ML19210D489

Forwards to DOE Justifying Pending Export of Highly Enriched U to European Customers

ML19210D489
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/15/1979
From:	Peterson M NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP)
To:	Eysymontt G, Hassell D, Stephens J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7911270158
Download: ML19210D489 (26)

Text

-

l 5 44

,(panucoq[o UNITED STATES g

y g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p

WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 p'

00I 1 5 1979 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Donald Hassell, OCM George Eysymontt, OCM John Stephens, OCM Tom Gibbon, OCM Vickie Harding, OCM FROM:

Marvin R. Peterson, Acting Assistant Director Export / Import and Internationti Safeguards Office of International Programs

SUBJECT:

HEU EXPORTS TO EURATOM Attached for your information is a copy of a Ju:y 25 letter with enclosures from EURATOM's local office to DOE.

This letter was sent to IP by the EURATOM office on October 10 and addresses the technical justifications for several penc'

' GRATOM HEU exports. These cases, many of which require Presidential approva, are still undergoing Executive Branch review.

A A

EiE if.7etfeMon, Actin'g Assistant Director e

Export / Import and International Safeguards Office of International Programs

Attachment:

July 25 ltr w/ enclosures from EURATOM's local office to DOE

' N ') (;

11f cc w/ encl.

~

R.Burnett, NMSS J.Becker, OELD J.Devine, OPE C.Stoiber, 0GC

/Jea, IP

s. Moore, IP T.Rehm, E00 K. Cohen, IP 1 5 7.

7911270

a DELEGATION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

. :i,5c

.:5. :-:= c s

EURATOM SUPPLY AGENCY July 25, 1979 1979 CCT 10 Fi.i 2 32 Dr. A.

Travelli Associate Director IX?' fit /!MPCRT

. AND Reactor Physics Department

... _!!AT'l SFGRDS uu =

Safety Test Facility Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois 60439

Subject:

Supply of HEU to European Communities' customers Enclosed please find a letter which the Euratom supply Agency addressed to you on July 18, 1979.

As you will see, the Supply Agency in this letter (namely in the 3rd paragraph of the first page and in the " summary" on page 5) is referring to the possibility "that you might have to reject some applica-tions (of HEU export license) on the ground of insufficient technical justification".

We would,like to indicate that the Supply Agency is of course completely aware of the fact that your laboratory is only in charge of making technical assessments of pending export license applications and of the data provided by the reactor operators and that it is up to the Executive Branch, based upon your technical assessment, to recommend NRC to withhold a certain application.

Please understand Supply Agency letter in this sense.

Sincerely, N

M. Goppel MG/JM/ajs

Enclosure:

Supply Agency letter no. 43757 of 18 July 1979 (6 pages + enclosure) 1396 114 2100 M Street NW Sune 707 Wastungton DC 20037 I toepnone. (202) 862-9500 / to.es:Was,engton WU 89539 (EURCOM WS>4

T Lpd> l

• l J'

EURATOM SUPPLY AGENCY Brus els j g, y g7 Argonne National Laboratory Applied Physics Division /RERTR Program Attn.

A.

Travelli 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne (Illi noi s) 60439 U.S.A.

Subject:

Supply of highly enriched uranium (HEU) to European Community customers Gentlemen:

Please recall the discussions Euratom Suppty Agency representatives and/or its customers had with your services at several occasions during the last months, si nc e the U.S.

a d o p*t e d a new policy for HEU supplies as of l a t e.

1977 and since the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (NNPA) became Law in March 1978.

These developments have been communicated by us to our customers; please find enclosed for your information and file copy of our corresponding circular letter A A/ 44 /7 8 - 41660 of July 13, 1978.

When again discussing HEU supply problems late May 1979 in Washington and with you - via phone contacts of our Washington Delegation - we learned that in several cases of applications to export HEU pending with NRC and actually under Executive' Branch review, you indicated that you might have to reject some applications on the grounds of insufficient technical justif-

ication, i.e.

because of a too large HEU i nv ent o ry and the potential for conversion into higb(er) density fuel with "m i d d l y (20 to 45% U-235) enriched" uranium (JyEU).

Such reason-ing might apply for instance in the cases or 1)

XSNM-1391 113 kgs of HEU for CEN's BR-2 (AG/1418) 2)

XSNM-1425 35 kgs of HEU for GKSS' FRG-1 and -2 1)

XSNM-1428 3.8 kgs of HEU for OSGAE's ASTRA 4)

XSNM-1429 21,5 kgs of HEU for KfA's FRJ-2 and particularly for 5)

XSNM-1236 5,7 kgs of HEU for PTB's FMRB (AG/1276) 6)

XSNM-1444 14 kgs of HEU f or Ga rc hing's FRM 7)

XSNM-1459 6,8 kgs of HEU for HMI's BER-II, Whereas the fi rst abovementioned case (BR-2) has already been argued at your offices May 24, 1979, and you received additional data (our letter 43485 of June 1, 1979), we have now discussed t he supplies for FMRB, FRM and BER-II teases 5 thru 7 above) with our customers and the. convertor / fuel manufacturer Nukem.

1396 115

../..

As a result of these discussions we want to submit the following reasoning:

A)

Timing

~

According to our experience o'f the last two years it can easily take up to 18 months or more from the date of an application for a license to export HEU out of the US until such license is issued.

Recent examples (last HEU export license issuance by HRC):

License No date of date of our kgs HEU for XSNM-application issuance reference 19.8 HFR Petten 1212 Oct 13, 1977 April 11, AG/1282 1979 23 ILL's HFR 1232 Nov 23,1977 Apr.10,79

/1400 20 HFR Petten 1238 Dec 1,

1977 11,79 1402 22 KfA's FRJ-1 1241 Dec 8,1977 19,79 1309 22 Swedish R-2 1247 Dec 29,19,77 11,79 1296 17 1248 Dec 29,1977 11,79 1401 where the requests were deposed before or very s ho rt ly after the cut-off date of December 1, 1977 for more elaborate ' technical and economic justification' and anyhow before the NNPA became law.

Even if we hope that the still rather lengthy NRC plus Executive Branch review and authorisation procedure should only become faster and more reliable experiences of the past are not encouraging to that effect and we have to take into account that our more recent applications are subject to still more thorough US administration scrutiny as requi red under t he NNP A.

Further it has to be taken into account that only after license issuance we can proceed with the procurement of the HEU either a) by concluding a Short Term Fi xed Commi tment enriching services contract with DOE (a subsequent arrangement as per Sec. 303 of the NNPA, the time requi rement s for which we had not yet to test because we did not use t hi s procurement method up to now) b)

by concluding a contract to purchase separative work units in excess under an existing DOE toll en ri c hi ng agreement, or c) by concluding a straight purchase contract for HEU.

This of course takes some time:

apart from the preparation and execution of the necessary contractual arrangements 180 days lead time or more pass for a and b above between order and product delivery if DOE does not waive its ri g ht for such term by de li v e ri ng HEU from stock 90 days after feed has been t rans f erred as it fortunately did/does.

Thus, at least four months elapse after license issuance until product delivery, which brings the total to (18 +4 = ) 22 months.

1396 116

../..

. As you are aware transport of significant HEU quantities from the US to Europe must be subject.to s t ri ngent physical protection measures.

In consequence and as incited by US authorities, military air transport has been used in the recent past.

For such transport there are no regular schedules, thus it can easily take 1 to 2 months bringing the total delay to (22 + 2=) 24 months.

~

Finally, time to convert the hexafluoride and to fabricate the fuel, dependent on the contingencies at the manufacturer's plant as well as on the regu la ri t y of supply flow, can be estimated to be about 8 months.

In consecuence, at least (24+8=) 32 months can slip by between applying for an export license with NRC and receiv-

.ing reload fuel.

You will understand that our customers want a three years inventory or even a bit more to continuously operate their facility, particularly since above lead times have always been increasing since the NRC took office in January 1975.

8)

Inventories 1)

PTB's FMRB (XSNM-1236 of Dec.

1, 1977)

AG/1276 FMRB's actual inventory of 13 fresh 11 plate fuel elements

• Will keep the reactor in operation - assuming economical fuel utilization - until mid 1982 (annual consumption 3 to 4 elements, next reloading autumn 1979), since only up to 35%

burn-up can be achieved in this reactor.

In addition, a power increase from 1 to 3 MW is anticipated in order to cope with accumulating requests for higher neutron flux densities (shorter i rradi at ion times).

New 23-plate fuel will then become necessary and consumption wiLL t riple.

The request for supply of new fuel was initiated early in view of past lead time expe ri enc e and of the envisaged power increase:

should a license to operate the reactor at 3 MW be issued earlier than expected new fuel would be needed sooner 2)

Garching's FRM (XSNM-1444 of January 24, 1979)

FRM will need a fresh fuel reload at the end of 1982.

The export license was applied for early because of the existing lead time experience (see above under A), but further since Savannah River (SR00) is to reprocess 16 irradiated Munich fuel elements with subsequent separative work and natural uranium component credit for reenrichment.

3)

MI's BER-II (XSNM-1459 of February 14, 1979)

BER-II also nas a fresh fuel inventory to assure reactor operation at its actual 5 MW until the end of 1982.

As for FRM above the license has already been applied for not only taking into account the long lead times but also since re-enrichment of feed resulting from SR00 reprocessing of 26 irradiated Berlin fuel elements is anticipated.

1396 117 An additional information rannant fenm not enne.eninn

-k..c i:..

Further, BER-II intends to double its power to 10 MW for reasons similar to those given for FMRB (see 1 above).

It is hoped to receive the corresponding permit around the end of 1981, in which case the actual fuel inventory would not last thru 1982.

C)

Introduction of new MEU fuel 1)

General i

Please recall the draft of the Final Report of INFCE Working Group 8 (INFCE/WG8/14 of May 31, 1979) and in particular Chapter 6 " Summary and Findings" of Subgroup C - Research Reactors Final Reports as established under US Cochairmanship.

Criteria for utilizing lower enri ched f uel in existing research reactor are enumerated under point (3), these are reiterated by our customers.

There is further under point (10) said:

".... in some count ri e s it may take five years or more after the decision of modification before the reactor is operating on the lower enriched fuel cycle...", and under point (12):

introduction of these fuels has to be considered as a long term objective....".

More specifically you might want to recall that the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany as announced during INFCE has launched a 5 1/2 years R & D program on high densi t y fuel, in which KfK, KfA, GKSS, Interatom, Nukem collaborate and German licensing authopities participate, which, at a cost of about 20 million DM C-11 mi lli on US 5) is intended to examine the use of U Alx, changes of fuel configuration (thicker plates),

and sophisticated fuels on uranium silicide or ni t ride base.

You wiLL further recall European collaboration in the IAEA/

Vienna Advisory Group preparing a ' Program on Research Reactor Core Conversion to Use Less Enriched Uranium instead of HEU' and its actual efforts to develop a ' Guide Book' to help research reactor operators in not highly inde-ialized nations to cope with the problems oi uraniun

.say reduction.

You are finally aware (and this appears to be the most time consuming factor when addressing the problems of putting MEU into use) that no operation license for any new fuel will be issued until such has been thoroughly examined.

Such tests (irradiation of small platelets in a special ri g and inter-pretation of results) might easily take two years; thereupon operators need to test prototype elements and only after that a full core conversion can be planned in detail and executed.

It is estimated that a full core conversion with U Alx fuel of 45 instead of 93% uranium 235 might occur 5 to 6 years from now; use of other configurations (thicker plates) or exotic fuel (U Si) at enrichments below 45% could request still more z

time, except where reactors are available which are not subject to normal licensing procedures.

i396 118 9

We will not discuss here but wonder about reprocessing possibilities for new fuel.

2)

Remarks from customers Apart from the ironic sidelight that possible i mp'r ov em e n t s of fuel are not used to increase flux densities thus facil-itating research work but to reduce enrichment, reactor operators cannot do much at present:

they might request an aut hori sat i on to operat e t heir facility at a lower en ri c hment but will not receive the corresponding license until competent authorities have been satisfied concerning the safe operation (conditio sine qua non) of the installation, i.e. when R &D has resulted in satisfactory and complete results.

As to the use of MEU and apa rt from saf et y/li c ensing con-siderations, the operators' opinion can be summari sed as follows:

a) the neutron yield of the installation (at the irradiation positions) must not decrease, at least not si gni fi c ant ly, i.e.

b) disadvantages must be tolerable (e.g.<5%) and that is t rue also for c) economic penalties, which are to be minimized, in particular since most operators depend on public budgets.

D)

Summary From the above explanations we hope that you are able to conclude that HEU supplies as requested must not be rejected because of insufficient technical justification: taking into account the present lead times inventories are not too large and the potential for (full core) conversion to MEU use even if principally existing can only be employed after complotion of the corresponding R &D and acceptance of the results by licensing authorities.

It is almost impossible to estimate the delays involved, since there are as well political consider-ations (public acceptance of nuclear energy, discussions of INFCE results after spring 1980), to be taken int o account which we deliberately bypassed in this letter; more than 5 to 6 years from now appears to us a conservative evaluation.

Of course, all considerations above are also valid for requests (1 and 2 to 4 mentioned i-tially:

(BR-2) GKSS' FRG-1 and

-2, OSGAE's ASTRA, XfA's

.;-2) as well as others from Community customers pending with US authorities, except that actual inventory data might be "'ightly different.

But

) [hh I.).h

6-i such data should be known to you from the check lists /

questionnaires submitted.

We do not believe excess in-ventories to exist at research facilities or fuel manu-facturers, therefore we believe also these other requests to be ' technically and economically j usti fied'.

If you'need any further information on above or other HEU requests, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely yours, e'

(

P MENNICKEN 4gI, J. B.

Director General

Enclosure:

1396 120 0

h41660 EU)2 ATOM SUPPLY AGENCY

.j73 k

Brussels

?

JJ/cl j3 Vll.1978 Circular letter to customers of highly enriched uranium (EEU) of US origin Sub ie et : New US criteria and justification for approving exports (ant. retransfers) of IEU This is to recall and complete earlier infernations on above matter.

As you are aware, US AEC, then IR.DA, now Department of Energy (DOE) was/is the only practical source of significant amounts of IEU for Community customers.

Supply is governed by the actual EUR/US Additional Agreement for Cooperation of June 11, 1960, as amended, and in particular its Art. I Bis A:

F "The enriched uranium supplied under this Agreement may con-tain up to twenty percent (207:) in the isotope U-235 A

portion of the isotope U-235 so supplied may be mada available as material containing more than twenty percent (20,%) in the isotope U-235 when'the use of such material is technically or econcmically jus-i fie d".

Whereas US supply of HEU proceeded rather smoothly until 1975 and justification of need was furnished by fuel inventory data compiled in a one page check list and by an uncomplicated end use state =ent, world-wide and particularly US concern en proliferation risks ascociated with HEU supplies retarded export licensirq as of that time; the then installed Nuclear Regulator / Cermission (NRC) developed new and slower procedures to assess problems involved with export licensing (see our circular letter: M,Oll

/

and !Li 46/71 - 35341 of April 15 and October 30, 1975 as well as AA/42/76 -

1 37610 of September 24, 1976 to toll enriching customers (acri members of our Advisor / Committee)T.

Sy Executive Order 11902 of Feb uary 2,1976, Preside:rt Ford introduced i

an U.S. Executive 3 ranch review of export license applications prior to NRC action (circular letter AA/J6/16 - 36123 of February 18 1976 to transporters of nuclear material) and retransfers of nuclear material became subject to similar scrutiny (circular letter AA/40/76 - 37591 of Septe:sber 24, 1976).

The new US policy was further explained in an October '28,1976, Presidential statement on Nuclear Export and Ncn-Proliferation Policy (circular letter AA/53/76 - 37902 of November 4,1976) cor. sequent delays were recognised by US authorities (circular letter AA/3/77 - 38500 of Februar/ 3, 1977 to toll enriching customers).

Some exports were 1396 121

../..

C

. additionally detained since 1976 and in 1977 by interventions from (US) environmental organisati,ons (see correspondence with the many customers concerned).

In contert with pending applications for licenses to expert h37 for use in Community facilf ties, US authorities in September and December 1977 made up (bilaterally) more detailed inquiries on data such as ruel inventories / core loading / operation mode an:1 corresponding fuel consumption of such facilities. They finally published their new criteria UcVember 20, 1977, inclusive a naw check list of information required (circular letter AA/36/77 - 40295 of December 2, 1977).

Customers' reaction to this new US policy was requested (circular letter AA/10/J8 - 40607 of January 31, 1978) and a meeting organised (circular letters M lo/78 - 4CS94 and AA/27/78 - 41050 of March lo, 1978 m

/

and April 12, 1978). Annexed to the last referenced circular letter was an US letter of March 29, 1978, explaining further the new policy, and a revised copy of the new HEU Check List.

Our latest circular 3etter on this matter so far ( AA/36/78 - 41448 of June 16, 1978) answered ceme of the cuestions discussed at our April 10, 1978, meeting and gave further detailed information.

In the meantime, other information with impact on EEU exports (and retransfers) became available and has to be taken into account also, such as

- 1;RC's rules on export and import of nuclear facilities and materials (circular letters AA/18 and M/3 - 4C811 and 41397 of February 27 and June 8,1978 and the

- I!uclear Non-Proliferatien Act (UNPA) of 1973 and the procedures establisheci by the US Executive 3 ranch pursuant to it (circular letters AA/38 and 43/78 - 41543 and 41624 of June 28 and July 7, 1978 - see the first ene for lead times in comparison with point 5, (1) - (7) of AA/36/78 cited above).

Finally, the Euratom Supply Ager.'

had late June 1978 discussions E'

sdth US authorities on the implementation of the new policies.

During these discussions it was confirmed that the new policy is employed for all applications filed since December 1977 and that there-fore data as per the new check list (see AA/27/78 above) are requested.

In this context we learned that, even if sufficient information on fuel inventories is available in most pending cases, it is not yet fully conclusive - in particular sometimes reactor core data are missing - to allow specialists frem Argonne National Laborate y (A':L) to evaluate the feasibility of going to lower U-235 assays in the respective facilities.

1396 122

../..

% ANL staff recom:: ended either and preferably to answer questions as per point C 5 and E of the new check list or to furnish as complete as possible ' data under points A, 3, C, and D of the check list.

Since the check list questions are kept rather general in order to cover all aspects, AHL staff refers to a recently published questionnaire, established by the American Nuclear Society in view of editing a new directory of US research, training and test reactors, and recc mends interested parties to employ it when adressing the problem of answering most check list (A, 3, C, D) questions.

Please find enclosed one copy of that questiennaire.

The Euratom Supply Agency would appreciate to further receive possible cc ments from customers on the abovementioned issues. ile shall keep you informed of any new developments.

Applicatiens at present pending for licenses to expert EEU from the US are probably best handled individually and depending on the date of the original request (before or after UcVember/ December 1977).

YI ilj/ippr

/ 6E vf

( T. 3. v?.:.u C:a.T Directer General

Enclosure:

Questionnaire form l}O6 l/}

QJESTIO:iliAIRE FOR'4 RESEARCH, TRAETEIG A'!D TEST REACTOR DIRECTCRY Instructions:

1.

Insert the best available information adjacent to each item.

2.

Leave unknoims blank.

3.

Insert not applicable in not applicable sections.

4.

Insert metric units if knor.n.

Othez wise, use your most frequently used units.

5 Please enclose a reproducible ecpy of a reactor diacram if you have one available.

1396 124

RESEARCH, TRAINING. AND TEST REACTOR DIRECTORY 1.

CENERAL 1.1 Reactor Nc=e (Acro'nym) 1.2 License Number 1.3 URC Docket Number 1.4 Reactor Address 1.5 Reactor Telephone 1.6 Reactor Otner 1.7 Reactor Operator

'- - B Reactor Administrators 1.9 Reactor Facility Staff

a. Scientific / Technical

b. Operations

c. Support

d. Normal Nu=ber of Personnel in Reactor Containment / Confinement

.10 Reactor Architect / Engineer 1.11 Reactor Constructor E.

1.12 Organization / Country Supplying Nuclear Technology 1.13 Reacter Setting 1.14 Reactor Operating S tatus

a. Initial, Criticality Date 1396 125

r.

b. Full Power Date

c. Operating Cycle

d. Full Peuer Hours / Year

e. Pulses / Year, Averaga Energy 1.15 Reactor Facility Cost 1.16 Annual Operating Budget 2.

REACTOR 2.1 Reactor Type

.2 Reactor Vessel

a. Configuration

b. Overall Di=ensions

c. Material

d. Normal Opercting Pressure

e. Normal Operating Temperature 2.3 Core

a. Vole e

b. Overall Dimensions

c. Lattice Configuration

d. Number of Elements 1

Standard 2.

Control

e. Maximum Number of Grid Locations That can be used for Fuel 235U Content

f. Normal Core

g. Subdivided Core 1.

Number of Subdivisions Subdivision Dif f erentiating 2.

Characteristics 3

1396 126

\\

i 3.

Nu=ber of Elements per Subdivision 2.4 Contain=ent

a. Type

b. Volume

c. Material 2.5 Moderator 2.6 Blanket Gas 2.7 Reflectors 2.8 Tner=al Shield 9

Biological Shield

a. External Radiation Levels 2.10 Power Level

a. Nor=al Steady State

b. Pulsing 2.11 Ner=al Average Themal Powcr Density

a. Volumetric (2.10.a/2.3.a)

b. Linear (2.10.a/(Nu=ber of Plates /

Pins x Plate / Pin Length))

12 Nor=al Specific Power (2.10.a/2.3.f) 2.13 Reactor Control

a. Safety Rods 1.

Nu=ber 2.

Shape and Di=ensions k

3.

Material and Leading L

g:

4.

Nor=al Withdrawal / Insertion

,g Speed I;

k 5.

Scra= Insertion Speed

(

6.

Total Reactivity

~

g F

B96 im i

e:

.k.

9 7.

Average Reactivity Addition Rate 8.

Scram Mechanism

b. Regulating Rods 1.

Number 2.

Shape and Dimensions 3.

Material and Leading 4.

Normal Withdrawal / Insertion' Speed 5.

Total Reactivity 6.

Average Reactivity Addition Rate

c. Chemical Shim Control 1.

Chemical 2.

Loading 3.

Control Mechanism 4.

Total Reactivity

d. Burnable Poison 1.

Isotopes Utilized 2.

Location 3.

Loading 4.

Total Reactivity

)

3.

FUEL 3.1 Standard Fuel Element

a. Configuration

b. Ele =ent Dimensions

c. Overall Plate / Pin Dimensions 1396 128 w

-W

-w__

- com w -

e

d. Nu=ber of P,lates/ Pins per Element

e. Distance Between Plate / Pin Centerlines

f. Active Portion of Fuel Plath/ Pin 1.

Di=ensions 2.

Ccmposition 3.

235U Enrichment 4.

Fissile Material Density

g. Reflector Portion of Fuel Plate / Pin 1.

Composition 2.

Dimensions

h. Clad 1.

Cc= position 2.

Thickness

1. Structural Material 3.2 Control Rod Fuel Element

a. Specify Dif f erences from Standard Fuel Elements 3.3 Fuel Cycle

a. Criteria for Refueling

b. Frequency of Refueling

c. Normal Element Lifetime

d. Burnup 235 1.

Average U Burnup 2.

Peak 235U Burnup 3.

Maximum Allowed 235U Burnup

e. Number of Elements Replaced During

~

Typical Refueling

f. Spent Fuel 1.

Minimum Cooling Time 2.

Maximum Amount in Storage 9;,

/ 396 129 m

-=

V9WM _

s

g. Disposition of Spent Fuel

h. Spent Fuel Shipping Cask

1. Spent Fuel Handling

j. 'Juel Failure Detection I

I 3.4 Fuel Inventory

a. Current Fissile Material Inventory S ta tus 1.

New Fuel In-Frocess l

2.

New Fuel On Hand 3.

Fuel In-Core 4.

Spent Fucl In Storage 5.

Spent Fuel Being Reprocessed 6.

Non-Fuel Special Nuclear Material

b. Fissile Material Inventory Needed to Assure Continuity of Operations 1.

New Fuel In-Frocess 2.

New Fuel On Hand 3.

Fuel In-Core 3.5 Fuel Source

a. Fuel Fabricator

b. Fuel Supplier

c. Fissile Material Origin

d. Enrichment Supplier

c. Method of Fabrication 1396 130 l

~7-b f.. Fuel Element Cost

~

4.

HEAT TRAL;SFER DATA 4.1 Fuel Element Heat Transfer Area (No. of Plates / Pins x Active Plate /

' tin Surf ace in Contact with Coolant) 4.2 Fuel Element Flow Area 4.3 Fuel Element Wetted Perimeter 4.4 Fuel Meat Thermal Resistivity 4.5 Clad-Coolant Heat Transf er Coef ficient (at Hot Spot) 4.6 Heat Flux at Plate Surface Li.

a. Normal Average Heat Flux

b. Peak Heat Flux 1.

Without Hot Chanr. Factors 2.

With Hot Channel Facters

c. Axial Peaking Factor in Hot Channel (frca Axial Fission Rate Dis tribu tion) 1.

Without Hot Channel Factors 2.

With Hot Channel Factors

d. Hot Spot Location 4.7 Peak Operating Fuel Plate / Fin Temperature

a. At Plate / Pin Surface 1.

Without Hot Channel Factors 2.

With Hot Channel Factors

b. Inside Fuel Meat o'

l.

Without Hot Channel Factors 2.

With Hot Channel Factors 4.8 Primary Coolant 4.9 Coolant Flow

a. Flow Direction

b. Flow Induced by

c. Norral flow Rate I39613I

d. Maximum Flow rate

e. Mean Core Flow Velocity

f. Normal Core Inlet Temperature

g. Normal Core Te=perature Rise (AT)

h. Peak Coolant Te=perature Rise (AT) at Hot Spot 1.

Without Hot Channel Factors 2.

With hot Channel factors

1. Coolant Pressure at Core Outlet (Absolute)

j. Coolant Pressure at Hot Spot (Absolute) 1.

Without Hot Channel Factors sa 2.

With Hot Channel Factors 4.10 Hot Channel Factors (Including Only effects Other than Nuclear Peaking; Specify Breakdowns)

a. For Coolant Te=perature Rise

b. For Film Temperature Rise

c. Others 4.11 Core Heat Dissipation System 4.12 Shutdown Heat Removal Systc=

a. Worst Case Elapsed Time from Shutdown to Coolant Independence Without Fuel Distortion 4.13 Emergency Core Cooling Systen e

1396 132

~

u-5.

NUCLEAR DATA 5.1 Fuel Leading

a. Mini =um Critical Mass

b. Normal Core' Loading (Beginning of Cycle at Rated Power)

c. Maximum k

, Components 1.

Te=perature 2.

Equilibrium Xenon 3.

Equilibrium Samarium 4.

Xenon Override 5.

Burnup (Including Burnable Poison) 6.

Experimental Sa=ple 7.

Others 8.

Total

d. Shutdoun Margin 5.2 Reactivity Coefficients

a. Temperature 1.

Moderator 2.

Dcppler 3.

Fuel Expansion 4.

Burnable Poisons

b. Void 3.3 Neutron Flux Densities

a. Steady State' Average Thermal P'

C

b. Steady State Peak Thermal

c. Steady State Average Fast

d. Steady State Peak Fast

c. Peak Pulsing Pcwer

f. Pulse Integrated Power 5.4 Pulsing Characteristics

a. Pulse Period f j../0

}jj

-10

b. Full Width at Half Maximum

c. Maximum Frequency of Pulses 5.5 Fission Densit.y

a. Normal Average

b. Peak

c. Axial Peak / Average Ratio for Typical Element 5.6 Maximum Fission Product Inventory 6.

OPERATING EXPERIENCE 6.1 Forced Outages per 100 Full Power Operating Hours Since Criticalit:-

a. Equipment Malfunction

'A

b. Personnel Error

c. Total 7.

SAFECUARDS 7.1 Agency Responsible for Regulatory Jurisdiction 8.

PAST MODIFICATIONS A"D FUTURE PL\\NS 8.1 Past Major Mcdifications

a. Power Increase

b. Fuel Conversion

c. Other

d. Date b

8.2 Future Major Modifications

a. Pouer Increase

b. Fuel Conversion

c. Decoc=issioning

d. Other

c. Date 8.3 Future Reactors

a. Type

b. Date i396 I34

2 I r rail i.i t i on th:ut:on Flux (n/cm / cec)

Gai.u::a Flux Facilities ucseription Dimensic's Thermal Fast (Rad /hr)

~

Beamports m

Convertor Blocks i:

i;.

• i! !

Irradiation Racks Pneugatic Tubes I

e-T Neutron Source Reacto'r Core 3

I!

T.,

9:!!

, u..

c U

U N3 D

25'S) i

__ Reactor Pool 6

9 tu Ln 23'S)i

& e9 Thermal Column pg N.

b

@ l',W n.

. 3pp l

Cont. d)

REACTOR LABORATORY, AND EXPERIMENTAL FACILIT:

9,1 Laboratory Descriotion Facilities Accelerator Critical Assemblies Ga=ma Sources t Cells Neutron Activation Analysis Neutron Generator Neutron Radiograph 3

Neutron Spectrometer Radioisotope Laboratorics 1396 136

+ -

10.

RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL PROGRAM AND REACTOR UTILIZATION SIM!ARY 10.1 Research, Technical, and Training Program N

~0.2 Principal Isotopes Produced 1396 137

1,_

7 COMPUTER CODES UTILIZED IN DESIGN 11.

11.1 Neutronics 11.2 Structural Design

a. Reactor Vessel

-~

b. Fuel

c. Containment 11.3 Heat Transfer DECOMMISSIOPED FACILITY LATA 12 Facility Structural Condition 12.1 Maintenance and Surveillance Progrs=

12.2 Types and Quantity of Centamination 12,.3 Present 12.4 Types and Quantity of Stored Wastes Presen:

Facility Radionuclide Inventory 12.5 Planned Interi= Dispcsition of facility 12.6 Planned Ultinate Disposition of 12.7 Facility Estinate Volume of Radioactive Waste

'2.8 Generated by Deconnissioning FACILITY DESIGN AD OPEFA~ ION _

13.

REFERENCE DOCL".s H 1396 138 e,

e