[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14737-14739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7963]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70-7002]
Notice of 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 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 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
[[Page 14738]]
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: February 3, 1998.
Brief description of amendment: On February 3, 1998, United States
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) submitted a certification amendment
request (CAR) to temporarily, approximately six weeks, convert the X-
705 South Annex from NRC regulations to Department of Energy (DOE)
Regulatory Oversight Agreement (ROA) regulations for the replacement of
inoperable HEU cylinder valves. The changes proposed in USEC's CAR
involve SAR Section 3.7, ``HEU DOWNBLENDING ACTIVITIES,'' Fundamental
Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Section 2.2.7, ``MBA Structure,''
and the Plan for Achieving Compliance at the Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant (Compliance Plan) Issue A.4., ``Possession of Uranium
Enriched to Greater than 10% \235\U.''
The change to SAR Section 3.7 recognizes the HEU cylinder valve
replacement under DOE ROA regulations as an anticipated evolution and
provides a description of that activity. The revisions to Section 2 of
the FNMC Plan and related Issue A.4 of the Compliance Plan describe
access control into the X-705 facility during the period of six weeks
that the areas are temporarily converted to DOE ROA regulation, to
verify that no removal of fissile material occurs during the valve
replacement activities, and to certify that changing the status of the
areas will not result in Portsmouth (PORTS) possessing HEU or cause
PORTS to exceed the HEU possession limit before returning the areas to
NRC regulation.
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 does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. The amendment would temporarily change the
regulatory oversight of the valve replacement due to possession limit
constraints and would not change the types or increase 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.
The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. The same radiological controls and
criticality controls found acceptable for lower enrichment cylinder
valve replacements would remain in effect for the HEU cylinder valve
replacement. 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 does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. The same radiological controls, industrial
hygiene controls, and criticality controls found acceptable for lower
enrichment cylinder valve replacements would remain in effect for the
HEU cylinder valve replacement. Therefore, the amendment would 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.
The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed
activity for the facility. 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.
For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 4 and 5,
the proposed amendment would 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 4 and 5,
the proposed amendment would not result in an overall decrease in the
effectiveness of the plant's safety.
The amendment proposed changes to the FNMC Plan and Compliance Plan
to increase the security and safeguards requirements commensurate with
DOE ROA requirements for high enrichment and provides assurances
through a special static inventory of the areas at the end of the
transition to confirm the facility status. 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 7 days
after issuance by NRC.
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-2: Amendment will allow temporary
transfer of regulatory oversight of the X-705 Building for high
enrichment uranium cylinder valve replacement.
Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,
[[Page 14739]]
1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-7963 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U
