ML19254F550
| ML19254F550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1979 |
| From: | Crow W, Soong A, Stevenson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19254F548 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7911120017 | |
| Download: ML19254F550 (5) | |
Text
.-,.,,,
SEP 2 61979 DOCKET NO.:
70-1151 LICENSEE:
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC)
FACILITY:
Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant, Columbia, South Carolina
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION DATED APRIL 3, 1979, AS SUPPLEMENTED JUNE 12, AND AUGUST 10, 1979, FOR OPERATIONS IN THE EXPANSION TO COLUMBIA PLANT, PC NO. 79073A
Background
By application dated April 3, 1979, with license pages dated March 5, 1979, Westinghouse Electric Corporatioa (WEC) requested an amendment to SNM-1107 to authorize operations with special nuclear material in an expansion of the Columbia Plant. Questions arising from NRC review of the application were transmitted to WEC in the letter of May 22, 1979, and most of the questions satisfactorilv answered by WEC in the letter and revised pages sent on June 12.
Additional imormation needed to complete the NRC review was identified during the prelicensing site visit to the Columbia Plant and the expansion area by Messrs. Soong and Stevenson on July 17, and 16, 1979.
(A copy of the trip report, issued July 20, 1979, is in the docket file.) The desired information, which was mainly conccrned with the procedure for naturalization of uranium in the final process wasti stream, was provided in WEC's letter of August 10, 1979.
The expansion consists of an addition of approximately 100,000 square feet to the present manufacturing building, which is approximately 250,000 square feet (see F'.'ure 1). Approximately 75,000 equare feet of the expansion will be used for n!w or expanded chemical and mechanical areas and the remainder for in plant offices and service areas, including about 5,000 square feet for truck docks.
Three new items will be operated in the expanded chemical manu-facturing area:
(1) a solvent extraction scrap recovery process, (2) a chemical process development laboratory, and (3) a second incinerator system for oxidation of combustible scrap.
The application also included a request for approval in principle of changes in the proc'sssing of aquecus wastes.
The changes would include (a) addition of a p?ocess step to improve uranium recovery and thus effect a reduction in the u~anium content down to the ppm range, and (b) addition of depleted uranium to the solution so that the uranium in the subsequently generated solids would be below 0.71 wt% U-235 and could be handled as source material.
The legality of the latter procedure was raised during a meeting of NRC and WEC personnel on January 17, 1979.
(A copy of the January 19, 1979, memorandum recording the meeting is in Docket File 1151.) The specific details of the waste treat-ment operation, particularly the possible environmental effects consequent to the needed process eeripment additions, are not described in the application.
13'O 322 7911120
.I ELECTRIC SUD-STATI0tt CALCIUt1 FLUORIDE LAGOON #3 (PROPOSED)
TANK FARM LCIUM FLUORIDE
_ LAGOON #2 CALCIUM FLUORIDE 3
LAG 00ii il UATER TANK (STOP.:
PUMP HOUSE STOPl! RU'!OFF TO
. d lis l
UPPER SUNSET LAKE UF6 STORAGE PAD
/
SHIPPIt!G CONTAINE SANITARY LAG 00tl 3
\\}
, STORAGE AREA
,)\\
'P*k
\\\\
OIL HOUSE "Bli(LFR' bi'ILDING Q s
1 NORTH & SOUTF' 5','I D!TCH PROCESS WASTi.
e l
o f
LAGOONS N~
j
/ /
j r
a
\\
FPAME HOUSE 3
y E
q
\\
[ EXPANSI0tl EAST LAGOON N
f, f
COOLING
' EQUIPMENT SHED -
l WASTE TREATMEf!T BUILDIN g[e8 J
SCRAP STORAGE a
[I AREA
/
/
pg.lT 1
C BOILER HOUSE C0ttTRACTOR CHAtiGE
\\
CAFE - "
+
ROOM OFFICE O
KDVANCED;' WASTE
/,
f/
TREATNENT BUILDING (PROPOSED)
VISITOR PARKING PARKItiG HF STORAGE TAtiK U*iH STORAGE tat!KS N
3 DITg,H
/,
O 150 300 450 600 SCALE OF FEET N
COLUttBIA SITE SUILDING LOCATIONS
^"
FIUURE1.
\\
1310 323
_ + -
3 The current license for the Columbia Plant was renewed in a completely revised form on May 24, 1978. The NRC review effort in connection with the renewal included both safety and environmental evaluations.
The safety evaluation culminated in the issuance of a safe;.y evaluation report on March 31, 1978, while the environtental review culminated in an Environmental Impact Appraisal (NR-FM-013) (EIA) in April 1977 in support of a negative declaration published on April 29, 1977, in the Federal Register.
The EIA was based on an assumed expanded plant operating at 1,600 MTU/ year and hence the EIA embraced a plant operation larger than anticipated following completion of the current expansion.
In Attachment 2 to the April 3, 1979 letter, transmitting the amendment applica-tion, WEC presented a detailed comparison of the environmental impacts of the plant expansion with the corresponding commitments in the environmental report.
The compliance history and record of plant personnel exposures to radiation for a period of three years up to and including 1977 were reviewed and found acceptable in the safety evaluation report for the license renewal.
The Office of Inspection and Enforcement reports for the WEC plant for 1978 and early 1979 were reviewed as part of the overall effort relevant to the subject amendment application.
The noncompliance items reported by the inspectors concerned contamination surveys, posting of controlled areas, frequency of emergency drills, adherence to operating procedures, calibration of sample flow meters, and inadvertent transfer of two fuel rods.
The licensee has taken appropriate corrective actions.
Further, the noncompliance items were found in only a few of the many areas inspected, the inspectors reported significant additions to the radiological safety staff, and ventilation improvements were and n e beinq made which are leading to lower exposures to airborne radioactivity.
In summary, the overall trend since issuance of the renewal license has been to improved safety conditions as a consequence of additions to both equipment and safety staff.
The safety of the expansion area operations was discussed with Mr. G. P.
Coryell, Reg #on II, I&E inspector for the Westinghouse plant, in telecons on August 27, and September 10, 1979.
Coryel' saw no objection to issuance of the authorizing amendment provided that the criticality alarms and air sampling equipment were installed and operable prior to bringing SNM into the expansion area.
(During Coryell's visit to the plant prior to September 10, the alarms and air sampling equipment were not yet installed and operable.)
DISCUSSION Radiation Safety The same controls will be used to ensure radiation safety and adherence to ALARA principles in the expansion area that are used in the existing licensed operations in the Columbia Plant.
These will include the following:
(1) Categorization of the new SNM areas as contaminatio., controlled areas with appropriate personnel access limits.
(2) Weekly surveys of surface contamination leveis with cleanup at the action levels used in the corresponding areas of the balance of the plant.
1310 324
4 (3) All work involving radioactive materials subject to the existing radia-tion work procedures and approvals.
(4) Continuous monitoring of room air, and assessment of personnel exposures.
(5) Process equipment ventilated into appropriate exhaust systems including HEPA filters, ex'1aust air sampling and analysis.
In addition to the foregoing, the new areas will be served by a ventilation system designed and operated to move air from uncontaminated areas toward contaminated areas.
The higher installed ventilation capacity in the new area compared to the existing plant (where ventilation equipment is currently undergoing major improvement) is expected to result in lower airborne activity levels compared to the existing plant, where airborneradioactivity has averaged about 20% of MPC during the past three years.
The application (page 194Z) includes a : Jible disposal alternative for treated spent solvent that meets the racioactivity concentration level of 10 CFR 20, Appendix B, Table II.
The quoted Part 20 limit applies to aqueous wastes that would mix freely with the water in the environment.
Since the used solvent is immiscible in water, it is concluded that the referenced limit does not apply and the spent solvent should be disposed of as radioactive material.
Nuclear Criticality Safety Section VII, Nuclear Criticality Safety, of the Safety Evaluation Report issued in connection with the renewal license for the WEC plant, reviewed and reported the basic references and standards th'at support the criticality safety controls used by WEC at Columbia.
These same technical criteria, for both single units and arrays, were applied in designing the equipment and procedures for handling special nuclear material (SNM) in the plant expansion area. The three new SNM operations are the solvent extraction scrap processing area, the new incinerator, and the chemical process development laboratory.
The criticality safet'; bases for these operations are summarized in the following paragraphs:
(1) Solvent Extraction Area - The solvent extraction equipment includes a dissolver system similar to the units in the existing licensed scrap recovery operation, feed preparation equipment; extraction column, stripping column, product concentrator, acid recovery, and auxiliary equipment.
In general, these units are favorable geometry cylinders spaced to meet sulid angle criteria and well spaced from massive reflectors. The NRC review effort included checks of the unit diameters and spacings, which confirmed that the criteria in the license are met.
(2) New Incinerator - The criticality safety of the incinerator will be based on a safe batch limit similar to that used in the existing, licensed incinerator.
The new incinerator incorporates design improvements on charging, combustion, asn cleanout, internal pressure relative to the 1310 325
_. -._.~.. _.__ _.. _,-..
5 surroundings, and off gas handling based on the design of an incinerator operating at one of the DOE sites.
(3) Chemical Process Development Laboratory - The laboratory will include a tube calciner and sintering furnace simulating the production units, a walk-in ventilated hood, small fume hood, and other material handlir.g equipment.
The criticality safety of the laboratory equipment will be based on geometry or mass limits taken from the tables of approved values in the current license conditions.
Environmental Imoact of the Proposed Expansion As noted in the attached environmental review of the proposed plant expansion (April 30, 1979, memorandum by Dr. E. Y. Shum), the environmental impact of the expansion was included in the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) issued by the Commission on April 1977 in connection with license renewal.
In the EIA, it was concluded that plant operation will not result in significant environmental impact, even at a plant throughput rate which is about one third more than expected following the current expansion.
The application does not address the possible (future) environmental effects of the process for further recovery of the uranium from the aqueous process wastes.
Process Safety The basis for the process safety of equipment in the expansion area is generally similar to that for corresponding equipment in the existing plant.
Thus the new incinerator will have safety instrumentation at least equal, if not superict, to that on the existing incinerator and WEC has committed to the maintenance of such instrumentation.
The concentrator equipment auxiliary to the new solvent extraction scrap recovery process raises concern with so called " red oil" reactions.
The prevention of such reactions will be based on the customary controls, which include solvent washing of the aqueous streams to remove TBP-degradation products prior to concentration, and controls to limit concentrator temperatures to the accepted safe value.
Legality of Uranium Degradation To Source Material In the meeting with WEC representatives in January 1979, the question was raised of the legality of degrading uranium in the process wastes (where the contained uranium averages about 2% to 3% U-235 enrichment) through the addi-tion of depleted uranium to bring the U-235 content down to 0.71% or less.
In response to that question, which is repeated in the application under discussion, the Office of the Executive Legal Director wrote a memorandum on April 10, 1979, (ccpy attached) which states that the naturalized uranium could be treated as source material. The essential requirements in that memorandum are:
(1) The isotopic concentration of the blend of depleted and enriched uranium must be less than 0.71% U-235, and 1310 326
~. - - -
6 SEP 2 61979 (2) The blended uranium must be physically and chemically uniform, i.e., only a single material.
The information supplied by WEC dated August 10, 1979, indicates that the foregoing requirements will be met.
Conclusion and Recommendations Based on the safety and environmental reviews of the ameriament application as supplemented, it is concluded that the proposed activities in the expanded.
area of the Columbia Plant may be conducted without undue risk to the health and safety of the operating staff or the public, and without significant environmental impact, subject to the following condition:
Notwithstanding the wording on pages 194z and 194aa, of the April 3, 1979 application, the licensee shall only dispose as radioactive material, spent process solvent containing uranium residues from scrap recovery operations.
The license amendment should approve of the uranium naturalization process using depleted uranium additions to the process waste stream as described and the improved waste treatment process, but notify Westinghouse that this approval does not address the environmental impact of the future waste treatment installa-tion. The environmental effects of the waste treatment installation should be described in a future amendment application to be submitted when Westinghouse har developed the detailed informaticn.
as4 Luf m A. L. Soond -
g R. L. Stevenson Radiation Safety P';nject Manager Approved By:
M W. T. Crow, Leader Uranium Process Licensing Section Attachments:
1.
Memorandum from Martin G.
Malsch to Richard E. Cunningham dtd 4/10/79 2.
Environmental Review dtd 4/30/79 by Dr. E. Y. Shum 1310 327
b*
.lu, e
s
~
/ anto\\
s u
UMTCD STATES y ~
,i ;,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON p.._ $
W ASmNG TO4. D. C. 20355
- e. h iu / !
% m.. m J APR 1 0 ;g79
- ==*
MEMOR flDUM FOR:
Richard E. Cunningham, Director Division of Fuel ' Cycle and Material Safety Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards FROM:
Martin G. Malsch Chief Regulations Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director This is in reply to your memorandum of March 8,1979, captioned " Legality,
of Degrading Special Nuclear Material."
The questicn you have posed is whether certain process wastes containing special nuclear material may be classified as source material if sufficient depleted uranium has been introduced into the process stream to reduce the isotopic concentration of uranium-235 below 0.71%.
" Source material" and "special nuclear material" are defined by section 11 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as. follows:
"z.
The term ' source material' means (1) uranium, thorium, or any other material which is determined by the Commission pursuant to the provisions of section 61 to be source material; or (2) ores containing one or more of the foregoing materials, in such cen-centration as the Commission may by regulation determine frcm time to time.
"aa.
The term 'special nuclear material' means (1) plutenium, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the Ccmmission, pursuant to the provisions of section 51, determines to be special nuclear material, but does not include source material; or (2) any material artificially enriched by any of the foregoing, but dces not include source material."
15\\D 528 S
't h
~
l.
The terms are further defined in the Cornission's regulations:
"(h) " Source Material" means (1) oranium or thorium, or any combination thereof, in any physic 1 or chemical fom or (2) ores which contain by weight one-twentieth of one percent (0.05%) or more of (i) uranium, (ii) thorium or (iii) any combination thereof.
Source material doet not include special nuclear material." 10 CFR 540.4(h).
"(m) 'Special nuclear material' means (1) plutenium, urantunf 233, uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, and any other material which the Ccmaission, pursuant to the l
provisions of section 51 of the cct, determines to be scecial nuclear material, but does not include source material; or (2) any material artifically enriched by any of the foregoing but does not include source material;" 10 CFR 570.4(m).
The process waste, for purposes of the definitions, must be evaluated to determine whether it constitutes one " material" on the one hand or an aggregation, of which one constituent is an "{ artificially enriched]
material," on the other.
If there is but one material, and the isotopic enrichment of U-235 is below that of natural uranium, it cannot be special nucle ar material within the terms of.the above definitions and must be source material.
It is our understanding that the pro' cess waste in this case consists x
of homogeneous calcium fluoride solids.
That is, the enriched uranium and depletcd uranium fractions would be uniformly distributed, physically and chemically.
There would, in fact, be cnly a single material.
Assuming the isotopic. concentration of uranium-235 is less than 0.71%, the material in question would be source material and could lawfully be transferred to a source material licensee.
/
>J Martin G. Malsch Chief. Regulations Counsel Office of the Executive Legal Director 1310 3B
7 -
g..-
- _ - - =
m..
~llsi.,"
v
.. aco UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y
APR 3 01979 DOCKET NO:
70-1151 APPLICANT: Westinghouse Electric Corp.
FACILITY:
Comercial Nuclear Fuel' Fabrication Plant Columbia, South Carolina
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF LICENSE AMENDMENT APPLICATION TO AUTHORIZE EXPANSION OF THE COLUMBIA FACILITY
===.
Background===
By letter dated April 3,1979, Westinghouse Electric Corporation (WEC) applied for an amendment to Special Nuclear Material License No. SNM-1107 to authorize operations with special nuclear material in the expansion of their Commercial Nuclear Fuel Fabrication Plant at Columbia, South Carolina.
The application of April 3,1979,. included information to demonstrate that-the environmental effects of the plant expansion had been covered by the environmental report that WEC submitted with the license renewal application in 1975.
Discussion A.
The Procosed Expansion The proposed expansion consists of the construction of an approximately 100,000 square feet addition to the present manufacturing building, of which 75,000 square feet is allocated.for factory space, 5,000 square feet for truck docks and 20,000 square feet for mezzanines.
(See Figure 1 for area of expansion.) This addition is to house new product improvement equipment, a chemical process facility, equipment to increase production and in-process inventory. Also included for use in this area are a second incineration system for combustion of uranium-bearing waste materials and a system for ura.nium recovery from scrap by dissolution and solvent extraction.
~
The building expansion will be effected by the extension of the.present manufacturing space in the north and west directions (see Figure 1). The exterior walls will be prefabricated, prestressed concrete, tee panels which are consistent with the stringent specifications of the present building. About 75,000 square feet space will be used for new or expanded chemical and mechanical areas.
The remaining space will be utilized for 1310 330
c.w.nc5w. m.: 3.~ :.:.~ -
.. ~ W w - % x ; K. a_q. M.= R;. C.s: -
e r-x w. :.r.,
.1
=......m. w.
... ~.
- ~ -
in-plant office and service area. The following major operations are T-included in the expanded chemical manufacturing area:
- _J (1) Solvent Extraction -
Contaminated uranium scrap generated from plant operation can be purified.
and recovered through an in-plant solvent extraction system which involves
~
the dissolution of scrap, extraction, uranium stripping and concentration of the uranyl nitrate product.
(2) Chemical Process Development' Facility The development facility is to provide an environment for experimental work. A walk-in ventilated hood, small fume hood and dust collectors will be used for dust and fume control. A tube calciner and sintering furnace units will be used to simulate the present production units for developnent purposes. Special equipment for specific development projects will be provided as needed.
(3)
Incinerator System The second incinerator system will be installed in the new building addition.
The system will consist of an incinerator, quench tower, absorber tower, heat exchanger, sump tank, condenser, reheater, oil tank, filter house and motor control center.
3' B.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Exoansion
~Y The environmental impact of the proposed expansion has been included in the Environmental Impact Appraisal (EIA) issued by the Commission on April 1977 (MR-FM-013) in connection with the Westinghouse license renewal action.
In the EIA, the potential environmental impact was assessed and projected for a production rate of up to 1,600 metric tons of uranium per year, including the necessary expansion of the plant. With this current proposed expansion, the capacity is expected to be less than 1,200 MTU/ year, therefore, it is not expected that the total effluent release rates will exceed those predicted in the EIA based on a total throughput of 1,600 MTU/ year.
In addition, the proposed expansion will create no new environmental pathway other than those already discussed and evaluated in the EIA.
From the EIA, it was concluded that the plant operation up to a throughput of 1.600 MTU/ year wilh -
not result in si<jnificant environmental impact.
Conclusion The applicant's proposed plant expansion is within the scope of the Environmental Impact Appraisal. As discussed in the EIA, the expansion will q
1310 331
p..,...,...--,,_
_ -j-;,._.__ y,,
y m-
- x s
p,.
not create a significant environmental impact. Since an EIA had been prepared.
covering this proposed exF.ansion, approval of the license amendment is recommended.
h/e/ A n Edward Y. Shum Uranium Process Licensing Section
~
Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety W. T. Crow 1310 N2
.e I
--m~
e
- q -+
. p.. _
//.
CALCtU11 FLUORIDE ELECTRIC SUB-STATION
-\\
LAG 00:l*#3(PROPOSED)
/
~.
~
TANK FARM
\\
S
[ CALCIUM FLUORIDE k'R'-
lf.G00N 12 CALCIUM FLUORIDE
\\
LAG 00!! Il
\\
WATER TAtlK (STORs PUMP HOUSE E~.
JSTORM RUI!0FF TO 2 lss l
l-UPPER SUt! SET LAXE UF6 STORAGE PAD j
/
SHIPPI!(G CONT?Ill SA!!!TARY LAGCON 4
h-
. STORAGE AREA w
x y
\\
01L HOUSE rBUTLER" BUILDING %
\\
a a
z HORTH & SOUTH' TT
'g~
DITai
~
m'H PROCESS' WASTE
\\\\'
e f
u
_m 1
=
~ s ar nnut
]'
.F
'E OUSE t.
w o
hj. k /
h EAST LAG 00!!
L
/ CCLI!!G EQUIPM$tiTSHED-I
/ TO'JERS WASTE iREATMENT BUILDINGd) f~ :
g-f
,i s
/
.J SCRAP STORAGE, t
AREA
/
punt
..h.
50-h-)
i-BOILER HOUSE Q
- .; ~... m. J j.
C0!!TR8.CTOR CHANGE CAFE -
g
.,q
'~ ~
' ROOM 0FFICE WATER 6(ASS. WASTE
, /,.
~
TREATME:IT BUILDING N
f g
. '. PARXI!iG Q
VISITOR
.'"(PROPOSED)
C+
PARKING
'~,
i.~HF STORAGE TANK I
~
j.UNHSTORAGETAM"S
' sotytttT EXTRACTIcti..
'} '
DITCH
)
.., )
(
.'AUxILIARYINCIhERATOR
. CllEMIC.{t. PROCESS DEVE!.0PMENT.
\\.
\\
0 150 300 450 600 w,,_
SCALE OF FEET
[,-
[
' ^
. '. i '
ptA!!T ENTRNICE -
? '-
FIGURE 1 3hU.333 mo m
q3 cottmsIA sI z surtoINc tocaron Asa t msros 2.
on e
w.
.