ML20057B180
| ML20057B180 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Claiborne |
| Issue date: | 09/15/1993 |
| From: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Arnold W LOUISIANA ENERGY SERVICES |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309200118 | |
| Download: ML20057B180 (4) | |
Text
.
\\'.
Docket No. 70-3070 Louisiana Energy Services, L.P.
Attn:
W. Howard Arnold 2600 Virginia Avenue, N W.
Suite 608 Washington, DC 20037 Gentlemen:
As discussed in our meeting of Wednesday, September 8, 1993, we request additional information and clarification on the UF6 product sampling autoclave tilting device, the alpha-monitors, and facility decommissioning.
In order to minimize potential impact on the review schedule, you are requested to submit this information as soon as possible.
If you neod further assistance, please contact Dr. Lidia A. Roche' at 301-504-2695.
Sincerely, Original Ggnd W John W. N. Hickey, Chief Enrichment Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards cc:
Attached list
Attachment:
As stated RISTRIBUTION: Docket No. 70-3070 iNRCTF/G LPDR FCEB r/f CNilsen MVasquez JSwift MHorn EHoller YFaraz DMartin RBrady RFonner GBidinger JHickey AGiarratana DJoy YChen ETenEyck 0FC hCEB
/
FCEB FCEB,
FCh FCEB NAME LRoc)(fij YFarazY kbkin Jbckey DATE
[
[91 9 /li/93 1//(/93 f//f/93
/
/93 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY (G:\\ADDLINFO.LES)
/
g EC HLE CENTER COPY 9309200118 930915 p,p PDR ADOCK 07003070 pA C
PDR a;
Attachment ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY NRC STAFF (NRC CONTACT:
Dr. Lidia Roche', 301-504-2695)
A.
Product Sampling Autoclave Tilting Device The NRC staff has reviewed the sampling autoclave seismic analysis submitted by letter dated July 21, 1993. Our present understanding of the design (with clevis mounted hydraulic cylinders) is that the analysis assumes that the combination of scissors and hydraulic mechanisms would not transmit transverse seismic forces while maintaining full support of the required load in the vertical direction.
The design and analysis as presented do not support this assumption that the scissors / hydraulic cylinder will not be subject to transverse loads.
Additional clarification of design details (e.g.,
specification of ball joint ends on hydraulic cylinders) or of indeterminant i
analysis of the design is required.
B.
Alpha Monitors Alpha monitors, calibrated to respond within short time periods, serve the function of protecting workers against hazard due to potential release of uranium and hydrofluoric acid.
The present NRC staff understanding of the CEC design is that continuous alpha-in-air monitors will be present in the UF6 Handling Areas and the Blending Area of the Separations Building. The monitors would be calibrated to alarm if equivalent HF levels reach 3 ppm.
t Provide additional description and clarification on the placement and operation of these monitors.
Provide an estimate of the response time to alarm at the specified contaminant concentration level.
Provide description of operator and equipment response (e.g., ventilation system function) to an i
alarm signal.
! i
~. -
'C.
facility Decommissioning Cost Estimates
.. l.
' Include in the decommissioning funding plan, at the time of
~
decommissioning, the costs of:
(a) characterizing the CEC facility and site; (b) NRC staff review of the proposed methodology to be used to characterize the facility and site and the characterization-data obtained; (c) generating a detailed decommissinning plan; (d) NRC staff review and approval of the decommissioning plan; and (e) NRC's confirmatory survey of tie V ility and site following the final radiation survey.
Modify the 5-year estimate to decommission the facility by accounting 2.for the anticipated time requirements for the five activities mentioned in Comment #1.
3.
Describe the decommissioning activities conducted at the two European pilot plants located at Almelo and Capenburst.
Identify differences between these activities and those anticipated at the CEC.
4.
Provide a breakdown of the costs incurred in decommissioning the two pilot plants.
5.
Provide the sizes of the two pilot plants relative to the CEC, their periods of operation, and the dates of their commencement and completion of decommissioning activities.
6.
Provide the contamination levels encountered at the two pilot plants before and after decontamination activities.
Explain the differences between these levels and those expected at the CEC.
7 Provide the dose impacts, both internal and external, to the workers engaged in decontamination activities at the two pilot plants.
Explain the differences between these dose impacts and those expected at the CEC.
i 8.
Describe the procedures anticipated to be used at the CEC to remove uranium deposits (U0,F,) from equipment and piping before and after dismantling activities.
Describe the treatments that are anticipated to be used to immobilize intractable residues.
9.
State whether E 20,000 and E 50,000 are annual salaries of operators and supervisors, respectively, or whether they include other costs such as overhead, employee benefits, etc.
10.
Account for contingencies in the cost estimates. (
.L-LES SERVICE LIST Dr. W. Howard Arnold President Mr. Michael Mariotte Louisiana Energy Services Executive Director 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W.
Nuclear Information and Suite 608 Resource Service Washington, DC 20037 1424 16th Street, NW Suite 601 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Peter G. LeRoy Licensing Manager Louisiana Energy Services c/o Duke Engineering & Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 1004 Charlotte, NC 28201-1004 Mr. J. Michael McGarry, 111 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Ronald L. Wascom Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection Louisiana Dept. of Environ Quality P.O. Box 82135 Baton Rouge, LA 70884-2135 Ms. Diane Curran Harmon, Curran, Gallagher, &
Spielberg 2001 S Street, NW Suite 430 Washington, DC 20009-1125 Nathalie M. Walker, Esq.
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
400 Magazine Street, Suite 401 New Orleans, LA 70130
- -