ML16350A424

Written Communication as Specified by 10 CFR 50.4(b)(1) Regarding Responses to the University of Missouri at Columbia - Request for Additional Information Regarding the Proposed Technical Specifications for the Renewal of Facility Operating

ML16350A424
Person / Time
Site:	University of Missouri-Columbia
Issue date:	12/14/2016
From:	Butler R A, Meffert B A Univ of Missouri - Columbia
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML16350A424 (6)

Text

UNIVERSITY of MISSOURI RESEARCH REACTOR CENTER December 14, 2016 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Attention:

Document Col}trol Desk Mail Station Pl-37 ,-Washington, DC 20555-0pOl

REFERENCE:

Docket No.

SUBJECT:

Research Rea,ctor Facility Ogerating License No. R-103 Writte11 commlmicati,on as specified by 10 CFJl 50.4Jb )(1) regarding responses to the "University of at Columbia -Request for Additiol).al Information Regarding the Proposed Specifications for the Renewal of Facility Operating License No. R-103 for the Vniversity of Missouri Reactor (TAC No.

dated September 7, 2016 On August 31, 2006, the University of Missouri-Columbia Reaqtor (MURR) submitted a request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulat9ry Commission (NRC) )o ren¢w Facility Operating License No. R-103. By letter dated May 6, 2Pl 0, the NRC{ requested additional infgrmathzn and clarification regarding the renewal request in the fqrm of (19) Complex Questiol)s.

By letter dated September 3, 2010, MURR responded to sevep (7)

Complex Questions.

By letter dated June 1, 2,blO, the NRG requested additional and clarification regarding the renewal request in the foryn of one and sixfy-seven (167) 45:Day Response Questions.

By letter , -dated July 16, 2010, MURR responded to forty-seven (47) of those 45-D.ay Response Questions.

,( ' . On July 14, 2010, via <eflectronic ,maJl (email), MURR requested

_aqditional time to respond to the --remaining one hundred apd twenty (120) 45-Day Response Questions.

By letter dated August 4, 2010, . the NRC granted the requfst. By letter-dated August 31, 2010, MURR responded to fifty-three (53) of the 45-Day Response Questi<;ins.

On September 1, 2010, via email, M\J.RR requested additional 7_fime to respond to the remaining twelve (12) Complex Questions.

By letter dated September 27, 2010, the NRC granted the request. 1513 Research Park Drive Columbia, MO 65211 Phone: 573-882-4211 Fax: 573-882-6360 Web: http://web.missouri.edu/-murrwww Fighting Cancer with Tomorrow's Technology On September 29, 2010, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining seven (67) 45-Day Response Questions.

On September 30, 2010, MURR responded to sixteen (16) of the remaining 45-Day Questions.

By letter dated October 13, 2010, the NRC granted the extension request. By letter dated October 29, 2010, MURR responded to sixteen (16) of the remaining 45-Day Response Questions and two (2) of the remaining Complex Questions.

By letter dated November 30, 2010, MURR responded to twelve (12) of the remaining 45-Day Response Questions.

On December 1, 2010, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated December 13, 2010, the NRC granted the extension request. On January 14, 2011, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated February 1, 2011, the NRC granted the extension request. By letter dated March 11, 2011, MURR responded to twenty-one (21) of the remaining 45-Day Response Questions.

On May 27, 2011, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated July 5, 2011, the NRC granted the request. By letter dated September 8, 2011, MURR responded to six (6) of the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

On September 30, 2011, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated November 10, 2011, the NRC granted the request. By letter dated January 6, 2012, MURR responded to four (4) of the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions. Also submitted was an updated version of the MURR Technical Specifications.

On January 23, 2012, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated January 26, 2012, the NRC granted the request. On April 12, 2012, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the remaining the remaining 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

By letter dated June 28, 2012, MURR responded to the remaining six (6) 45-Day Response and Complex Questions.

With that set of responses, all 45-Day Response and Complex Questions had been addressed.

2 of6 On December 20, 2012, the NRC requested a copy of the current Physical Security Plan (PSP) and Operator Requalification Program. By letter dated January 4, 2013, MURR provided the NRC a copy of the current PSP and Operator Requalification Program. By letter dated February 11, 2013, the NRC requested updated financial information in the form of four (4) questions because the information provided by the September 14, 2009 response had become outdated.

By letter dated March 12, 2013, MURR responded to the four (4) questions.

By letter dated December 3, 2014, the NRC requested additional information in the form of two (2) questions regarding significant changes to the MURR facility since submittal of the licensing renewal application in August 2006. By letter dated January 28, 2015, MURR responded to the two (2) questions.

By letter dated April 17, 2015, the NRC requested additional information in the form of ten (10) questions.

On May 29, 2015, via email, MURR requested additional time to respond to the ten (10) questions.

By letter dated June 18, 2015, the NRC requested additional information in the form of two (2) questions.

By letter dated July 31, 2015, MURR responded to the two (2) questions from the June 18, 2015 request. On September 14, 2015, via telephone, the NRC requested a copy of the Emergency Plan (BP). By letter dated September 14, 2015, the NRC requested additional information in the form of sixteen (16) questions regarding the PSP. By letter dated September 15, 2015, MURR provided the NRC a copy of the current BP. By letter dated October 1, 2015, MURR responded to the ten (10) questions from the April 17, 2015 request. By letter dated October 28, 2005, the NRC requested additional information regarding the proposed Technical Specifications.

By letter dated December 2, 2015, MURR responded to the fifteen (15) questions from the September 14, 2015 request regarding the PSP. 3 of6 By letter dated December 17, 2015, the NRC requested additional information in the form of thirteen (13) questions regarding follow-up information from MURR's October 1, 2015 responses to the NRC's April 17, 2015 request for additional information.

By letter dated February 8, 2016, MURR responded to the thirteen (13) questions from the December 17, 2015 request. By letter dated February 8, 2016, the NRC requested updated financial information in the form of four (4) questions because the information provided by the March 12, 2013 response had become outdated.

By letter dated March 23, 2016, the NRC requested additional information in the form of twenty-one (21) questions regarding follow-up information from MURR's February 8, 2016 responses to the NRC's April 17, 2015 request for additional information.

By letter dated April 8, 2016, MURR responded to the four (4) questions from the February 8, 2016 request. By letter dated April 15, 2016, MURR responded to the twenty-one (21) questions from the March 23, 2016 request. By letter dated May 31, 2016, MURR responded to questions from the October 28, 2015 request. Additionally, Technical Specification changes, as issued by Amendment No. 37 to the current facility operating license (NRC letter dated March 11, 2016), were incorporated into the revised proposed Technical Specifications.

On June 28, 2016, via a conference call between MURR and NRC staff, the NRC requested additional information/clarification regarding MURR's May 31, 2016 responses to the October 28, 2015 NRC request. By letter dated July 1, 2016, MURR responded to the request for additional information/clarification from the June 28, 2016 conference call as well as submitted the revised proposed Technical Specifications.

By letter dated August 24, 2016, the NRC requested financial information in the form of one (1) question.

By letter dated August 31, 2016, MURR responded to the one (1) question from the August 24, 2016 request. By letter dated September 7, 2016, the NRC requested additional information regarding the proposed Technical Specifications in the form of thirty (30) questions.

Additionally, via multiple conference calls between MURR and NRC staff, additional information/clarification was requested.

By letter dated November 7, 2016, MURR responded to the questions from the NRC letter dated September 7, 2016 and the numerous conference calls. Additionally, the revised proposed Technical Specifications were attached.

4 of6 On November 14, 2016, via a conference call between MURR and NRC staff, additional information/clarification was requested.

By letter dated November 15, 2016, MURR responded to the questions from the November 14, 2016 conference call. Additionally, the revised proposed Technical Specifications were attached.

On December 14, 2016, via a conference call between MURR and NRC staff, a proposed change to the Technical Specifications and License Conditions 2.B.2.c through 2.B.2.fwere discussed.

Below is the proposed change to the revised proposed Technical Specifications based on the December 14, 2016 conference call and a statement that MURR is in agreement with the proposed license conditions.

If there are any questions regarding this response, please contact me at (573) 882-5118 or MeffertB@missou.ri.edu.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Sincerely, Reactor Manager xc: Reactor Advisory Committee Reactor Safety Subcommittee Dr. Garnett S. Stokes, Provost ENDORSEMENT:

Reviewed and Approved, Ralph A. Butler, P.E. Director Dr. Mark Mcintosh, Vice Chancellor for Research, Graduate Studies and Economic Development Mr. Alexander Adaµis Jr., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Geoffrey Wertz, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Johnny Eads, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Diane Puroell, Notary Publlc My Commission Expires: January 31. 2018 5 of6

1. MURR requests that the second paragraph of Technical Specification 6.2.b be changed from: "The RAC and its subcommittees shall maintain minutes of meetings in which the items considered and the committees' recommendations are recorded.

Dissemination of the minutes to the Office of the Chancellor, the RAC and its subcommittees shall be done within three (3) months after the meetings.

Independent actions of the subcommittees shall be reviewed by the parent committee at the next regular meeting. A quorum of the committee or the subcommittees consisting of at least fifty percent of the appointed members shall be present at any meeting to conduct the business of the committee or subcommittee.

Additionally, reactor facility staff shall not constitute greater than fifty percent of the quorum. Reactor facility staff shall not constitute a majority of the RAC. The RAC shall meet at least quarterly." To: "The RAC and its subcommittees shall maintain minutes of meetings in which the items considered and the committees' recommendations are recorded.

Dissemination of the minutes to the Office of the Chancellor, the RAC and its subcommittees shall be done within three (3) months after the meetings.

Independent actions of the subcommittees shall be reviewed by the parent committee at the next regular meeting. A quorum of the committee or the subcommittees consisting of at least fifty percent of the appointed members shall be present at any meeting to conduct the business of the committee or subcommittee.

Additionally, reactor facility staff shall not constitute greater than fifty percent of the quorum for a meeting of the RAC. Reactor facility staff shall not constitute a majority of the RAC. The RAC shall meet at least quarterly." Justification:

The words "for a meeting of the RAC" have been added to ensure that this requirement is specific to the Reactor Advisory Committee (RAC) and not to be misinterpreted that it applies to any of the subcommittees.

Although MURR aggressively solicits non-MURR staff members to serve on the RAC subcommittees, it is still very difficult to obtain members that are not MURR staff; therefore, it would be impossible to meet this requirement other than for RAC membership.

Additionally, all work performed by the subcommittees must be voted on and approved by the RAC, which is consistent with the intent of ANSI/ANS-15.1-2007, "The Development of Technical Specifications for Research Reactors." 2. MURR reviewed the draft license that was provided by the NRC by email, dated November 22, 2016, and we are in agreement with the proposed license conditions.

6 of6