ML19296D518
| ML19296D518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1980 |
| From: | Stevenson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Estey H SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8003040713 | |
| Download: ML19296D518 (2) | |
Text
?, L,- L e
UNITED STATES
/pa arc
'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON o
f i c. ([l[
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
~#
';L :(r.
f S
e
\\,_,,~
^****
JAN 2 41990 FCUP:RLS 70-1257 Exxon Nuclear Company ATTN :
Mr. H. Paul Estey, Manager Licensing & Compliance, Operating Facilities 2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352 Gentlemen :
We have reviewed the application transmitted by your letter of November 19, 1979, for amendment of License No. SNf1-1227, including the enclosure to the letter, revised pages for the existing license, and Documents XN-NF-453, XN-N F-467, and XN-N F-518. We find that additional infonnation, identified in the enclosure, is needed for us to complete our safety analysis. Prompt response is necessary if you are to approach the planned use schedule given in the November transmittal letter.
Since rely, llj.
U i,
C Robert L. Stevenson
<l Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and
!iaterial Safety Enclosu re :
Comments and Questions on Exxon Amendment Application dated November 19, 1979 s
JAN p 4 19g COMftENTS AND OUESTIONS 04 EXXON AMENCffENT APPLICATION DATED NOVEf!BER 19, 1979 Docket 70-1257 Note:
If the following questions are satisfactorily resolved and the amendment Amendment 21 to SN!1-1227, issued Decemberapplication is approved 10, 1979, the renewal application transmitted by the NRC letter dated Decemberand that the qu 10, 1979, should all be answered.
Furthemore, approval of the amendment application will call for corresponding modification of the renewal application for SNff-1227.
1.
Page I-5.30, para. 5.2.2.4.2 It should be confirmed that (a), (b) and (c) are additive requirements.
Para. (c) should add that, in the absence of a fireproof barrier, special controls will be used to prevent ' fires and to control use of moderators in firefighting in such process areas.
(c) appears to allow use of concentration control based solely on administrative Furthermore, procedures.
It should be made clear that such applications will be limited to I
situations where the nature of the process and operations make violation of the concentration limit unlikely even after failure of any single control.
2.
Page II - 2.16b What is the justification for not employing the usual temperature controls on the ion exchange column feed streams and the column itself?
3.
Page II - 2.26 Since, as stated on page 2 of the transmittal letter, it is desired that the dry end of the WOR be licensed at this time, additional information should be pMded identifying the basis for nuclear criticality safety in that part of the WUR.
4 Page II - 2.27, second and third lines codes will be met by the building design.
Please state specifically what 5.
Page II - 4.76 There appear to be ex descriptions of maximum resin loading (e.g.,ponents omitted in some of the 3rd line up on pa Please review this page and 11-4.77 and correct if necessary. ge 4.76).
6.
?' age II - 4.77 Please relate the maximum resin loading values quoted by the manufacturer to the values given based on the Exxon experiments, and show that the latter are consistent with the manufacturer's values.
7.
Pace II - 4.78, para. 4.6.13.3(b)
The calculation for normal conditions t
of elution is based on dissolution of ammonium diuranate ( ADU).
What is the experimental basis for concluding that the elution reaction is always correctly represented by the HNO -ADV reaction?
clusion to be 'ble to confim that the elution operation cannot result in aIt 3
deep plug of solution above the minimum critical concentration in the bed.
6
JEN 9 4 1980 2
8.
Page II - 4.78, para. _(c) a.
What is the basis for assuming a zero resin loading when the inter-stices were assumed filled with ADV for the calculation reported here?
b.
The values quoted for normal resin unloading appear to be small compared to the uncertainty in, and possible impact of, resin bed void volume.
l.re there no measurements of resin bed void volume that would be directly applicable to the situation analyzed?
c.
Why was it assumed that ADU would not fill the unpacked section?