ML20216B716

Us NRC Notice of Amend to Coc GDP-2 for Us Enrichment Corp Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant Portsmouth,Oh

ML20216B716
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	09/02/1997
From:	Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:
Shared Package
ML20216B706	List: ML20216B700 ML20216B716
References
NUDOCS 9709080132
Download: ML20216B716 (11)

Text

• lI i

7500 01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE GDP 2 FOR THE U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT PORTSMOUTH, OHIO DOCKET 70 7002 The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, has made a determination that the following amendment request is not significant in accordance with 10 CFR 70.45.

In making that determination the staff concluded that (*) there is no change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any offluents that may be released offsite; (2) there-is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposu.e; (3) there is no significant construction impact; (4) there is no significant increase in the potential for, or radiological or chemical consequences from, previously analyzed accidents; (5) the proposed changes do not result in the possibility of a new or different kind of accident; (6) there is no significant reduction in any margin of safety; and (7) the proposed changes will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness of the plant's safety, safeguards or security programs. The basis for this determination for the amendment request is shown below.

The NRC staff has reviewed the certificate amendment application and concluded that it provides reasonable assurance of adequate safety, safeguards, and security, and compliance with NRC requirements. Therefore, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, is prepared to issue an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The staff has prepared a Compliance Evaluation Report which provides details of the staff's eva!uation.

~

9709080132 970902 PDR ADOCK 07007002 C PDR l

1

i ..

i.

2 The NRC staff has determined that this amendment satisfies the criteria for a categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for this amendment.

USEC or any person whose interest may be affected may file a petition, not exceeding 30 pages, requesting review of the Directors Decision. The petition must be filed with the

! Commission not later than 15 days after publication of this Eederal Register Notice. A petition for review of the Directors Decision shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner and how that interest may be affected by the results of the decision. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why review of the Decision should be permitted with particular -

reference to the following factors: (1) the interest of the petitioner; (2) how that interest may be affected by the Decision, including the reasons why the petitioner should be permitted a review of the Decision; and (3) the petitioner's areas of concern about the activity that is the subject matter of the Decision. Any person described in this paragraph (USEC or any person who filed a petition) may file a response to any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 10 days after filing of the petition, if no petition is received within the designated 15-day period, the Director willissue the final amendment to the Certificate of Compliance without further delay, if a petition for review is received, the decision on the amendment application will become final in 60 days, unless the Commission grants the petition for review or otherwise acts within 60 days after publication of this Eederal Reaister Notice.

A petition for review must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 0001, Attention: Rulemakings and o

i ,

e ,

i, 3

Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, by the above date.

For further details with respect to the action see (1) the application for amendment and (2) the Commission's Compliance Evaluation Report. Those items are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street. NW, Washington, DC, and at th8 Local Public Document Room.

Date of amendment request: May 18,1997 Brief description of amendment: The proposed amendment reduces the minimum depth design feature requirement for Borosilicate glass Raschig ringt 9eutron poison) from 12 inches to 6 inches in Scale Pits 1 A and 2 as stated in Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.5.4.4 entitled

" Scale Dit Raschig Rings," for the Extended Rr.c Je Product (ERP) facility at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The proposed amendment request is required to allow proper operation of the scale mechanism at the ERP 1 A station. The request for reduction of the minimum depth of Raschig angs for ERP 2 station is to maintain consistency of administrative control on this neutron poison parameter.

Basis for finding of no significance;

1. The proposed amendment will not result in a change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.

a " e ,

?.

4 Borosilicate glass Raschig rings are contained in ERP Scale Pits 1 A and 2 as enhancements to other primary enticality controls. Modification to the minimum depth requirement would not result in significantly increasing the potential for unconfinement of UF. which could lead to an increase in effluente ' hat may be released offsite. On the contrary, retaining the required Raschig rings depth at ERP 1 A station to at least 12 inches may cause improper operation of the scale which performs iae safety functien of measuring cylinder weight. When heated for sampling or some other purpose, an overfilled cylinder could rupture and release a large

quantity of UF..

2 The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.

Based on the staff's revmW of the adequacy of contingency analysis for all credible process upsets, reliability of controls, am ec luacy of controlindependence (common-mode failures),

thi staff has determined that the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the risk of a criticality accident. The basis for the staff's conclusion is based on the following controls and requirer 9nts:

a. To maintain the integrity of the UF pressure boundary, which provides geometry and mass control, USEC is committed to applying appropriate quality assurance requirements to process gas piping and equipment (including valves).

b. To provide moderation control, scale pits are inspected weekly for the presence of liquids. Any liquid found, is transferred out of the scale pits appropriately.

1 o

~

l y .' , *

--i.-..

5

c. Maximum uranium enrichment of ten percent is ensured by the use of in-line gamma and mass spectrometers or via samples if the spectrometere are not operational,

d. Raschig rings in the scale pits are inspected for settling and damage at least on an annual basis.- USEC is also committed to maintaining the Raschig rings according to other requirements of ANSI /ANS 8,5 entitled "Use of Borosilicate-glass Raschig Rings as a Neutron Absorber in Solutions of Fissile Material."

e. The scale ' pits are required to be maintained free of uranium buildup.

f. To prevent recirculating cooling water (RCW), which can act as a moderator, from -

- entering the coolant system, the pressure of the RCW is maintained at least 5 psi -

lower than the coolant system. A pressure switch is provided to automatically trip

- the UF. withdrawal compressor if this minimum pressure differential requirement is not maintained.

g. Smoke detectors are provided in ERP to monitor for UF. releases. A UF out-leakage detection system has the capability of automatically isolating the pigtailif -

two smoke detector heads detect smoke at the withdrawal station. When these smoke detectors are not operational, a smoke watch is maintained. The pigtail isoIation system can also be manually actuated from outside ERP.

4 /. .

6

h. The maximum UF. pressure at the ERP station is maintained below 60 psia.

i. Prior to withdrawing UF. into a product cylinder, a cold pressure check of the cylinder is performed. The cylinder is rejected if the pressure is greater than ten inches of mercury which provides indication of the probable presence of moderator or a hydrocarbon which can explosively react with'UF.. The cylinder is also visually inspected for damage and weighed before being attached to the pigtail.

J. The staff independently reviewed and found acceptable, USEC's assumptions and calculations leading to the conclusion that for a large UF. release in ERP, the heat generated by the exothermic reaction of UF. with water vapor in ERP will not be sufficient to actuate the sprinkler system which could introduce moderator into the scale pits.

k. There is a specific coolant pressure TSR Safety Limit (SL) of 440 psig. The purpose of this limit is to prevent the over pressurization and rupture of the coolant system which could resu:t in the subsequent release of UF. due to over j pressurization and subsequent rupture of the UF containment boundary.

i. There are specific TSR Limiting Conditions of Operation (LCOs), Action Statements for conditions where LCOs are exceeded, and Surveillance Requirements (SRs),

dealing with (1) minimum number of operable smoke detectors / alarms to detect and indicate a release of UF.; (2) coolant high pressure relief to ensure that the TSR SL of 440 psig is not exceeded; (3) pigtail isolation system to limit the UF.

s. 9 . .

e4 7

l release to less than 127 pounds in case of a pigtail failure; (4) assay monitoring to

., ensure that the TSR specified maximum assays for the accumulators and cylinders 1 are not exceeded; (5) cylinder cart movement restrictions to ensure that a cylinder is not moved while it is connected to the withdrawal manifold; (6) liquid UF cylinder

. movement methods and restrictions to minimize the risk of a liquid UF. cylinder

. drop and rupture; (7) UF. cylinder weight monitoring to ensure that the TSR 1

i specified fill Eights are not exceeded; and (8) restrictions on heating solidified UF.

, plugs to prevent pipe rupture that could be caused by localliquefaction and expansion.

1

m. There are specific general design feature requirements and essociated SRs related to (1) design, construction, testing and maintenance to ensure that the intended

functions of UF cylinders and pigtails are met so that they do not fail during normal operations; (2) cylinder lifting cranes and fixtures to ensure that a cylinder is not I dropped and ruptured; and (3) Raschig rings in scale pits to enhance criticality safety.

f 4

Consequently, there will be no significant increase in a risk of a criticality accident which could 4 significantly increase individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposures.

3. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant construction impact.

The proposed amendment does not involve any construction, therefore, there will be no construction impacts.

se 7 .

8

4. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in the potential for, or radiological or chemical consequences from, previously analyzed accidents.

For similar reasons (adequacy of contingencies, reliability of controls, and unlikelihood of common-mode failures) provided in the assessment of criterion 2, the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the risk of a criticality accident. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not significantly incre$se the potential for, or radiological or chemical consequences from, previously analyzed accidents.

5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

Based on the adequacy of contingencies, reliability of controls, and unlikelihood of common-mode failures provided in the assessment of criterion 2, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.

6. The pmposed amendment will not result in a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

'l For similar reasons (adequacy of contingencies, reliability of controls, and unlikelihood of common-mode failures) provided in the essessment of criterion 2, the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the risk of a criticality accident. In addition, the amendment is required

_- _. . ~.-

te ie ,

2 9

e ,

to ensure proper operability of the ERP 1 A scale, which performs the tafety function of measuring the weight of the cylinder as it is being filled. Properly and safely weighing the cylinder is necessary to ensure saf,.ty of the facility. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in a significant reduction in any margin of safety.

7. The proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness of the plant's safety, safeguards or security programs.

For similar reasons (adequacy of contingencies, reliability of controls, unlikelihood of common-mode failures, and operability of ERP 1 A scale) provided in the assessment of criteria 2 and 6, the proposed amendment will not significantly increase the risk of a criticality or UF release accident. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in a decrease in the pla it's overall safety program.

The staff has not identified any safeguards or security related implications from the proposed amendment. Therefore, the proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness of the plants safeguards or security programs, Effective date: The amendment to GDP-2 will become effective 30 days after issuance by NRC.

4 ( e* .

10 4*

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-2: Amendment willincorporate a revised requirement of a General Design Feature contained in the Technical Safety Requirements.

Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth Ohio 45662.

4 1

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ay of Sch,1997.

4 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 06ginal Signed By Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards J

?

l I

DISTRIBUTION:

Docket 70-7002 NRC FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f K'OBrien, Rlli CCox, Rlli PHiland, Rlli DHeartland, Rill KWinsberg, OGC WSchwink, FCOB NMSS Dir. Off. r/f JDavis, FCOB DStout, FCLB G:\RCHGFRN.YHF CP/ PROOFED / AUGUST 28,1997 OFC SPB* SPB* SPB X SPB* FCSS NMSS 4h NAME YFaraz:ij DHoadley DMartin RPierson ETenEyck [Pheriello DATE 8/21/97 8/21/97 -/-/97 8/25/97 8/28/97 9 /J2/97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

__ m _ . . _ . _ _ . , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ..

e( / * ..

10

?

. Cer'tificate of Compliance No. GDP 2: Amendment willincorporate a revised requirement of a General Design Feature contained in the Technical Safety Requirements, s  !

N Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Oho 45662.

N\

Dated at Rockville, M ytand, this

\

l day of 1997.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

Carl J. Paperiello, Director 4

Office of Nuclear Material Safety

. and Safeguards i

j 1

i l QISTRIBUTION:

j Docket 70-7002 NRC FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f

FCSS r/f SPB r/f K'OBrien, Rill CCox, Rill PHiland, Rlli DHeartland, Rlli KWinsberg, OGC WSchwink, OB NMSS Dir. Off r/f JDavis, FCOB DStout, FCLB G

\RCHGFRN.YHF OFC SPB I6 iSPB d SPB- Y $hl FCSh NMSS NAME YFaraz:ij ',fDNoadley DMartin krson ETekEyck CPaperiello DATE / /97 bM / /97 / /97 hl /97 h/)I)/97 / /97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY { }$(he j s y tu ~ r.,- m u c

1. 1 eo .

6 1

Local Pu 'c Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, O 45662.

t I

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, 's day of 1997, i

FO HE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j Carl J. Paperie , Director

Office of Nuclear aterial Safety and Safeguards e

a i

i 4

i DISIRIBUIlON:

Docket 70-7002 NRC FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f l FCSS r/f SPB r/f K'OBrien, Rill CCox, Rlli PHiland, Rlli

, DHeartland, Rlli KWinsberg, OGC WSchwink, FCOB v NMSS Dir. Off. r/f JDavis, FCOB DStout, FCLB G:\RCHGFRN.YHF

, OFC SPB SkB [ bRB SPB FCSS NMSS NAME YFara adley DM in RPierson ETenEyck CPaperiello DATE @/2//g7 hf$fg7 / /97 \ / /97 / fg7 / fg7 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

. . .