remove "to the NRC Operations Center." The first sentence in the TS 6.11already provides the appropriate addressee for written reports.10.TS 6.11.c) - Remove "to the USNRC, Region IV, 611 Ryan Drive, Suite 400, Arlington,TX 76011-4005." The first sentence in the TS 6.11 already provides the appropriateaddressee for written reports.

ENCLOSURE-2-The next six RAIs concern clarification of your TSs as derived from the SAR according to10 CFR 50.36(b). 11.SAR Section 7.3.1 - First Channel In a previous version of the SAR the power levelsetting of the described interlock was 1 kW and not 10 kW? Discuss the reason for thischange. Propose a TS for this interlock, otherwise provide justification for not makingthis interlock a TS.12.SAR Section 7.3.1 - Third Channel The description in this section of the scrams that arebypassed or not when in pulse mode is not clear. In particular if this instrument is beingused during pulse mode, is the high voltage scram bypassed? Please discuss. 13.Propose a safety channel specification in section 3 of the TSs and an appropriatesurveillance specification in section 4 of the TSs for the high voltage scrams on thepower level instruments, or provide justification for not doing so.14.SAR Section 7.3.4.b - This section describes the pulse preset timer scram. Justify whyincluding this scram as a TS is not necessary, otherwise propose a TS. 15.SAR Section 7.3.4.c - The interlocks described in this section are in the surveillancesection TS 4.4.2 but they are not specified in section 3 of the TSs. Specify the interlocksin section 3 of the TSs so it is clear what functionality is surveilled in TS 4.4.2. 16.SAR Section 12.5.3 and TS 6.11.c) - This section of the SAR states that a 30 daynotification shall be made of any permanent changes in Facility Manager or head of theDepartment of Mechanical and Nuclear Engineering. This is consistent with ANS/ANSI15.1. Propose an addition to TS 6.11.c) to require this report, or justify not doing so.

ENCLOSURE