3.

, .

.; -

_

espw wuct. mas c.cnwauv.inc. f. YDS 70- /M7i

A 2101 Hom Rapids Road' ~

P. O. Box 130. Richland Washington 99352

Phone: (SC9) 37S-81C0 Telex: 15-2878.

February 21, 1980

-,

Mr. W. T. Crow, Section LeaderUranium Process Licensing BranchDivision of Fuel Cycle & Material SafetyU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CornmissionWashington, D. C. 20555

License No. SNM-1227,

Docket No. 70-1257

Dear Mr. Crow:

SUBJECT: NRC Comments & Questions on License Amendment Application No.18

Reference: Letter, Robert L. Stevenson (NRC) to H. Paul Estey (ENC),dated January 24, 1980

Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc. hereby submits its response to the corrr.entsand questions raised by your staff on the subject license amendmentapplication, as transmitted by your letter of January 24, 1980.

' Respective pages of the License Amendment Application have been appro-priately amended in accordance with this response, and seven copiesof the amended pages are enclosed. Also, one copy has been sent toRegion V IE.

The License Renewal Application has also been appropriately amendedto incorporate the commitments reflected in the attached response.

Sincerely,

H aul E ey,!!anagerLicensing and ComplianceOperating Facilities

Enclosures

cc: Mr. W. J. Cooley (USNRC Region V IEi

.

b

IhAN AFFil. LATE OF EXXON CORPORATION

80032000 R

:'

f |"

.

0

'# Response To

Coments and Questions on License Amendment Application No.18

(Application Dated November 19,1979)Exxon Nuclear Company, Inc.; License No. SNM-1227; Docket No. 70-1257

.-

f. Comment

Page 1-5.30, pata. 5.2.2.4.2 - It sitould be confL1med Bia.t (a), (b)and (c) a,te additive ,tequitements. Pa,1a. (c) sitould add Btat, in

Bte absence of a fLteptoof ba,trist, special conttots mitt be usedto ptevent fLtes and .to conttol use of moderators in fitefigittingin such ptocess arcas. Fu,ttitetmore, (c) appcats to aLicw use ofconcenttet,lon conttet based sately on adminissta.tive ptocedates.It sitould be made etext B:1t sucit applications will be Lintitcd tosituations wftere Bte nata,te of die process and ope,11tions ma.ke

violation of tite concenttation Lir:Lt wtLikety even aftet faifate ofany singic conttot.

Response

It is agreed that Sections 5.2.2.4.2(a), (b) and (c) constituteadditive requirements, and Section 5.2.2.4.2 of the Application hasbeen modified to show this.

Section 5.2.2.4.2.(c) of the fspplication has been expanded toinclude the statement, "In the absence of a fireproof barrier,special control shall be used to prevent fires and to control theuse of moderators in firefighting in such process areas".

Section 5.2.2.4 of the Application has been expanded to include thestatement, " . . . where the nature of the process and operationsmade violation of the concentration limit unlikely even afterfailure of any single contol."

Sections 5.2.2.4, 5.2.2.4.1 ard 5.2.2.4.2 (as modified above) ofthis Amendment Application have been incorporated into the License

.

| -

,.

.-

j - -2-.

* Renewal Application as Sections 3.2.2.4, 3.2.2.4.1 and 3.2.2.4.2,respectively.

2. Question

Page II - 2.16b - What is de justification for not employing de'

usual .ttmpeitature conttats on ne ion exchange column feed stteams

and the column itselft

Response

.

The nomal operating tempersture range for tFe conversion processwaste stream is between ambient temperature and 100*F. The ion

exchange columns and a significant amount of the associated pipingis plastic (PVC, polypropylene and fiberglass) which is used forcorrosion resistance where operating temperatures-do not exceed140*F. The fiberglass ion exchange columns would fail at around220*F. All of the above temperature points are less than the 275 F(135 C) at which accelerated nitration of the resin could pres-surize the column. In addition to the above process limits on the

,

temperature, the ion exchange column effluent-temperature will bemonitored.

;

a.,' -

3. Comment

.

Page IT - 2.26 - Since, as st:.ted on page 2 of de t~snsnittalletter, it is desited tJta.t the d.ty end af the WR be ticensed atthis time, ndditionalinfo,tnttion sitcald be p.tovided iden.tifyingthe basis for nuclea.t criticality safety ist hat past.t af tJte M1R.

Response

' The Waste Uranium Recovery Facility dry end will receive 55 gallon

barrels of uranium-contaminated waste and used HEPA filters whichwill be assayed for uranium content prior to processing. If

chese items contain greater than 150 gU/ item, they will be moved tothe second floor of the facility for separate processing. The

.

O

O

e.% .. _.,.-,. w. , .

- w-

kk.3- M iis m.g.

-- -

2- .:;; .;.

-;~i

' ''

.J..

barrels will be dumped and the contents will be sorted, shredded,and separated into low and high uranium content waste. HEPAfilters will be shredded and the material separated into low andhigh uranium content waste. The high uranium content material will

,

be repacked and stored for subsequent leaching. The low uranium-s

contaminated waste will be repacked for burial.

Criticality safety for the dry end of the Waste Uranium RecoveryFacility will be assured on a safe batch control basis. Theuranium content-of the barrels and filters being dumped will berecorded, and when the accumulated uranium equals one safe batch

the equipment will be shut down and cleaned out. The equipmentincluded in the batch limit area will include the barrel dumper,shredder, separator and the barrel filling station. All of theequipment included in the safe batch control area is designed forconvenient inspection and cleanout. Any storage areas associatedwith the dry end of the Waste Uranium Recovery Facility will also

be limited to one safe batch.

The use of safe batch control as a method of assuring criticalitysafety is used in several locations throughout the fuel manufac-turing building and is demonstrated in Part II of Document No. JN-2.

. ,

4. Comment_

s

Page 11 - 2.27, second and third Lines - Picase state specificdlywhd codes will be met by Die building design.

Response

A copy of a letter from the building designer, which specifies the

|codes and standards followed in the design, is attached. A copyof this letter has also been included in Attachment A, Section 7,'

'

of the License Renewal Application.|

.

.

- _.

-4- ..

.

ARCHITECTS. > ENGINEERS

CONSTRUOTCRS

FACILITIES SYSTEMS ENGINEERING CORPORATION,

2305 UTArt AVENUE EL SEGUNDO. CALIFCRNLA 9024S (213) TTO-FAO

9170/ TBS .m tws maat e.o. ur. nicwuso. w^sninoTow ms2 pen so-am

22 January 1980

'MExxon Nuclear Company

rh[g/g-ov2955 George Washington WayRichland, Wa 99352

0 0*/t fg8EJC-

Attn: Jack Fastabend-

Ge_tlemen:

The Waste Uranium Recovery Building, to be constructed at ExxonNuclear Company's Horn Rapids Site, will be used to store andhandle special nuclear materials. This building was designedto the following codes and standards:

Washington State Highway Standard Specification foreRoad and Bridge Construction - Roadway & Parking

e U.B.C. Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition

e Nctional Electrical Code ANSI-Cl, 1978 Edition~

e Uniform Fire Code, 1976 Edition

e Uniform Plurbing Code, 1976 Edition

Uniform Mechanical Code,.1976 Editione

e ASHRAE Standards, 1979 Edition

City of Richland Ordinance Numbered: 3777 (Adopt. Building Code)e3877 (Adopt. Plumbing Code)3977 (Adopt. Mechanical Code)

,.Very truly yours,

_

! ''

s Wg ,

Thomas B. Swearingen,' Resident Manager

Facilities Systems EngineeringCorporation

TBS:sjf

.

D

4

me e

4.e.-

- - -

--

.. _

. ,

-5- U'

*

*.

...

1 .

.

5. Commerl*

Page 11 - 4.76 - Titere appear t.o be exponents omitted in some of.tlte descriptions of maximum resin loading (e.g., 3rd Lbte up on

,

page 4.76). Please reviac Btis page and 11-4.77 and correst ifnecessary.

Re_sponse

7

Paragraph 4.6.T3.2(a) and paragraph 4.6.13.3(a) of the applicationhave been corrected with the proper exponents. In addition, the

minimum critical concentration for a twenty inch diameter cylinder3is stated both in kgs U/ft. of column length and kgs U/ft . This

data is from ARH-600, Table III.B.7-6.

6. Comment -

Page 11 - 4.77 - Please reta.te die maximum resin Lcadbtg values

quoted by tJte manufacturer .to tite values given based on Bie Exxonexperl=ents, and siteto titat Bte tatter are consistent scLth Btemanafaeturer's yalues.

Resconse

The maximum resin loading values based on Exxon experiments are~ lower than the resin loading values quoted by the manufacturer

because the manufacturer loading factors represent total ionexchange or equilibrium capacity where as the Exxon numbers repre-sent a breakthrough capacity. Since the chelating resins weredeveloped specifically for copper, nickel, zinc and iron recovery,and the uranyl ions are ccmpeting with metal cations for resinsites, it would be difficult to reach the manufacturers quoted

.

m

9 .

e

a ee .

w

-

_. .-

'

-6-'

'

.

.1 resin loading values. The total exchange capacity for the resinsquoted by the manufacturer is equivalent to s 45 gU/t, or 1.27

3kgU/ft , as shown below.

A(1) grams / liter = equivalent / liter x a r

(2) Q vol. = (1-s) p Qweight(2)N

Where Q vol = volume capacity of packed bed in equiv./ liter; .

Q weight = theoretical weight capacity in meg /g(dry); 6 = fractionalvoid volume; w'= water content and; p = density (Sp.G.) of swollen

Resin.

Equation (1) yields a larger exchange capacity as follows:

IRC-718 Chelating Resin.

Total chelating / cation exchange capacity: 5.3 =eg/g (dry)Moisture Content: 68 percent (nominal)

. Shipping Weight (sodium form): 42 lbs/ft3 = 0.67 kg/tResin dry weight basis: 0.67 kg/l x 0.32 = 214 g/L5.3 meg /g x 214 g/1 = 1134.2 meg /1 or 1.134 eg/t

- 1.134 eg/t x 238 = 45 g/t.

3

Paragraph 4.6.13.3(a) of the Application has been rewritten usingthe manufacturer's maximum resin loading values (instead of the

values based on experiments), since these can be calculated. The~

use of the manufacturers maximum res.in loading values instead of

the experimental values has no significant effect on the basicassumptions for the analysis.

(1) Water Suoply and Tretment_, National time Association(2) Ion Exchange, McGraw-Hill, Helfferich, 1962.

I *

1

.

- e

f; ~.

Y , _,

eee e.

- w

UY'

raffQa--7- .a-

mq;;-

.

,j.'

.- [.I-

*'7. Coments S Question

Paae II - 4.78, para. 4.6.13.3(b) - Tite calc"Idion for noextL

conditions of etution is based on dissolution of amonium diuatanate(ADU). t:|ltat is de expetimental basis for concluding titat deetution reaction is ahuys cortectly reptesented by be HNO -ADU

3

reaction? It is necessaty for a. valid safety conchaion t.o be ableto confinn iltat ne elation ope 11 tion cannot resatt in a. deep plug

af sotation above de ninimum critieni concentration in be bed.

'Response

Since the IX feed is alkaline (pH>9.0) from the upstream precipitaionof ADU, it is assumed that the form of uranium loading on the resinis ADU of extremely small particle size that has not been removed bythe upstream centrifuges and filters. Since the exact resin loadingmechanism and form of uranium loading is unknown, it was decided toexperimentally deternine the maximum concentrations of uranium in

and U 02N nitric acid, by dissolving excess amounts of ADU, U02 38to saturate the 2N nitric acid.

These uranium concentrations are compared to the concentrations

derived theoretically, from the following generally acceptedequlibrium dissolution reactions.

.

U02 7 + 6NH03 + 2U02 (NO )2 + 2NH NO3 + 3H O(NH)2ADU: 3 4 24

2N nitric yields 0.67 Mole of UNH or 159 gm U/t

2 (NO )2 + 2N02 + 2H OUO : UO2 + 4HNO3 + U0 3 22

2N nitric yields 0.5 Mole of UNH or 119 gm U/t

2 (NO )2 + 2NO + 4H O3UO2 + 8HNO3 + 3UO3 2

2N nitric yields 0.75 mole of UNH or 178.5 gm U/t .

*

.

.. . - -

,

-8- ,

..

.

1

2 (NO )2 + 2N02 + 4N 0U03 8 + 8 HNO3 + 3U0U0 3 238

2N nitric yields 0.75 mole of UNH

3U 0 20 HNO + 9002 (NO )2 2N0 + 10 H O'

38 3 3 2

2N nitric yields 0.9 mole of UNH or 214 gm U/t

'

As can be seen, the latter equation gives the h'ighest uraniumconcentration. ,This compares with cxperimental uranium saturated2N nitric acid concentrations of 97 gm U/t for ADU, 53 gm U/t forU0 , and 124.6 gm U/t for U 0 . It should be noted that in 2N

2 38s1 wer butnitric acid, ADU dissolves quickly and completely, U 038

complete, and UO2 probably does not reach saturation in 2N nitric.

It is very doubtful that U 0 w uld load on the column. The only38source of U 0 w uld come from a scrap uranium UNH stream. UNH is38prefiltered, precipitated, centrifuged (3 centrifuges in series)andfiileredagainpriortoentrytotheIXcolumns.

. - . . , .,

3. Page it f.78, pata. (c)

Question (a)

What .is de basis for assur:ing a ::ero resin Leading schen de

interstices were assumed filled tein AQU for de ceten9dionreported heret

Response

Ian exchange is typically a surface phenomenon where the resincontains bound groups carrying an ionic charge in conjunction withfree ions of an opposite charge that can be displaced or " exchanged."

l

.

O

J.~

-

. _

~ 'D-9-~

.

. .s '

The total surface area is comprised of the external surface of theresin particles plus the areal surface of macropores, therefore,resin loading and bed packing occur in the same space.

Question (b)'

The vdues quoted for normd resin unloading appett to be smartcompared to de uncerta.inty in, and possible impact af, resin bedvoid volume. Are bere no me.asurements af resin bed void volumedat would be dbteetig appW"Me to be sinrntion analyzed?

.

Respo.n

Three alternate methods are available for determining the resin bed

void volume:.

1) Manufacturers report void volumes of 30-40 percent;2) Manufacturers give a bulk censity and particle density with the

~

relatio'nship, ob = pp(1-c) where ob = bulk density, pp = particledensity"a'nd c = void fraction;

For the resins to be utilized, the bulk density is 42 lbs/ft3(0.67kg/1),'_ and the particle density (or Sp. G.) is approximately 1.09,

^

representing a 38 percent voi tolume.

3) Volumetric MeasurementLaboratory measurements yield an average of 39.3 percent voidvolume. There appears to be good correlation for a void volume of40 parcent. The situation analyzed assumes a 50 percent void

volume.

'Question (c_1_

Why was it assumed tlat AQU would nat fili ne unpacked section? -

-.

e

v* +m.,,

? -g' * *

' '-- , . . .

'^

10 - - '-

. .

. .

3

. 1Response

If a surge of ADU in a concentration considerably greater than the300 ppm U limit were to enter the column the ADU would not accumu-late on top of the resin bed, but would pack into the void spaces,

s

as analyzed, c;/asing the column to blind. Differential pressuremeasurements and controls preclude packing of the bed to a pointwhere the upper section of the column would accumulate ADU.

..

D w

.

O

F

=%em p

. -:J[:( _=-

_

~,.

..

-

,

. , -

4Sh

: - . -.,

e ~

b

-9me

9

.

-

t

t

.

4

o

O

9

.

t' b * *

~

.-

. .

.

.*~

ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN DOCUMENT NO. JN-2

Page No. Section No. Change

I-5.29 I-5.2.2.4 Added statement to the effect that concentrationcontrol may be used where the nature of the processand operations make iolation of the concentrationlimit unlikely even after failure of any singlecontrol.

1-5.30 I-9. 2. 2. 4.'2 Confirmed that (a), (b) & (c) are additive require-ments by adding the word "and" after (a) & (b).

Added the statement, "In the absence of a fireproofbarrier, special controls shall be used to preventfires and to control the use of moderators infirefighting in such process areas".

3II-4.76 II-4.6.13.2(a) Changed"kgs/ft."to"kgs/ft." (oneplace).

II-4.77 II-4.6.13.3(a) Modified the first paragraph at this section touse resin manufactures data rather than ENC's

-- experimental data.

II-4.77a II'~4.6.13.3(a) Added new page; corrected' exponent; clarified-

units of minimum critical concentration; addedreference.

.

.

e

"f