ML19341B193

Submits Info Re Cost of Providing Addl Criticality Monitoring Sys at Facility.Requests 2-yr Exemption from Code Requirements

ML19341B193
Person / Time
Site:	Breazeale Nuclear Reactor
Issue date:	01/23/1981
From:	Levine S PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV., UNIVERSITY PARK, PA
To:	Rozier Carter Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8101300419
Download: ML19341B193 (2)

Text

,

T H E P ENNSYLVANI A ST ATE U NIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA 16402 College of Engineenng Area cae si4 Breareale Nuclear Reactor s65-6MI 23 January 1981 Mr. Robert Carter Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Branch Division of Licensing Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No.: 50-5 NRC License: R-2

Dear Bob,

You requested, during our telephone conversation, that I send you the cost of a monitoring system as required by Section 70.24 " Critical Accident Requirements" of 10 CFR Part 70.

The cost of a second monitor system would be as follows:

1 Eberline RM-16 $1320.00 1 Eberline HP270 Probe 90.00 Tc'.AL $1410.00 This, of course, does not include shipping costs. 'In addition, we have found that on the average the maintenance cost per year for each instrument

-is approximately $430. Hence, the cost of adding an additional monitor for

~

criticality protection will be $2270 the first year the new rule is established and $860 per year thereafter. These are not trivial costs for us because we are a university-supported esearch reactor. facility.

We would appreciate having the exemption granted to us for a period of two years. We would hope that during the two-year period, we would be able to return at least one MTR fuel element to Oak Ridge or elsewhere which would eliminate the need for us to have a monitoring system. Attached is a copy of the paper by Brazier, et al. you requested.

I want to thank you for your help regarding this matter and in providing other information to us. It was particularly helpful to know that our present procedures requiring us to take requalifying exams once every two years remains valid under NRC's regulatory requirements. Because of the TMI-2 accident, NRC has been sending out numerous changes to their regulatory .DhD requirements for nuclear power reactors and from time-to-time, as an -

/D.~

8101300fff f

Mr. Robert Carter Project Manager Standardization and Special Projects Branch page 2 afterthought, they include new requirements for research reactors.

I dutifully try to read through most of the documents to determine if there are any new NRC requirements for research reactors, but my span of attention is not always the best when reading these documents. It is easy to miss a paragraph which refers to research reactors or to have dif ficulty in understanding when they are applicable. It would be appreciated if the NRC could issue a special document which contains licensing changes, due to the TMI-2 accident, which is related only to research reactors. For example, part 55, Appendix A contains information that is highly confusing regarding requalifying exams. It is difficult to tell whether or not Appendix A refers to research reactors. Any help from NRC in this regard would be appreciated.

Please let =e know if you need further information regarding the criticality monitor.

Sincerely yours,

-C/ Ca :L~

Samuel H. Levine Director Brea eale Nuclear Reactor SHL:m Enclosure cc: 1. B. McMaster W. F. Witzig R. E. Totenbier