[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 240 (Tuesday, December 15, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69120-69121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33204]
[[Page 69120]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket 70-7001]
Notice of Amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-1 For the
U.S. Enrichment Corporation Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah,
Kentucky
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, 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: November 5, 1998.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment proposes to change
the completion dates for Compliance Plan Issues 46 and 50. The
completion dates are being changed from December 15, 1998, to January
18, 2000. These issues require plant modifications to ensure that the
criticality accident alarm system (CAAS) alarm horns are capable of
being heard throughout the affected areas of the process buildings and
to provide CAAS alarm horns for those unalarmed facilities within the
evacuation area of other buildings. USEC will provide alternative means
of personnel notification in the event of a CAAS alarm. The amendment
also proposes criteria for determining audibility of the CAAS alarm
horns.
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 changes to the Compliance Plan completion dates and
the addition of criteria for determining alarm horn audibility will
have no effect on the generation or disposition of effluents.
Therefore, the proposed changes will not result in a change to the
types or amount of 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 CAAS does not prevent criticality, therefore, the possibility
of a criticality occurring is not increased. However, in the unlikely
event a criticality did occur, the personnel notification might not be
as prompt as relying on the CAAS horns. Therefore, the potential
radiation exposure for an individual could be higher because the
individual remained in the area for a longer period of time. This
slight chance for increased exposure is not considered to be
significant. The proposed changes will not significantly increase any
exposure to radiation due to normal operations. Therefore, the changes
will 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 changes will not result in any building 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 CAAS system is not involved in any precursor to an evaluated
accident. Extension of the completion dates for the modifications to
improve CAAS audibility has no effect on the probability of occurrence
of a criticality accident. The consequences of a potential criticality
accident will not be significantly increased since the ability of the
CAAS to detect a criticality is unchanged and the compensatory measures
currently in place will remain in place until the modifications are
completed. It is possible that personnel exposure could be slightly
increased due to possible short delays in personnel notification. The
addition of acceptance criteria for subjectively measuring audibility
will not alter either the probability or the
[[Page 69121]]
consequences. Therefore, these changes will not significantly increase
the probability of occurrence or consequence of any postulated accident
currently identified in the safety analysis report.
5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a
new or different kind of accident.
The CAAS is used to mitigate the consequences of a criticality
accident. The proposed changes do not introduce any new or different
accidents than those previously analyzed. Therefore, the proposed
changes will not create the possibility of a new or different type of
equipment malfunction or a new or different type of accident.
6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
The proposed changes to the completion dates for the CAAS
modifications extend the period for having areas of the plant not
covered by the audible alarm horn, however, the compensatory measures
provided in Compliance Plan Issues 46 and 50 will remain in place.
These include use of building howlers for the process buildings and the
use of radios in unalarmed buildings. These measures will provide
adequate notification in the event of a criticality accident. The
proposed acceptance criteria for determining audibility provide a
subjective means for ensuring audibility. Therefore, the changes do not
result in a significant decrease in the margins 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 changes do not change the safeguards or security
programs. The CAAS audibility acceptance criteria provide a subjective
means of determining audibility and may improve the effectiveness of
the safety program. The continued use of alternative methods of
notification for the CAAS alarms (building howlers and radios) due to
the extension of the completion dates for Compliance Plan Issues 46 and
50 will ensure that personnel are promptly notified of CAAS alarms.
Therefore, the overall effectiveness of the safety, safeguards, and
security programs is not decreased.
Effective date: The amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-1
becomes effective immediately after being signed by the Director,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-1: Amendment will revise
Compliance Plan Issues 46 and 50 to reflect the new completion dates of
January 18, 2000. The amendment will also add acceptance criteria for
determining CAAS alarm horn audibility.
Local Public Document Room location: Paducah Public Library, 555
Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky 42003.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of December, 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-33204 Filed 12-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
