[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8223-8224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-3977]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket 70-7002 ]
Amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-2 for the U.S.
Enrichment Corporation Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant; Portsmouth,
OH
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 described 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 (PORTS). 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.
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
[[Page 8224]]
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: October 21, 1997.
Brief description of amendment: On October 21, 1997, United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) submitted a certificate amendment request
for the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PORTS) to extend a
completion date and to clarify commitments related to Measuring and
Test Equipment (M&TE) made in Issue 24 entitled ``Maintenance Program''
of the ``Plan for Achieving Compliance with Nuclear Regulatory
Commission Regulations at the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant'' DOE/
ORO-2027/R3 (Compliance Plan).
The PORTS Quality Assurance Program (QAP) requires safety related
structures, systems and components (SSCs) to be designated as Q, AQ and
AQ-NCS according to their area of application and degree of importance
to safety. The PORTS QAP and the Safety Analysis Report designate those
SSCs as Q and AQ, and AQ-NCS, which are relied upon for non-criticality
safety and criticality safety, respectively. The PORTS QAP requires
USEC to apply quality assurance (QA) requirements contained in ASME
NQA-1-1989 entitled ``Quality Assurance Program Requirements for
Nuclear Facilities'' to Q and AQ-NCS SSCs. For AQ SSCs, which in
comparison to Q and AQ-NCS SSCs are less important from a safety
standpoint, only a portion of the ASME NQA-1-1989 requirements are
applicable.
Currently, the Plan of Action and Schedule (POAS) section of Issue
24 of the PORTS Compliance Plan implies that M&TE used for Q, AQ and
AQ-NCS SSCs are also designated as Q, AQ and AQ-NCS, respectively. The
clarification contained in USEC's amendment request, deletes this
implication. In addition to the clarification, USEC has also included a
request to extend the completion date for revising the calibration
program to meet the more formal requirements for AQ SSCs from December
31, 1997, to June 30, 1998. According to USEC, the existing December
31, 1997, date in the POAS of the PORTS Compliance Plan Issue 24 is
inconsistent with two other actions contained elsewhere in the same
POAS. In addition, according to USEC, Issue 22 entitled ``Maintenance
Program'' of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant (PGDP) Compliance Plan
identifies June 30, 1998, as the date for completing similar corrective
actions which address similar noncompliances.
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.
This amendment deletes the implication that M&TE are designated as
Q, AQ, and AQ-NCS SSCs. It also corrects an inconsistency related to
the completion date for revising the calibration program to meet more
formal requirements for AQ SSCs by extending the completion date from
December 31, 1997, to June 30, 1998. This amendment does not constitute
a change to the QA requirements applicable to M&TE. Per the PORTS QAP,
which was reviewed and approved by the NRC as part of the initial
certification, QA requirements contained in ASME NQA-1 1989 will
continue to be applied to M&TE used for Q, AQ-NCS and AQ SSCs. In
addition, the interim safety requirements contained in the
Justification for Continued Operation (JCO) section of Issue 24 of the
PORTS Compliance Plan, which was developed by DOE and approved by DOE
and NRC, pertaining to AQ SSCs and the associated M&TE, would continue
to be applied until June 30, 1998. As such, this amendment will not
result in a significant change in the types or significant increase in
the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite.
2. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase
in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 1, the
proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in
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.
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 the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 1, the
proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in 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.
For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 1, the
proposed amendment will not result in new or different kinds of
accidents.
6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant
reduction in any margin of safety.
For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 1, 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 the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 1, the
proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in the
effectiveness of the plant's 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 plant's safeguards or security programs.
Effective date: The amendment to GDP-2 will become effective
immediately after issuance by NRC.
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-2: Amendment will revise the
Compliance Plan.
Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,
1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-3977 Filed 2-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
