[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 227 (Wednesday, November 25, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65264-65265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-31501]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket 70-7001]
Notice of Amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-1 for the
U.S. Enrichment Corp., Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, KY
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 76.45. In making that
determination the staff concluded that: (1) There is no change in the
types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may
be released offsite; (2) there is no significant increase in individual
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure; (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 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The staff has
prepared a Compliance Evaluation Report which provides details of the
staff's evaluation.
The NRC staff has determined that this amendment satisfies the
criteria for a categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR
51.22(c)(19). 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 Director's
Decision. The petition must be filed with the Commission not later than
15 days after publication of this Federal Register Notice. A petition
for review of the Director's 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 will
issue 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 Federal Register 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 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. These items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L
Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the Local Public Document Room.
Date of amendment request: September 11, 1998.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment proposes to delete
Technical Safety Requirements (TSRs) 2.3.2.1, ``Normetex Pump Discharge
Pressure,'' and 2.3.3.1, ``Normetex Pump High Discharge Pressure
System.'' The request also includes changes to related sections of the
Safety Analysis Report (SAR) to support deletion of the TSR
requirements.
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.
The proposed amendment deletes TSR requirements for the Normetex
Pump High Discharge Pressure System. The accident scenario that the
system was designed to prevent did not change so uranium hexafluoride
(UF6) remains the only effluent that may be released, and
the amount remains bounded by the 250 lbs controlled by the Normetex
UF6 Release Detection System. Therefore, there is no change
in the effluents that may be released offsite.
2. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase
in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. Therefore, the amendment would not result in
a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure.
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.
4. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase
in the potential for, or radiological or chemical consequences from,
previously analyzed accidents.
The proposed amendment deletes TSR requirements for the Normetex
Pump High Discharge Pressure System. The accident scenario that the
system was designed to prevent did not change, and the potential source
term for UF6 remains bounded by the 250 lbs controlled by
the Normetex UF6 Release Detection System. The downgrading
of the Normetex Pump High Discharge Pressure System from a quality (Q)
safety system to a non-safety safety system is offset by the upgrading
of the Normetex Pump discharge block valve interlock to a Q safety
system. Both systems were designed to prevent an overpressure of the
pump discharge line when the pump discharge block valve closes with the
pump still running. Worker protection practices would limit any
exposure to the worker from any potential smaller release. Therefore,
the proposed change will not result in a significant increase in the
potential for, or radiological or chemical
[[Page 65265]]
consequences from, previously analyzed accidents.
5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident.
The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. The downgrading of the Normetex Pump High
Discharge Pressure System from a quality (Q) safety system to a non-
safety safety system is offset by the upgrading of the Normetex Pump
discharge block valve interlock to a Q safety system. Both systems were
designed to prevent an overpressure of the pump discharge line when the
pump discharge block valve closes with the pump still running.
Therefore, the amendment does not raise the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident.
6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
The safety limit proposed for deletion did not change the bounding
accident release of 250 lbs. The downgrading of the Normetex Pump High
Discharge Pressure System from a quality (Q) safety system to a non-
safety safety system is offset by the upgrading of the Normetex Pump
discharge block valve interlock to a Q safety system. Both systems were
designed to prevent an overpressure of the pump discharge line when the
pump discharge block valve closes with the pump still running. With no
increase in the potential amount of hazardous material released and the
switching of one Q safety system for another equivalent system, the
accident remains unlikely. Therefore, there is no significant reduction
in the 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.
The proposed amendment would delete a safety limit that was
determined not to be safety significant. The safety margin remains the
same. While one safety system has been downgraded, an equivalent safety
system has been upgraded. Therefore, the deletion of the TSRs and
supporting SAR changes do not decrease the effectiveness of the plant's
safety program. It also does not propose any change to or affect the
safeguards and security programs. Therefore, the proposed amendment
will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness of the
plant's safeguards or security programs.
Effective date: The amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-1
becomes effective 5 days after being signed by the Director, Office of
Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-1: The amendment will delete the
safety limit for the Normetex Pump discharge pressure (TSR 2.3.2.1) and
TSR 2.3.3.1, ``Normetex Pump High Discharge Pressure System.''
Local Public Document Room location: Paducah Public Library, 555
Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky 42003.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this 18th day of November 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-31501 Filed 11-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
