ML20149G569: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 13: Line 13:
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| document type = CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS, OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
| page count = 2
| page count = 2
| project = TAC:L32027
| stage = Other
}}
}}


Line 31: Line 33:
l I
l I
This refers to your application dated April 14,1997, requesting an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to revise Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.4.4.12, Cascade Cell Trip Function, to provide clarification of battery cell parameters, to provide for alternate means of verifying functionality of the cascade cell trip circuit, and to provide a definition of planned and unplanned cell shutdown.
This refers to your application dated April 14,1997, requesting an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to revise Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.4.4.12, Cascade Cell Trip Function, to provide clarification of battery cell parameters, to provide for alternate means of verifying functionality of the cascade cell trip circuit, and to provide a definition of planned and unplanned cell shutdown.
Our review of your June 13, and June 26,1997, responses to our request for additional information has identified additionalissues related to TSR Sumeillance Requirement 2.4.4.12,8 that need to be resolved before final action can be taken on your request. Although the staff has questions about the 5-year frequency for shutting down the operating cells (question 2 from our May 23,1997 letter), we have concluded that it is possible to separate this issue from the      j remainder of the aniendment request. If USEC is agmsable to this approach (conversation with your staff on July 9 indicated agreement), we will proceed with the review of your TSR amendment request and defer action on the issue of the 5-year test frequency, which was not provided to NRC for approval as part of this amendment action. Therefore, this request for i
Our review of your June 13, and June 26,1997, responses to our request for additional information has identified additionalissues related to TSR Sumeillance Requirement 2.4.4.12,8 that need to be resolved before final action can be taken on your request. Although the staff has questions about the 5-year frequency for shutting down the operating cells (question 2 from our {{letter dated|date=May 23, 1997|text=May 23,1997 letter}}), we have concluded that it is possible to separate this issue from the      j remainder of the aniendment request. If USEC is agmsable to this approach (conversation with your staff on July 9 indicated agreement), we will proceed with the review of your TSR amendment request and defer action on the issue of the 5-year test frequency, which was not provided to NRC for approval as part of this amendment action. Therefore, this request for i
information deals only with adding the alternative test to the TSR.
information deals only with adding the alternative test to the TSR.
We have reviewed the information provided on tt$ proposed alternative test and have 4              cencluded that the alternative test is acceptable and can be used te demonstrate the functionality of the cell trip mechanism. Use of either test will be acceptable to meet the surveillance requirement. Therefore, USEC can delete NOTE 2 of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 2.4.4.12-8, since the note is no longer necessary. The alternative test does need to be added to the surveillance language; it was added to the Basis. SR 2.4.4.12-8 should have two        !
We have reviewed the information provided on tt$ proposed alternative test and have 4              cencluded that the alternative test is acceptable and can be used te demonstrate the functionality of the cell trip mechanism. Use of either test will be acceptable to meet the surveillance requirement. Therefore, USEC can delete NOTE 2 of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 2.4.4.12-8, since the note is no longer necessary. The alternative test does need to be added to the surveillance language; it was added to the Basis. SR 2.4.4.12-8 should have two        !

Latest revision as of 14:14, 11 December 2021

Informs That NRC Reviewed Info Provided on Proposed Alternative Test & Concluded Alternative Test Acceptable & Can Be Used to Demonstrate Functionality of Cell Trip Mechanism
ML20149G569
Person / Time
Site: 07007001
Issue date: 07/18/1997
From: Horn M
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: John Miller
UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC)
References
TAC-L32027, NUDOCS 9707230348
Download: ML20149G569 (2)
v • d • e


Text

l o ,

}

pun

, y g\ UNITED STATES

g. P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 l'

July 18,1997

\ . . . . . [A' 7o-wol Mr. James H. Miller Vice President, Production U. S.' Enrichment Corporation 2 Democracy Center -

6903 Rockledge Drive Bethesda, MD 20817

SUBJECT:

PADUCAH CERTIFICATE AMENDMENT REQUEST - CASCADE CELL TRIP FUNCTION REQUIREMENTS (TAC NO. L32027)  ;

Dear Mr. Miller:

l I

This refers to your application dated April 14,1997, requesting an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant to revise Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 2.4.4.12, Cascade Cell Trip Function, to provide clarification of battery cell parameters, to provide for alternate means of verifying functionality of the cascade cell trip circuit, and to provide a definition of planned and unplanned cell shutdown.

Our review of your June 13, and June 26,1997, responses to our request for additional information has identified additionalissues related to TSR Sumeillance Requirement 2.4.4.12,8 that need to be resolved before final action can be taken on your request. Although the staff has questions about the 5-year frequency for shutting down the operating cells (question 2 from our May 23,1997 letter), we have concluded that it is possible to separate this issue from the j remainder of the aniendment request. If USEC is agmsable to this approach (conversation with your staff on July 9 indicated agreement), we will proceed with the review of your TSR amendment request and defer action on the issue of the 5-year test frequency, which was not provided to NRC for approval as part of this amendment action. Therefore, this request for i

information deals only with adding the alternative test to the TSR.

We have reviewed the information provided on tt$ proposed alternative test and have 4 cencluded that the alternative test is acceptable and can be used te demonstrate the functionality of the cell trip mechanism. Use of either test will be acceptable to meet the surveillance requirement. Therefore, USEC can delete NOTE 2 of Surveillance Requirement (SR) 2.4.4.12-8, since the note is no longer necessary. The alternative test does need to be added to the surveillance language; it was added to the Basis. SR 2.4.4.12-8 should have two  !

/

surveillance functional tests connected by an "OR" statement. Additionally, we recommend the removal of NOTE 1. As worded, NOTE 1 implies that the 5-year testing frequency will not be met. Deletion of this note will enable us to separate the addition of the alternative test to the TSR surveillance from the issue of the 5-year test frequency. Also, please include the entire TSR in the response so that we need include only one date in the amendment.

, 9707230348 970718 N Foo l s PDR ADOCK 07007001 C PDR MlEllyl(lllfll%Ill gg FE CENTER COPY

30014  !

i

', . -l t J. H. Miller, USEC 2

~

The additionalinformation should be provided within 30 days of this letter. Please note that the original estimated completion date of June 30 is no longer feasible. We will give this amendment priority when we receive the response to this letter. Please reference the above TAC No. in future correspondence related to this request.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (301) 415-8126.

Sincerely, Odginal Si9ned By Merri Horn Project Manager

Enrichment Section l Special Projects Branch j Division of Fuel Cycle Safety '

and Safeguards, NMSS Decket 70-7001 Certificate GDP-1 4

cc: Mr. Steve Polston, PGDP i Mr. Robert Woolley 1-Mr. Randall DeVault, DOE DISTRIBUTIQN: w/ench (Contrcl No. 23oS)

Docket 70-70o1 ItRC File Centeri ) PUBLIC Rlli XO'Brien, Rlli NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f PHiland, Rlli G:\RAICTF2..MH OFC SPB b 0SPB h SRiit//j NAMC orn:ij $Hoadley / in DATE 9 h//97 h/37 ,

/d l C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFF8CIAL RECORD COPY

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20149G569&oldid=3360330"