ML20210Q065

Informs That Staff Has No Objection to Changes to Bases Section 3.10, Fuel Element & Core Component Handling & Storage. Revised TS Page 3-39 Encl

ML20210Q065
Person / Time
Site:	MIT Nuclear Research Reactor
Issue date:	08/10/1999
From:	Alexander Adams NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Bernard J MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, CAMBRIDGE
References
TAC-MA6156, NUDOCS 9908130135
Download: ML20210Q065 (4)

Text

,,

f. 's; .

- sr :

August 10,1999 a, ' Dr. John A Bernard,' Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ~.

138 Albany Street .

< Cambridge, MA 02139-4296

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION BASES CHANGES - MASSACHUSETTS

" INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH REACTOR (TAC NO. MA6156)

Dear Dr. Bernard:

i l

By letter dated' July 30,1999, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) submitted )

changes to Amended Facility Operating License No. R-37, Appendix A," Technical i Specifications for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research Reactor." The changes involved Technical Specification (TS) bases Section 3.10,." Fuel Element and Core Component Handling and Storage." MIT made changes ~ to this basis section to correct typographical errors.

TS 3.10-3.e. refers to irradiated fuel storage in the fuel element transfer flask or other proper 1 shield within the controlled area. However, the basis of the TS did not discuss this storage

location.. MIT stated that it is believed that the omission was a typographical error that dates to the issuance of this TS in 1982. MIT updated the basis of the TS to reference TS 3.10-3.e. in the appropriate part of the basis.

MIT has performed these changes pursuant to 10 CFR 50.59. These changes correct

- typographical errors in Bases Section 3.10. The staff has no objection to these Bases changes.

Revised TS page 3-39 is enclosed.

Sincerely, Original signed by Alexander Adams, Jr., Senior Project Manager Events Assessment, Generic Communications and Non-Power Reactors Branch Division of Regulatory improvement Programs  !

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l Docket No. 50-20

Enclosure:

Revised TS Page 3-39  !

f cc w/ enclosure:

See next page pj'Ol DOCUMENT NAME: G:\REXB\ ADAMS \20 basis 3.10

,To ric:ive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No copy OFFICE PM:REXB ~ LA:REXb C:REN NAME- f J. Man AAM.w. ,

DATE- 9,A /99 5 l'[/99 - f 6 0/99 OFFICIAL RG. CORD COPY 99os13o135 to ()

7 -omo WS

)

Masschusetts Institute of Docket No. 50-20 Technology

]

cc:

City Manager City Hall Cambridge, MA 02139 Assistant Secretary for Policy Executive Office of Energy Resources 100 Cambridge Street,  ;

Room 1500 Boston, MA 02202 Department of Environmental )

Quality Engineering 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02108 Test, Research, and Training Reactor Newsletter Universities of Florida l 202 Nuclear Sciences Center Gainesville, FL 32611 ,

, DISTRIBUTION:

E-MAIL PDoyle LMarsh -

TMichaels SHolmes WEresian TBurdick MMendonca JLyons i CBassett Pisaac I

)

HARD COPY .

. Docket File 50-20 .  :

PUBLIC l REXB r/f l DMatthews l

LMarsh AAdams OGC {

EHylton GHill(2) ,

TDragoun l l

s I

r i V. -e. , ,

4

• It has been calculated that fuel elements when stored in the locations specified in 2b,2c,2d,3b,3c,3d, and 3e will have a calculated effective l

multiplication (keg) factor ofless than 0.9 under optimum conditions of water moderation.

These s' pecifications are also conservative for criticality safe handling

- of MITR-1 fuel alone or in combination with MITR-Il fuel.

The chief additional problems with spent fuel are those of shielding personnel from the emitted fission product gamma rays and preventing melting from aflerheat. The shielding requirement is met by utilizing a shielded transfer flask (item 3e) for movements and temporary storage and more permanent l shielding as indicated in 3a,), c, and d. The requirement to prevent melting is met by specifying that four days elapse between use of the fuel element in a core operating above 100 kW and removal of the element from the reactor pool.

This decay time was determined from experience with the MITR-I combined with a conservative assumption of doubling the power density for the MITR-II.

The specification on removal of control element provides that the stuck rod criteria will always be met, even when one blade is removed for repair.

Thus, the reactor still would not go critical on the removal of a second control element.

3-39 Issued by letter dated August 10,1999