ML20199D447

Forwards Response to NRC 981209 RAI & Revised Pages to TS as Appropriate

ML20199D447
Person / Time
Site:	University of Illinois
Issue date:	01/12/1999
From:	Holm R ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20199D453	List: ML20199D447 ML20199D688
References
TAC-MA4177, NUDOCS 9901200107
Download: ML20199D447 (5)

Text

. .. . . .- .-- . . - . _

Radiation Science Laboratorv ,

Univ;rsity of Illinois at Urt>ana-Champaign  ;

• Depedmont of Nuclear Engineering / College of Engineering i

- 214 Nuclear Engineering Laboratory 217 333-77550666 ,

yg}.Ot.f' fAW7 103 South Goodwin Avenue Urbana,IL 61801-2964 217-333-2906 fax Annalnieerator Richard L Holm HeaNh Phvoicist Mark Kaczor *g)*

t-holmquiuc edu en-kaczor@uiuc.edu l l

January 12,1999 Docket No. 50-151 1

l 1

NRC - Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 -

Washington,DC 20555

SUBJECT:

Response to Request for Additional Information (TAC No. MA4177); Dated December 9,1998 <

l Please find attached a response to the request for additional information and revised pages to the technical specifications as appropriate.

If there are any questions on this matter please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, Richard L. Holm y

Reactor Administrator C: Alexander Adams, Jr., USNRC Regional Administrator, USNRC, Region III

\

Barclay G. Jones, UIUC file

.- ._ Y lii+ 9901200107 990112 7 PDR ADOCK 05000151.i j P PDR J l

,- -. _ -. = , - = . - .. - - - .-

b STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF CHAMPAIGN t

Richard L. Holm, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that he has affixed his signature to the letter above in his official capacity as Reactor Administrator, University of Illinois Nuclear R eactor Laboratory \; that in accordance with the provisions of Part 50, Chapter  ;

1, Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, he is attaching this affidavit \; that the facts set forth in the within letter are true to his best information and belief.  ;

< <l Richard L. Holm Reactor Administrator Subscribed and sworn to before me a Notary Public, in and for the County of Champaign, State ofIllinois, this d day of ( An<,a 61 .A.D.,1999.

e 'Q t

~

W j jf;M W Not'ary Public ofIllinoiil My Commission Expires f-2000 OFFICIAL SEAL KATHLEEN M. DYSART NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OFILLINOIS ' j i

MYCOMMISSION EXPIRES 810 2000 L

l

\

l

c ,, z l

i 4

(

l k

i l

Response to Request for Additional Information (TAC NO.

MA4177); Dated December 9,1998 University of Illinois Advanced TRIGA Reactor I Facility License No. R-115 Docket No. 50-151 l

i i

l i  ; 1 l "; '

1  !

1

i 1

1. Plea e describe the current configuration of fuel in the facility. Where will fuel be stored and what steps  !

(cida r administrative or facility modification) will be taken to ensure that the reactor will not be operated.

r All o the standard TRIGA elements are stored in the Bulk Shielding Facility or in the dry storage pits. Die ,

reac or core grid still contains thefuelfollower control rods and the instrumented 1RIGA elements. With rw 1 fuel in the core there is no reactor to operate. Die control console has had a DO NOT OPERATE sign  :

plac!d on it as well. It is believed that this is adequate to prevent reactor opemtion.

2. TS 1.0 Definitions. Can a situation arise where the reactor is not secured and therefore in operation? The defluition of reactor secured includes the condition no work is in progress involving fuel. It is not clear fron, the definition that fuel movement within the reactor pool or bulk shielding facility would not be considered operation with a need to meet all of the associated TS requirements. Many licensees have a second TS definition where the reactor is secured when there is either insufficient moderator available in the reactor to attain criticality ( or the reactor core is suberitical to some value) or there is insufficient fissile I

material present in the reactor core to attain criticality (or the reactor core is suberitical to some value) under optimum available conditions of moderation and reflection.

Please see the attached revision to TS 1.0 Definitions.

3. TS 4.2.c You are proposing to maintain a requirement for inspection of control rods. Will they be needed ,

to maintain stored fuel in a suberitical condition? I The requirementfor inspection of the control rods is being maintained because they havefuelfollowers.

They are not required to maintain the storedfuel in a subcritical condition.

4. Storage of fuel in the bulk shielding facility is different from die conduct of suberitical experiments or operation of the suberitical assembly. Please propose separate TSs that contain the requirements for storage of fuel in the bulk shielding facility and associated surveillance requirements (also consider reference to TS 3.9 in TS 4.5).

TS 3.9 and 4. 7 have been written to be inclusive of both uses of the Bulk Shielding Facility. TS 3.9 is referenced in the applicability section of TS 4.5 in the change submittal dated October 5,1998. It is not believed that a separate technical specification section is warranted.

5. TS 4.5 This TS refers to radiation monitoring equipment required by Section 3.4 of the TS. However, it appears that the radiation monitoring equipment in TS 3.4 is only required if the reactor is operating. Do you plan to keep this equipment operable during fuel storage? If not, please justify.

At least one continuous air monitor and one area radiation monitor will remain in operation during SAFSTOR. Die applicability section of 75 4.5 references IS 3.9 which requires in section 3.9 (e) a 1 continuous air trwnitor in operation in the reactor bay and an area radiation monitor above the pool.

6. TS 4.7 d. You have proposed a fuel inspection requirement where all elements would be inspected over a 10-year interval with approximately 10 percent of the elements being inspected each year. If deterioration or distortion is noted, you proposed moving the element to other storage. Please discuss the need to accelerate inspections to require inspection of all elements if deterioration or distortion is found during the l

l routine inspection. Your proposed TS is worded such that only the elements in the suberitical assenbly, not l the pool, are inspected over a 10-year period. Would it be simpler to say that fuel in wet storage will be inspected? What do you mean when you say an element will be removed to other storage? l l

TS 4. 7 (d) has been revised to address these issues. Please see the attached page k. A copy with and l

l l

1 1

, t.

without revision l>ars is provided.

7. TS 5.1 c. If reactor fuel is to be stored on the grid plate, how will this TS be applied?

Ihe technical specification applies onlyfor a critical mass. Please see the attached revision to TS 5.1 c. }

8. TS 5.4 The TS that the emergency cooling system will be capable of spraying water over the fuel elements for an indefinite period. Is there any need for the system to be operable at this time? How long after the last shutdown of the reactor was the system needed to be operable?

No. Ihe emergency core cooling system uns designedfor an intended core power of 3.0 MW. A 1.5 MW TRIGA core does not need an emergency core cooling system (ECCS). This evaluation uns recently 1 addressed again uith the licensing of the McClellan TRIGA reactor. Decay heatfrom 1.5 MW operation does notjustify an ECCS.

9. TS 6.1.2 This TS refers to minimum staffirg at the Nuclear Reactor Laboratory. Is this the minimum staff assigned to the facility? Staffing normally refers to the minimum people that must be present in the facility.

Please clarify. Your proposed TS refers to ANSI /ANS-IS A. Are you referring to the 1988 version of the standard or will the reference change as the standard is updated to the most current version that will be in effect? With your proposed changes to TS 6.1.2 a., it is not clear when the Reactor Health Physicist must be present at the reactor. For example, is the Reactor Health Physicist present when fuel movement occurs?

Please clarify. You state that the person on call should be able to respond to the facility within approximately one hour. What is the upper limit to this response? .

l TS 6.1.2 refers to the minimum staping assigned to thefacility. The reference to the ANSliANS-15.4 isfor the 1988 version. Revisedpages uith and uithout revision marks are included uith this document. TS 6.1.2 a refers to the qualifications of the Reactor Health Physicist assigned to thefacility, it does not delineate when the Reactor Health Physicist must be present at thefacility nor is it meant to. The presence of the Reactor Health Physicist has never been requiredforfuel movements. Ihe *on-call" requirement ofone hour response is expected to have an upper limit of1.25 hours2.893519e-4 days <br />0.00694 hours <br />4.133598e-5 weeks <br />9.5125e-6 months <br />.

10. TS 6.2.3 This TS refers to reactor operations. Please propose wording that reflects the permanent shutdown status of the facility.

Please see the attached revision to TS 6.2.3.

1 i

i I

.