ML20247B649

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 881014 Application for Amend to License SNM-368 for Bldg L.Requests That Encl Addl Info Be Provided within 45 Days of Receipt of Ltr

ML20247B649
Person / Time
Site:	07000371
Issue date:	05/10/1989
From:	Bidinger G NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Gregg R UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. (SUBS. OF UNC, INC.)
References
NUDOCS 8905240189
Download: ML20247B649 (4)

Text

h 7 o ,

MAY 101989 l

Docket No. 70 371 License No. SNM.368

. UNC, Inc.

l UNC Naval Products Division ATTN: Mr. Robert Gregg, Director Technical-Services 67 Sandy Desert Road Uncasv111e, Connecticut 06382-0981 Gentlemen:

This refers to your application dated October 14, 1988, requesting an amendment to Materials License SNM 368 for Building L.

Our review of your application has identified additional information that is needed before final action can be taken on your request. The additional information (6 copies), specified in the enclosure, should be provided within 45 days of the date of this letter.

This information request was discussed with you on May 4, 1989.

Sincerely, Driginni cigrio' by G80Tf'O II. 31 L;. . "

George H. Bidinger, Section Leader Uranium Fuel Section Fuel Cycle Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS

Enclosure:

As stated Distribution-

Docketl70-371! QPDNd NMSS R/F IMUF R/F IMSB R/F F"NRC Fil(C'entsrl y p p!3 VLTharpe SSoong Region I JRoth, RI MHorn '; l GHBidinger

. ! . I N ............... h .... ................ ...............,..

NAME:GHBidinger: YLTharpe:

DATE:5/f/89 5/l\ /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY 8905240189 8905]O PDR

?

ADOCK 07000372 -

C puu

r-- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Request for Additional Information Application Dated October 14, 1988 UNC, Inc.

Docket No.70-371 l Please provide the following:

1. For Item 12, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I:

A. Demonstrate the safety of a 40 kg uranium unit. The double l contingency principle must also be satisfied.

B. Demonstrate that 40 kg units are safe when separated by 12 inches from other units or materials. The double contingency principle must be satisfied.

C. Define " dispensable moderation." Controls must be provided for all moderating materials. The double contingency principle must be satisfied.

D. For each container, provide the dimensions and construction materials, the mass limits, the minimum separation distance, and the positive controls to assure the mass and distence limits.

2. For Item 13, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I:

A. Demonstrate the safety of the 8 kg units. The doubic contingency principle must also be satisfied.

B. Demonstrate that the 8 kg units are safe when separated by 12 inches from other units or materials. The double contingency prirciple must be satisfied.

C. Provide Item A(2) of Table 8.3-4 Provide a specific reference to such a table if it has previously been submitted. Note that reference to Item A(2) implies an Item A(1). We cannot identify either item.

D. See 1.C above.

E. See 1.0 above.

For each assumption or statement made in the Demonstration, limits and controls should be identified and included as proposed license conditions in Part I of the application.

3. For Items H, I, and J, Section 8.2.4, Part I:

A. Specify the minimum separation distance between units on the carts and other material. Describe the physical controls to assure the separation distance.

B. See 2.C above.

I 2 1

4. For Item A, Table 8.3.4, Part I:

A. Provide controls on movement of material into storage.

B. Provide a description of physical spacers to assure boundary spacing. 1

5. By letter dated January 16, 1989, UNC limited the response to environmental issues for the fuel vault area. Section 3.60, Part II, submitted by letter dated February 10, 1989, discusses laboratory operations. The submittal dated February 10, 1989, should be revised to be consistent with the earlier submittal.

6. Classified Figure E-740913-150 was provided by letter dated October 14, 1988. Classified Figure 3.60,1 was provided by letter dated February 10, 1989. By letter dated January 16,19G9, unclassified Figure E-740913-lb0, dated 10/14/88, and Figure 4.4.22 were submitted. Each of the four drawings of the same building is different. One correct set of Figures, properly classified, is required.

7. In Section 3.60, Part II, and with reference to Item 12, explain how process step 2 can precede process step 3, and explain the basis for the word "approximately" in step 3.

Provide the safety evaluations for steps 9 and 10, including the location of step 10 on the drawing specified in Comment 6 above.

Provide a process description and safety evaluation for disposition of material returned to the vault in step 6.

8. in Section 3.61, Part II, describe the scrap container storage area, terap disposition, and provide safety evaluations for all steps.

"escribe mass and contamination control for all materials removed from the station. Describe inventory control for the station. l Define "dispersible moderation." Demonstrate that all forms of moderation, including hydrocarbons, in or near the station will be controlled to the same degree as assumed in the k-effective calculations. Provide appropriate license conditions and an internally consistent safety evaluation.

l Describe NIS controls for the operation interact system to insure that the system performs as specified in the Safety Demonstration. Provide appropriate license conditions.

Contract requirements are subject to change. Therefore, current contract requirements must be specified as nuclear criticality safety limits and controls in Part I.

The double contingency crite,ia is not satisfied by showing subcriticality for partial loss of one O G rol. Subcriticality must be shown for loss of each control. See ANSI /ANS-8.1-1983.

.- o 3

In the Demonstration, spacing is not controlled within the station.

No credit can be assumed in the resultant Part I license conditions.

In Section 3.62, the presence of plastic tops and no sources of dispersible nederation seems to be a contradiction which is unacceptable ir. a nuclear safety evaluation. Please revise accordingly.

In Section 8.9.2, Part II, the configurations in the evaluations do not resemble the actual transport / storage devices specified in earlier sections. An internally consistent application representing proposed activities is needed.

9. Material being returned to the vault may be contaminated with the hydrocarbons discussed in Section 3.61, Part II. Accordingly, Section '

8.10, Part II, should be revised to reflect the presence of hydrocarbons or Section 3.61, Part II, should be revised to demonstrate elimination of the hydrocarbons.

Figure 8.10.1 does not agree with the Specifications in Item A, Table 8.3.4, Part I, nor are the different sketches in the Figure self-consistent.

Please provide a correct set of specifications and drawings.

- _ - - _ _ - - _ - . - - _ - _ . _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - _