ML19269E212
| ML19269E212 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Westinghouse |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1979 |
| From: | Stevenson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Dipiazza R WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, DIV OF CBS CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906270030 | |
| Download: ML19269E212 (3) | |
Text
'
n nao
,5 UNITED STATES y
~ w(
,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- ~
WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 p
%;.w...l.}
FCPF:RLS
'N 2 2 7979 70-1151 Westinghouse Electric Corporation ATTN: Mr. R. P. DiPiazza, Manager NES License Administration P. O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Gentlemen:
We have begun our review of your April 3, 1979 application for an amendment to License SNM-ll07 to authorize operations with special nuclear material in the expansion of your Columbia plant. To enable us to continue our review, we request the supporting information identified in the enclosure. The requested information was discussed briefly in a telecon on May 15, 1979 with Mr. C. Sanders of your staff.
To maintain our review schedule for this case and avoid interference with other pending licensing cases, it is necessary that we receive your response by June 15, 1979.
Sincerely, l
g/). -
d+/
p[UraniumFuelFabricationSection Robert L. Stevenson Fuel Processing & Fabrication Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety
Enclosure:
Questions and Comments on Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Amendment Application, Docket 70-1151, April 3,1979 2131 299 79062700 3 D C
,J n
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CO(P0 RATION AMENDMENT APPLICATION, DOC'IT 70-1151, APRIL 3,197S 1.
Page 6 - The revision record for page 18 appears inconsistent with the balance of the application and the marking of page 18.
Page 18 - The date and revision number appear to be incorrect.
2.
3.
Page 194c - Revision number, date and docket number were omitted.
Please provide a corrected page.
4.
Page 1941 - It is implied that the recirculating scrubber system may not be sampled and analyzed on system loading. Please justify from the criticality safety viewpoint.
5.
Page 194j - Since the wording of this page with respect to the
~
allowable limit of U-235 in any ash container is not clear and is identical to the corresponding wording on page 190, which is clarified by Condition 28 of the license, that condition will be revised to incorporate reference to page 194j also.
6.
Page 194k - In view of the deletion of references to automatic mechanisms in the description of the incinerator safety mechanisms, additional information on automatic shutdown should be provided or it should be confirmed that there will be an operator in attendance at all times during operation.
7.
Page 194s - (a) If the dissolver criticality safety is based on batch control, are batches varied according to enrichment and if so, how are enrichments kept separated?
(b) What is done to ensure that residues do not accumulate between dissolution batches? (c)
Are the "MPV for diameter" criteria based on solution or oxide systems and if solutions are assumed, how are accumulations of uranium-bearing solid residues prevented?
8.
Page 194x - What temperature or other controls are used in the uranyl nitrate concentration and nitric acid recovery steps to avoid possible " red oil" explosions?
9.
Page 1942 - Since a possible disposal alternative for treated spent solvent is as nonradioactive chemical waste, the text should include the procedures and criteria for determining that the treated spent solvent is free of radioactive material.
10.
Pages 122,122a,122b - (a) The equipment pieces should be identified by name.
(b) How was it concluded that the " central unit" chosen was the limiting case?
D 3p 500 e
h
w:.
'2-4 2-
- 11. Page 194ad - (a) What is the meaning of the formula in the second
-paragraph and where is it given in TIO-70lS, Rev. l? (b) Why was V-1081 considered to have a keff bare of 0.58 when the diameter is less than that of the other units? (c) Since the keff value from Figure 2.3.2.13 applies to solution, it should be confirmed that all of the vessels will be limited to solutions of. uranium at concentrations not exceeding 500 g U/1.
- 12. Page 194ad (cont'd) - (a) Why doesn't the total angle on page 194ad agree with the quoted maximum on page 122a? (b) Are the V-1087 vessels the same as T-1087 on the layout or are there redundant numbers with different prefixes?
- 13. Please augment the description of the process to degrade enriched uranium to source material with a detailed description of the
~
' ~ sampling and analytical procedure to verify that the product does not exceed 0.71 wt% uranium-235 in the uranium.
~
Please provide a plot plan, similar to Figure 3.1-1 of the 14.
Westinghouse Env.ronmental Report, showing the area of the proposed expansion in relation to the existing plant, the new solvent ex-traction area, the chemical process development facili'.y and the new incinerator system.
I k
1
,,g t
4
- I+'
6 m
I
- "s'e
.A 1*
~.
'Q
^
". )
~
2131 301
..