ML20137S006

Forwards Comments & Request for Addl Info Re 851120 Application for Amend to License SNM-368.Response Should Be Submitted as Revised Pages.Quality of Application Still Requires Improvement.Section 8 Review Terminated

ML20137S006
Person / Time
Site:	07000371
Issue date:	02/07/1986
From:	Crow W NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Kirk W UNITED NUCLEAR CORP. (SUBS. OF UNC, INC.)
References
NUDOCS 8602130544
Download: ML20137S006 (3)

Text

._ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _____

5 Dock::t 70 371 e#

NMSS R/F FCUP R/F VLTharpe GHBidinge(4)

FEBO.'l M LCobb, IE Region I POR GHB:FCUP SH0 70571 JRoth., RI UNC Naval Products ATTN: Mr. William F. Kirk, Manager

. Nuclear and' Industrial Safety

-67 Sandy Desert Road

Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 Gentlemen:

Enclosed are coments.on your application for license amendment dated November 20, 1985. We will continue our licensing review upon receipt of your responses to our coments. Your responses should be in the form of revised pages.

The quality of your applications continues to need improvement. The proposed revised pages for Section 8, Part I, cannot be inserted into the existing license and still maintain a document having continuity. Per our discussion with your Mr. Gutman, we have terminated review of Section 8. In addition, changes were made to Section 3 and Sectior,8 without marginal notation of the

. changes. This increases the time for our review process with resultant increases in your licensing fees.

Sincerely, OT18 1rs1 Signed 37g I. T. Crew W. T. Crow, Acting Chief Uranium Fuel Licensing Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety, NMSS

Enclosure:

As stated cc: Mr. Robert Gregg, UNC 8602130544 e60207 PDR ADOCK 07000371 C pop 0FC: FCUP

...__..... ])?b __:FCUF ,y' h :FCUF h:

NAME:GHBidinger/ks:VLThArpe:WTCrow  :  :  :

DATE: g/ </ /86 :7/N/86:7/7/86:  :  :  :

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

?

'r 4:

FEB 0 7 506 Comments and Request for Information UNC License Amendment Application November 20, 1985

1. Item 4, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I The Limit / Quantity column should be revised to specify the minimum spacing between stacks and to specify the number of fillers per boat.

The adequacy of the controls on the number of fillers per boat should be described in Part II. The number must be consistent with the analysis in Part II. The stack height in Part I should not exceed the height analyzed in Part II.

2. Item 7, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I The Limit / Quantity column should be revised to specify only those fillers in Table 3.9.5.3, Part I, which have been analyzed in Sections 3.33, 3.34 and 3.35 of Part II. Section 3.33, Part II, should specify that the outside vendor has an SNM license.

3. Items 9 and 10, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I

'The Ref. column apparently should refer to Part II. Please revise or supply the references. The cart design allows for the elements to be 12-inches. apart. Interaction should be evaluated for this distance, not the averag'e' distance between elements on different carts. For item 10, double batching must be shown to be subcritical or physical controls must be provided. The proposed limits are in conflict with the limits in Section 8.2, Part I,'for carts. As written, the limits in Section 8.2 would also apply.

4. Note 3. Table 3.9.5.1, Part I Note 3 has been added to the table, but the units to which it applies have not been identified. Please clarify.

5. The limits and controls in Table 10.0-I should be the same as in Table 3.9.5.1, Part I. Different storage limits and controls in different sections of the license for the same component are not appropriate.

Discussion of Class III limits should be eliminated since we do not review or approve transport activities.

o FEB 0 719 Comments and Request for Infonnation UNC License Amendment Application November 20,-1985

1. Item 4, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I The Limit / Quantity column should be revised to specify the minimum spacing between stacks and to specify the number of fillers per boat.

The adequacy of the controls on the number of fillers per boat should be described in Part II. The number must be consistent with the analysis in Part II. The stack height in Part I should.not exceed the height analyzed in Part II.

2. Item 7, Table 3.9.5.1, Part !

l The Limit / Quantity column should be revised to specify only those fillers l in Table 3.9.5.3, Part I, which have been analyzed in Sections 3.33, 3.34 l and 3.35 of Part II. Section 3.33, Part II, should specify that the outside vendor has an SNM license.

l l 3. Items 9 and 10, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I The Ref. column apparently should refer to Part II. Please revise or supply the references. The cart design allows for the elements to be 12-inches apart. Interaction should be evaluated for this distance, not the average distance between elements on different carts. For item 10, double batching must be shown to be subcritical or physical controls must be provided. The proposed limits are in conflict with the limits in t Section 8.2, Part I, for carts. As written, the limits in Section 8.2 would also apply.

! 4. Note 3, Table 3.9.5.1, Part I l Note 3 has been added to the table, but the units to which it applies have not been identified. Please clarify.

i 5. The limits and controls in Table 10.0-1 should be the same as in Table l 3.9.5.1, Part I. Different storage limits and controls in different sections of the license for the same component are not appropriate.

Discussion of Class III limits should be eliminated since we do not review or approve transport activities.