ML20036A699
| ML20036A699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Framatome ANP Richland |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1993 |
| From: | Edgar J SIEMENS POWER CORP. (FORMERLY SIEMENS NUCLEAR POWER |
| To: | Adensam E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9305130163 | |
| Download: ML20036A699 (7) | |
Text
,
SIEMENS l
l i
April 28,1993 j
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-l Attn: Ms. Elinor G. Adensam, Acting Chief i
l Ucensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS Washington, DC 20555 Ucense No. SNM-1227
-l Docket No. 70-1257 l
Dear Ms. Adensam:
The purpose of this letter is three-fold. First, Siemens Power Corporation (SPC) requests the i'
NRC to authorize SPC to begin construction of a new facility to house an expanded dry conversion process. Second, SPC requests that the NRC amend Ucense No. SNM-1227 to l
authorize radioactivity limits for the unrestricted release of hydrofluoric acid (HF), which is a coproduct of the dry conversion process and which SPC intends to make available for sale f
on the open market in August of 1993 from its currently licensed dry conversion facility.
Third, SPC is notifying the NRC that additional licensing actions will need to be taken as construction of the new facility progresses. In support of these requests are: facility and process descriptions for dry conversion; additional information to SPC's current (August 1992) Environmental Report discussing expected changes to and impacts of gaseous, liquid and solid effluents from the Dry Conversion Facility; and a discussion of proposed HF coproduct release limits. Also included is a discussion of necessary follow on licensing i
activities.
The dry conversion project is a major capital expansion at the Richland fuel fabrication facility.
The dry conversion process is advanced technology which will produce more uniform UO2 I
powder and will generate little or no environmentally objectionable liquid wastes. The objective of this project is to provide a new, stand-alone facility for conversion of UF to UO2 --
s using SPC's dry conversion technology. Following completion of this project, the ADU ~
process will only be used for conversion of scrap, recycled as UNH, to U0. The equipment 2
designs for the dry conversion project will allow processing of uranium enriched to 6 wt percent U-235.
SPC developed its dry conversion process from 1982 to 1984 using a small-scale system.
t Full scale process equipment was designed and installed in SPC's Richland plant in 1984 and '
has been operated since that time for testing and qualifying both the process and product.-
Operation using this equipment has demonstrated throughput rates of 1 MTU/ day and
]
provided the basis for the design of the equipment being installed in SPC's ANFGmbH facility _
fI Siemens Power Corporation -
H0061 Nuclea DMsion - Engineenng and Manufactonng Facdity -
]
'2101 Horn Rapds Road. PO Box 130. R chland. WA 993520130 Te! (509) 375 8100-. Far (509) 375-84021
[I
-9305130163 930428
~
-- P D R - ADOCK 07001257 r
G
- rm -
i+
Page 2 April 28,1993 in Lingen, Germany and for this proposed facility in Richland. Dry conversion production at the Lingen fuel plant is scheduled to begin in the last quarter of 1993.
Facility Description The Richland Dry Conversion Facility building will be designed to contain three standard dry conversion lines (nominal capacity 400 MTU/yr per line) with two lines to be installed immediately and a third line to be added later. One or both of the first two lines to be installed may be capable of processing 6 wt% U-235. The third line will be installed on a schedule to meet marketing demand and will not delay installation of the initial two lines. It will be capable of processing 6 wt% U-235 if neither of the first two lines has that capability.
The Dry Conversion Facility will house dry conversion process equipment to convert UF to UO Powder, plus powder preparation equipment. Interim storage for UO g
2 2
product and U 0 drums will be provided, with necessary drum handling equipment 3 3 for movement inside the building and for transfer to the existing Powder Storage i
Building. Facilities for storage, sampling, and loadout of HF coproduct will be provided. Solid waste colk Mon, assay, and packaging systems will be provided as needed. The building will ir. dude process areas, HVAC systems a control room, a clean equipment room, change rooms, an office area, and a hot maintenance shop (see conceptual building layout enclosed).
^
The building construction will meet all applicable building codes and regulations for the Richland area. The main process portion of the building will be approximately 75' x 80' x 50' high. Dividing walls and floors will partition the interior space as needed to support process equipment and operation. An approximately 30' x 60' x 25' attached building will house the HF recovery and loadout equipment. Other non-nuclear structures will be attached to the building to provide for change rooms, mechanical and electrical rooms, offices, etc.
Process Description The existing dry conversion equipment and process in the UO Building was 2
authorized by the NRC by Amendment No. 26 to Ucense No. SNM-1227 dated November 7,1985. The NRC agreed by letter dated July 19,1985 to treat the dry conversion reactor design and process as proprietary and withhold that information from public disclosure. That information is still considered proprietary by SPC and, with the exception of the treatment of the HF, is still applicable. A proprietary i
description of the process and equipment was previously transmitted to the NRC as part of the Amendment No. 26 authorization process. A new proprietary process and j
equipment description will be submitted as a part of the application for an amendment to operate the facility, which will follow after the design is complete. Below is a non-proprietary description of the process.
i
Page 3 April 28,1993 UF is converted to UO powder in the new facility using the dry conversion process.
g 2
Electrically heated autoclaves are used to vaporize the UF in the 30B cylinders.
l s
Vaporized UF gas is reacted with steam and hydrogen in a high-temperature fluidized g
bed reactor, prociucing a mostly defiuorinated UO powder and an HF-bearing 2
Powder is fed into a rotary calciner for final defluorination.
l gaseous effluent. This UO2 From the calciner, the powder is transferred to a powder preparation system similar to _
the existing ADU conversion powder preparation systems. HF-bearing offgas from the reactors and calciners is filtered and then condensed to form a hydrofluoric acid liquid coproduct which will be marketed as a commercial chemical.
Environmental Considerations (Supplement to the Environmental Report) r f
Amendment No. 26 to License No. SNM-1227 authorized operation of the dry conversion process and equipment as mentioned above. (That amendment authorization and supporting documents are enclosed for your information.) That i
equipment has been operated intermittently through the intervening years and the
[
environmental impacts of those operations are automatically included in the i
Environmental Report submitted with the SPC application for license renewal dated August 26,1992. The construction project discussed herein results in a new building r
using currently licensed equipment and processes which increases conversion capacity and provides facilities capable of handling higher enrichments. No additional environmental issues are identified as a result of this project. SPC will take soil
(
samples from the site prior to construction. These samples will be analyzed for gross alpha and beta and the results maintained in a decommissioning file. A brief synopsis of pertinent environmental issues is provided below.
t The precise location of the new facility within the SPC-controlled area has not been i
determined; however, the locations under consideration are all near the UO Building.
2 The SPC-controlled area is zoned as industrial by the City of Richland. The area is also committed to nuclear activities by SPC. There are, therefore, fewer environmental considerations involved in this project than there might be in other locations. The environmental impacts, other than those which normal!y occur at construction sites, will differ only slightly from those of existing plant activities. Following startup of the new facility, approximately 90% of the liquid wastes currently generated at the site will be eliminated as dry conversion is brought on line and the ADU conversion process for UF is eliminated. These process changes will ultimately allow a significant t
g reduction in, if not elimination of, lagoon liquid waste storage and disposal.
l The Dry Conversion Facility, as currently designed, will release little or no liquid process wastes. It will release noncontact cooling water on those occasions when the recirculation system is down. These releases will be accommodated in the State
[
Waste Discharge Permit ST 3919.
The process offgas system and the room HVAC system will be HEPA filtered and exhausted to atmosphere via a new stack. It is expected that the stack gas uranium
i Page 4 April 28,1993 45 concentration will average less than 10 Ci/cc and that the total site emissions will remain well within the existing limit of 50 pCi/ quarter.
The only other emission of potential concern is gaseous HF. Each dry conversion line may emit up to 3 grams of HF per hour for a total of 9 grams per hour if all 3 lines are operating simultaneously. This new emission source (stack) will be regulated by the Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) under Chapter 173-460 WAC, Controls For New Sources of Toxic Air Pollutants. The projected HF emissions have been shown, using a U.S. EPA - approved stack gas dispersion model, to result in an incremental ambient HF increase well below the WDOE acceptable source impact level i
3 (ASIL) of 8.5 g/m average in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. The new stack will be sampled continuously for both radioactivity and fluoride with samples being analyzed weekly. The existing ambient air and forage sampling programs for fluoride will be continued as well. SPC will forward a copy of the required WDOE notice of construction for your files when it is received.
Limited quantities of dry waste will be generated in the form of HEPA filters, contaminated equipment and other industrial-type waste. There will be no substantive increase in site-generated wastes above current quantities.
Based upon the above considerations NRC authorization to proceed with construction is requested.
Coproduct (Hydrofluoric Acid) Radioactivity Limits The dry consersion process results in two products, one being uranium oxide and the other hydrofluoric acid (HF). Within the conversion reactor the uranium in the UFg feed stream is reduced to oxide powder and the coproduct HF leaves in the offgas stream. As the gaseous HF proceeds to the condenser it is passed through two banks of sintered metal filters which quantitatively remove all oxides of uranium such i
that the resultant HF solution contains less than 1 ppm uranium. One ppm of uranium in 45 wt percent HF is equivalent to 3 pico curies per milliliter (3pCi/ml) assuming the uranium to be enriched to 6.0 wt percent.
This value of 3 pCi/mi is identical to the limit for uranium release to sewer listed in e
Appendix B in the new 10CFR20 as published in the Federal Register Vol. 56, No. 98.
As with the sewage, if the HF were the only source of water ingested by a reference man during a year, the resultant committed effective dose equivalent would total approximately 0.5 rem. Uranium could also be absorbed into the body via an acid burn; however, to obtain a dose approaching 0.5 rem, the uranium contained in 31 liters (approximately 8 gallons) of HF would have to be absorbed. If the individual survived such an acid burn, the committed dose would be of little consequence compared to the burn. Adequate safety precautions for work with HF should preclude such an accident.
I 6
i
4 Page 5 April 28,1993 The total quantity of HF produced in a year by three conversion lines could be as much as 1.2 million liters. At a uranium concentration of 1 ppm (3 pCi/ml) the total uranium contained in a year's production would be approximately 1400 grams containing approximately 85 grams of U-235 assuming 6 percent enrichment. The possibility of accumulating sufficient uranium in a configuration which could approach criticality is not considered credible.
From the discussions above it is obvious that HF containing up to 3 pCi/ml of 6 percent enriched uranium presents neither credible radiological nor criticality safety problems. In addition the quantities used in the scenarios described above are conservative in that the more likely average enrichment level will be 3-4 percent and a more likely annual production quantity of HF will be approximately 0.8 million liters.
It is proposed that SPC be allowed to market the HF coproduct produced by dry conversion on an unrestricted basis when the uranium concentration in 10 consecutive lots averages 3 pCi/mi or less with no single lot being above 15 pCi/ml. A lot will be no larger than 20,000 liters. Lots with activity levels higher than those specified above will not be released without the prior approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The proposed wording of the authorizing license amendment to market hydrofluoric acid coproduct on an unrestricted basis is contained in revised pages 1-7 and 1-7a of the existing License. Copies of these pages are enclosed. The recent (August 26, 1992) application for renewal will be revised following approval of this amendment.
Additional Licensina Actions The project schedule is tentatively three years with design occupying the first year, procurement and construction occupying the second year, and equipment installation and testing occupying the third year. Near the end of design most project decisions will be complete and the operating details specified. At that time licensing activities to authorize operation of the new facility will be submitted as a revision to the August 1992 application for license renewal. The renewed license will have to cover the dry conversion process regardless of renewal date. It is difficult at this time to determine whether the license will be renewed by startup of the new facility or whether the current license will also have to be amended. In any event the submittals should be identical, and only the page numbers will differ. SPC plans to discuss this issue with the NRC as dry conversion design progresses and schedules become more definite.
It is important that the NRC have time and manpower available in its schedules to meet the SPC project schedule requirements.
SPC's emergency plan (EMF-32), safeguards plan (EMF-12), physical protection plan (EMF-538) and decommissioning funding plan will be updated as necessary prior to startup of the Dry Conversion Facility.
t Page 6 f
April 28,1993 The safety analyses conducted for the current dry conversion process will be reviewed and updated as necessary for the new facility.
SPC expects to begin marketing HF from its existing dry conversion line by August 1,1993; therefore, the amendment authorizing HF release on an unrestricted basis needs approval before that date. SPC expects to begin construction of the new facility by February 1,1994.
We would, therefore, appreciate your timely review of both these requests.
If you require more information, please call me at 509-375-8663.
Very truly yours, t
J ines. Edgar Staff Engineer, Ucensing JBE:pm cc:
R. M. Bernero, NRC D. McBaugh, Wash. St. DOH t.
h-L P
'I v
i b
RICHLAND DRY CDNVERSION N
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT u
+
..e
--o U'
V) 75 ft l
l I
Tm 1
a L
o f
- - ta 15 w
11
- - k:~
2 21 i-a %
=
in k
b ga t
=
e
=-
- n e5
=ai
////////
25;i
.A r-U U
2=1 a a 4
essa l
/
ww
/
I I
lI I
c.
o
- s:
- s :
\\
):o c:I:c ! c
- e m c:
-3 l l i
km j t, g
tg
,y.
.y.
Q a:
al 2
sf 3
"~
l 7 C: :C C: :o y C W,
WM kd h
.k s.
.LJ,
- bJa f
(
k k_..
k A
.-~
)
M w
N 1-G
-m-oi o
o a
tr
- .I es r
Ew c
I- - -4 j*
13 t
y j+
+
+
l
\\
Y
,a-5he i
%bk i
l i
l I
e
~
d~ f **suq#o UNITED STATES
!}g[,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
.)
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
10t
~1R FCUP:GHB 70-1257 SNM-1227, Amendment No. 26 Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.
ATTN:
Mr. C. W. Malody Licensing Specialist 2101 Horn Rapids Road Richland, Washington 99352 Gentlemen:
In accordance with your application dated June 12, 1985, and supplement dated August 29, 1985, and application dated August 27, 1985, and pursuant to Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 70, Materials License No. 5%M-1227 is hereby amended to authorize use of facilities for the cry conversion of uranium hexafluoride to uranium oxide and to autnorize changes in tne Racic-logical Contingency Plan. Condition 9 is revised to add the dates of June 12, August 27, and August 29, 1985, and to delete the dates of August 20, 1981, and December 16, 1981..
All other conditions of this license shall remain the same.
Enclosed for your information are copies of our Safety Evaluation. Report, the Environmental Assessment, and the Finding of No Significant Impact.
j FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
t' l
'w-W. T. Crow, Acting Chief l
Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch I
Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS
Enclosures:
1.
Safety Evaluation Report 2.
Environmental Assessment 3.
Finding of No Significant Impact 1
-Q 0
l j
~~
/
~%,
UNITED STATES E}
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g 0
98 DOCKET NO:
70-1257 LICENSEE:
Exxon Nuclear Co,p my N. (Eurs FACILITY:
Richland, Washington
SUBJECT:
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT, AMENDMENT APPLICATION DATED JUNE 12, 1985, AND SUPPLEMENT DATED AUGUST 29, 1985, RE DRY CONVERSION OF LOW-ENRICHED UFa to 00 ; AND 2
AMENDMENT APPLICATION DATED AUGUST 27, 1985 RE REVISED EMERGENCY AND RADIOLOGICAL CONTINGENCY PLAN.
Background
i to UO by the wet ADU conversion ENC is currently authorized to convert UF6 7
process.
In the June 12 application, ENC requests authorization to operate a dry conversion process. The applicant claims that part of the application contains proprietary information. By letter dated July 19, 1985, the NRC informed ENC that the document will be withheld from public disclosure.
The August 29 supplement provides additional safety and environmental. information.
ENC's license requires ENC to notify the NRC of changes to the Radiological Contingency Plan within 6 months of authorized changes. The August 27 submittal provides an updated version which supersedes previous submittals.
Discussion I.A.
Dry Conversion of UF to U0
?
3 2
The dry conversion system has been installed in the 002 Plant adjacent to the Line 2 vaporization room. The vaporization system is similar to the will be detectea by the existing Line existing ADU system. Any leaks of UFg 2 system. The conversion system has 5een operated with depleted uranium uncer the Agreement State License.
and HF.
6 gas will be reacted with superheated steam to form UO F The UF 7 2 will be reacted with hydrogen from cracked amonia to form 002 The U0 F and HF. 2The U0,3 will be processed into reactor fuel using conventional 2
equipment at ENC.
The off-gases will Process off-gases include H, steam, HF, and N.
be filtered and cooled. Th$ condensete from the heat exchanger will be monitored for uranium, collected in a receiver tank, be neutralized, and stored in an existing lagoon. The uncondensed off-gases will be scrubbed and vented into the Line 2 off-gas scrubber and filtration system.
e Radiation Safety The dry conversion process for low-enriched uranium presents no unusual radio-logical protection problems. The existing radiation protection program can be used for the protection of workers.
f h
?
E NOV 7 1965 Nuclear Criticality Safety The primary nuclear safety control for the dry conversion system is moderation control whereby k-infinity is less than unity. The applicant controls the primary potential source of moderation by terminating UF, steam and H flow if the reactor temperature is not above a specified temperature tb prevent 6
condensation of steam. Backflow of of f-gas condensate or scrubber solution is prevented by an overflow line in the scrubber tank.
The heat exchanger, condensate receiver tank, and venturi scrubber use safe geometry design for criticality control.
If uranium above a preset value
(
is detected in the condensate, the conversion process will be terminated.-
The condensate neutralization tank will be subject to concentration cont.ol.
The' applicant has demonstrated a " dual contingency" for the dry conversion reactor.
In the reactor, the UO, would have to exceed the upper level limit and water would have to fill the reactor. This is not considered to be credible.
Valves are designed to open or close in a " safe" position when primary power is i
lost. The inli.ne steam trap should prevent water from entering the reactor, Environmental Safety An Environmental Assessment was performed. As a result, a Finding of No Significant Impact was made and will be published in the Federal Register in October 1985.
II.
Radiological Contingency Plan (RCP)
P ENC has submitted a revised RCP which reflects changes in the ENC organization, other agencies, and a new hard wired telephone system.
The revisions co not decrease the effectiveness of the RCP.
Results/ Conclusions Operation of the dry conversion system will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public or to the environment. Approval of the application is recommended.
The Region V Project Inspector has no objection to this action.
k I
4 M
George H. B1dinger Uranium Process Licensing Section Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of fuel Cycle and i
f',/
Material Safety, NMSS j
Approved by: / d I
eftal f
W. i. Crow, Acting Chief
?
,(pn nckh UNITED STATES
{, > c (; ; g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'/
c WASHWGTON, c. C. 20s55
- ~-
s ; ;a/l gv j
- ~'
OCT 155 DOCKET NO:
70-1257 LICENSEE:
Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. (ENC)
FACILITY:
Richland, Washington SUEJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - DRY CONVER5ICN OF UFs TO UO:
Introduction By application dated June 12, 1985, and its supplement dated August 29, 1955, ENC requested authorization to permit the dry conversion of low enriched (< 5%
w/o U-235) UFs to UO.
The proposed dry conversion operations may result in an 2
increase in effluents from the ENC facility.
Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.21, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccamission (NRC) has prepared this assessment of the resulting impact.
Backcround Since 1974, ENC has been authorized under Special Nuclear Materials License No.
SNM-1227 to manufacture low enriched uranium fuel for light water reactors.
Under an Agreement State License, ENC developed and demonstrated the dry conversion process using small scale equipment and depleted uranium as feed material.
A pilot plant was then constructed for additional testing of the cry conversion precess using depleted uranium as feedstock.
Test runs of the pilot plant have proven the dry conversion process to be successful.
Therefore, ENC proposes to operate the pilot plant using low enriched uranium feeds;;ck for the dry conversion process.
The Proposed Action The proposed action is an amendment to License No. SNM-1227 to authori:e the dry conversion of low enriched UFs to UO.
ENC will use the existing pilot 2
plant and effluent treatment facilities for the process.
The maximum througn-put for the proposed dry process line is 1.0 MTU/ day, however, total throughput capacity of the facility will remain unchanged.
Need for the Procosed Action ENC plans to manufacture a few de'monstration bundles, using the 00 produced by this process, for placement in reactor cores.
This will allow ENC to deter-mine the behavior of the dry.cnverted oxide under actual operating conditions and gain customer acceptance of the product.
Should the dry converted oxide prove acceptable, ENC plans to install the process at its Lingen, West Germany, fuel f abrication f acility.
The decision whether the dry conversion process will replace one of the two wet process lines at the ENC's Richland facility will be made at a later date.
\\
~
2 OCT -71985 I
Alternatives to tne Procosed Action Alternatives to the proposed action include complete denial cf ENC's application.
This would not present an important advantage because current plant emissions j
are well below standards for environmental protection.
The slight increase in i
effluents that may result from the proposed action as discussed below can be accommodated without violating these standards or significantly increasing environmental impacts.
Denial of ENC's application would be considered only if significant issues of public health and safety could not be resolved to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities involved.
Environmental Imoacts of the Proposed Action A.
Construction Impacts I
The facilities for the dry conversion process are already committed to f
fuel fabrication activities.
Thus, there will be no significant impact as a result of the dry conversion process.
B.
Liouid Effluents i
Liquid process waste, as a result of the dry conversion process, will consist of hydrofluoric acid which is neutralized by ammonium hydroxide, r
and potassium hydroxide scrubber solution. The uranium content of these I
wastes is less than 1.0 ppm. After processing through the ammonia recovery system to recover aqueous ammonium hydroxide, the waste is sampled and discharged into the sewer.
The discharge will meet the State of Washington Waste Discharge Permit 3919 and 10 CFR Part 20.303 requirements.
Therefore, the environmental impact is minimal.
i C.
Gaseous Emissions Equipment for the dry conversion process will be housed within the existing P ant.
Gaseous emissions will be treated by existing scrubber and l
UO2 filtration systems.
Projected releases of uranium and fluorides are approxi-mately.08 uCi/yr and 1.83 kg F/yr, respectively.
These releases are not expected to significantly change the release rate of air effluents from present operations. Therefore, gaseous emissions are expected to have an-insignificant environmental impact.
D.
Solid Waste
. Solid waste will be general contaminated trash, such as papers, filters, clothing, etc.
These items will be packaged into approved containers for disposal offsite.
E.
Accident Analysis Operation of the dry conversion process results in the formation of concentrated hydrofluoric acid which is very toxic and corrosive.
A leak could result in the release of HF to the process area floor.
- However,
i i
i 3
OCT 7 1985
-i i
"since all operations involving the dry conversion process are housed in
'l the U0 building, such a spill would be confined and neutralized within
.(
2 the process area and would have an insignificant effect on the environment.
i i
Conclusion
.I Based upon the information presented above, the environmental impact associated with the dry conversion process at ENC's Richland facility is expected to be insignificant.
Increases in-liquid or airborne effluents as a result of dry conversion operations, can be accommodated without significant impact to the i
environment.
Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.31, a Finding of No Significant Impact is considered appropriate for this action.
_lj t
fh
/ [ fiMrd kishore K. Kodali i
Uranium Process Licensing Section l
Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and.
Material Safety, NMSS
'b)
Approved by:
'W
[
W. T. Crow, Section Leader l
t l
[
t f
i t
i i'I
}
e L
J
-f t
7590-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
i FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AMEN 0 MENT OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIALS LICENSE NO. SNM-1227 EXXON NUCLEAR COMPANY, INC.
{
RICHLAND, WASHINGTON j
i DOCKET 70-1257 l
t The U. 5. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering amending Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-1227 for the dry conversion
.l at Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.'s (ENC) uranium fuel l
of low-enriched UFs to UO2 i
fabrication facility in Richland, Washington.
j
~
f Environmental Assessment t
i Identification of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action would authorize.
ENC for the dry conversion of low-enriched UFs (15% w/o U-235) to U0.
The 2
maximum throughput for the proposed dry process line is 1.0 MTU/ day, however, f
total throughput of the facility will remain unchanged.
The Need for the Procosed Action:
The UO produced by the dry conversion j
2 process will be placed in a few demonstration fuel assemblies.
These assem-blies will be loaded into various reactor cores to determine the behavior of f
the dry converted oxide under actual' operating conditions and to i
gain customer acceptance of the product.
i i
i 1
t
~
r f
2
?
Environmental Imoacts of the Procosed Action:
The ENC facility at Richland, Washington, has been licensed to manufacture uranium fuel for light water reactors since 1974.
Based on the last Environmental Impact Appraisal asso-l ciated with the renewal of SNM-1227, effluent releases from present operations result in offsite doses that are well below the 25 mrem limits set by the U. 5.
I Environmental Protection Agency for the uranium fuel cycle facilities (40 CFR i
190).
Therefore, as discussed below, an increase in release of effluents as a I
result of the proposed dry conversion process can be accommodated without
{
exceeding established controls for environmental protection.
t i
s t
{
Since the dry conversion operations will be housed within the existing 002 production building, gaseous emissions will be treated by exieting scrubber-
- y and filtration systems.
Projected releases of uranium and fluorides due to l
the dry conversion process are not expected to significantly change the release rate of air effluents from present operations.
Liquid effluents will be processed for the removal of uranium and ammonia.
After.
processing, the effluent will be sampled and discharged into the sewer.
The i
discharge will meet the State of Washington Waste Discharge Permit 3919 and 10-CFR Part 20.303 requirements.
I i
Solid waste will consist of general c'ontaminated trash such as papers,
-l filters, clothing, etc.
These items will be packaged into approved containers
{
for disposal offsite.
l
l s
3 3
Conclusion Based upon the information presented above, the environmental impact associated t
with the proposed dry conversion process at ENC's Richland facility is expected to be insignificant.
Increases in liquid and/or airborne effluents as a result of the dry conversion process can be accommodated without significant impact to the environment.
Alternative to the Procosed Action:
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment.
That alternative, in effect, is the same as the "no action" alternative. This alternative would only be considered if significant issues of public health and safety cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the regulatory authorities involved.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of j
resources not previously considered in connection with the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Environmental Impact Appraisal dated August 1981 related to ENC's uranium fuel fabrication facility.
Aoencies and Persons Consulted: The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's I
application dated June 12, 1985, and its supplement dated August 29, 1985, and did not consult other agencies or persons.
R b
t
+
r 4
P Findino of No Sionificant Imcact:
The Commission's Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety has prepared an Environmental Assessment related to the amend-ment for the dry conversion of low-enriched UFs to UO at ENC's uranium fuel 2
fabrication facility.
On the basis of this Assessment, the Commission has 3
concluded that the environmental impact created by the proposed action would Y
not be significant and does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No-Significant Impact is appropriate.
The Environmental Assessment and the above documents related to this proposed U
action are available for public inspection and copying at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Copies of the Environmental Assessment may be obtained by calling (301) 427-4510 or by writing to the Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
Dated at Silver Spring, Maryland, this 7th day of October 1085.
FOR THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/)
ii L
' ti'pu)
W. T. Crow, Acting Chief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS i
Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division eur.2 SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SNM-1227, NRC DOCKET NO. 70-1257 l
PART I - LICENSE CONDITIONS REV.
l 1.
ANF-12, " Nuclear Material Safeguards Procedures Description l for the Fuels Fabrication Plant," (Revision 18).
This ~
document shall be maintained in a current and approved status and shall be properly implemented.
1.6.7 Authorization at Reactor Sites I
i Advanced Nuclear Fuels is authorized to possess fuel assemblies or l
fuel rods at reactor sites for the purpose of loading them into shipping '.
containers and delivering them to a carrier for transport.
1.6.8 Authorized Release Guidelines Advanced Nuclear Fuels is authorized to release equipment, scrap or !
I facilities for unrestricted use, or for termination of license according i to the " Guidelines for Decontamination of Facilities and Equipment Prior !
i to Release for Unrestricted Use or Termination of Licenses for Byproduct, j Source, or Special Nuclear Material" as published by the U.S. Nuclear i Regulatory Commission dated August 1987.
A copy of these guidelines is i contained in Appendix A to Chapter 3.
l 1.6.9 Authorized Criticality Alarm System Outaae i
I Advanced Nuclear Fuels is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 70.24(a) '
i i
I for the purpose of performing maintenance on the criticality alarm system.
Sections of the criticality alarm system may be taken out-of-service,
i provided that all movement or processing of fissile material in affected i areas is halted for the duration of the outage.
Health Physics '
Technicians will conduct periodic surveys of the areas during the ;
i criticality alarm system outage.
1.6.10 Authorized Release Guidelines for Hydrofluoric Acid i
i Siemens Power Corporation is authorized to release hydrofluoric acid +
manufactured by the dry conversion process for unrestricted commercial use providing the following requirements are met:
j 1.
A representative sample of each batch of hydrofluoric j j
acid product is obtained and analyzed for uranium; 2.
A batch shall be no larger than 20,000 liters; j
4 3.
Uranium analyses for a 10 batch running average shall be >
s 3 pCi/ml with no single batch exceeding 15 pCi/ml; s
15EASENT APPLICATIO*n DATE:
PAGE NO.:
j gg
,7 l
j I
SPC ND 3330 947 (R-v07'92) e
j t
Siemens Power Corporation - Nuclear Division eur.2 i
SPECIAL NUCLEAR MATERIAL LICENSE NO. SNM-1227, NRC DOCKET NO. 70-1257 i
l l
]
PART I - LICENSE CONDITIONS REV.
i i
i 4.
High batches may be blended to reduce uranium j
concentration however the results of the blend must be confirmed by resample and analysis; and 5.
No batches above these limits shall be released for unrestricted use without prior written approval of the i
i Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l l
1 1
i t
i i
t t
i i
5' i
i i
I.
l t
i i
i l
i 5
i i
i i
1 4
I Fives:muumcm. wit:
April 28,1993 1-7a i
SPC ND.3330 9e.7 (R-t!D7>92) i e
- - - - - -