ML20155A487
| ML20155A487 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 10/19/1998 |
| From: | Toelle S UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| To: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155A494 | List: |
| References | |
| GDP-98-0212, GDP-98-212, NUDOCS 9810290144 | |
| Download: ML20155A487 (4) | |
Text
'
gp
/
CSEC A Global Energy Company October 19,1998 GDP 98-0212 i
Dr. Carl J. Paperiello Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Attention: Document Control Desk i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-000l i
Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS)
Docket No. 70-7002
{
Certificate Amendment Request - Update the Application Safety Analysis Report - Proposed j
Changes
Dear Dr. Paperiello:
i By letter dated October 31,1997 (Reference 1), USEC submitted a certificate amendment request
)
(CAR) containing the Safety Analysis Report Update (SARUP) required by Issue 2 of DOE /ORO.
l 2027," Plan for Achieving Compliance with NRC Regulations at the Portsmouth Gaseous DitTusion Plant" (the Compliance Plant for NRC review and approval. By letter dated April 30. 1998 (Reference 2), USEC submitted proposed changes to the SARUP certificate amendment request.
l This letter provides additional changes to the SARUP certificate amendment request.
i USEC's October 31,1997 letter (Enclosure 1, Table 1) contained two commitments that required l
SARUP changes and responses to the NRC. The following is the first of these commitments (item 3 from the table):
i Codes and Standards for Process Building Cranes Appendix A of SAR Chapter 1 will be updated to reflect the extent to which the t
design and inspection of cell floor process building cranes (and associated lifting fixtures) satisfy applicable industry codes and standards Necessary changes to SAR Chapter 1, Appendix A, will be submitted to the NRC by October 19,1998.
As shown in the attached changes, SARUP Chapter 1, Appendix A, has been revised to apply the codes and standards currently applied to the liquid UE cylinder handling cranes to the process building cranes that fall within the scope of SARUP Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) Section 2.lA.I.
"~~t-o l.
9810290144 981019 l
PDR ADOCK 07007002 t
l C
- e Drive, Bethesda. MD 20817-1818 Q
j Telephone 301-W-3200 Fax 301-W-3201 http://wwwusec.com i
OEes in Livermore. CA Paducah, KY Portsmouth. OH hhington. DC
Dr. Carl L Paperiello October 19,1998 4
GDP 98-0212, Page 2 4
The second commitment is as follows (item to from the table):
i Sprinkler System Flow Calculations The determination of tire water supply requirements in the SARUP TSRs was developed in the DOE SAR Upgrade (POEF-LMES-89) based on the maximum 2
average sprinkler density calculated for PGDP (0.3 gpm/ft ) for a sprinkler actuation i
covering 8400 square feet. This results in a fire water flow demand of approximately 2500 gpm; currently PORTS TSRs require 16,000 gpm based on the historical design 2
criteria of 1000 sprinkler heads operating at 0.15 gpm/ft. The DOE S AR Upgrade assumed that the sprinkler systems at PORTS were similar enough to those at PGDP that the calculations performed for PGDP were representative of flow conditions at PORT 5. In addition, the DOE S AR Upgrade assumed that the determination ot'the 1
1 maximum area to be used for sprinkler actuation and the required duration of sprinkler tiow would also be similar for PORTS.
While these assumptions are likely appropriate, USEC has determined that tiow calculations should be performed specitically for PORTS and the assumptions regarding the area pocentially covered during the credible sprinkler actuation should be reviewed to ensure the same sprinkier system actuation area is appropriate for PORTS. As stated above, the current PORTS TSRs specify a significantly higher flow capability than was determined to be required by the DOE SAR Upgrade analyses for PGDP and that is likely to be required by a PORTS-specitic analysis.
i However, the selection of the required tiow criteria should be fmalized with PORTS-specific calculations; since it is possible that somewhat higher maximum tiows could be postulated based on the site specitic calculations. The results of the PORTS-specific analysis, including any necessary changes to the SARUP, will be submitted to the NRC by October 19,1998.
This analysis has been completed which concludes that the highest anticipated fire system sprinkler flow demand for a process building fire is 3^29 gpm. A value of 2500 gpm is currently assumed in the SARUP. While this new value represents an increase in the minimum required flow, it still remains within the capacity of one high pressure fire water system (HPFWS) pump. Thus, no changes are required to the SARUP essential controls or to the S ARUP TSR Limiting Conditions for 4
Operation (which.dready require two HPFWS pumps to be operable).
In addition to these two changes, other changes to the SARUP certificate amendment request have been made in accordance with item 5 c) of the Plan of Action and Schedule for Compliance Plan Issue 1
l 4
Dr Carl J. Paperiello October 19,1998 l
GDP 98-0212, Page 3 i
t l to this letter provides a detailed description of the proposed changes. Revised S ARUP pages are provided in Enclosure 3.
Revisions are noted by a revision bar in the lett-hand page margin. The conclusions stated in Enclosure 2 to Reference 1, that the proposed changes associated with the CAR are significant, are not affected by this revision and thus no significance determination l
l is provided.
l l
Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to Steve Routh at (30l) 564-3251. There are no new commitments contained in this submistal.
Sincerely, s.n.I8-Steven A. Toelle Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy Manager
References:
- 1. Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Dr. Carl J. Paperiello (NRC), Certificate Amendment Request - Update the Application Safety Analysis Report. USEC l
Letter GDP 97-0189, October 31,1997.
- 2. Letter from James H. Miller (USEC) to Dr. Carl J. Paperiello (NRC), Certificate Amendment Request - Update the Application Safety Analysis Report - Proposed Changes, USEC Letter GDP 98-0096, April 30,1998.
l l
Enclosures:
- 1. Affidavit
- 2. United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), Proposed Changes, Certificate Amendment Request, Update the Application Safety Analysis Report, Detailed Description of Change
- 3. Proposed Changes, Certificate Amendment Request, Safety Analysis Report Update, Insertion / Removal Instructions, October 19,1998 cc: Mr. Robert C. Pierson, NRC l
NRC Region III Office NRC Resident Inspector - PORTS NRC Resident Inspector - PGDP Mr. Randall M. DeVault, DOE I
OATH AND AFFIRMATION I, Steven A. Toelle, swear and affirm that I am the Nuclear Regulatory Assurance and Policy l
Manager of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), that I am authorized by USEC to sign and file with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission these proposed :imnges to the Safety Analysis l
Report Update for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, as described in GDP 98-0212, that I am l
familiar with the contents thereof, and that the statements made and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
1 l
A I
- 5. A.
I Steven A. Toelle On this 19th day of October 1998, the individual signing above personally appeared before me.
is known by me to be the person whose name is subscribed to within the instrument, and l
acknowledged that he executed the same for the purposes therein contained.
In witness hereofI hereunto set my hand and official seal.
ll4LL
~i AJ/10 9 l
Lallrie M. Knisley, Notary Public
~
l State of Maryland, Montgomery County l~
My commission expires March 1,2002
.