ML20128K549

Informs That Encl Ltr from V Colley Being Treated as Petition for Review Under 10CFR76.62(c) & Recipient Invited to File Response or Comments by 961015

ML20128K549
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	10/04/1996
From:	Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	Cordes J, Treby S NRC, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#496-17959 NUDOCS 9610110103
Download: ML20128K549 (20)

Text

],705 9

$$$o10~WWl7en

\\

<f

%,2 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O '^ -

bb Tb WASHINGTON. o C 20555-0001 i,

guaq October 4,1996

%,s..../

'96 CC -4 P2 :54 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OFF

~

~

U 00Cr' s

MEMORANDUM TO:

Service t

g SERVED OCT 41996 FROM:

John ioyle, Sec etary

SUBJECT:

PETITION OF VINA K. COLLEY On October 2,1996, a letter dated September 30,1996, was faxed to Dr. Carl Paperiello from Ms. Vina Colley. The letter was sent in response to a decision of the NRC Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards to issue certificates of compliance for the operation of two gaseous diffusion plants by the U.S. Enrichment Corporation. The decision was published in the Federal Recister at M Fed. Reg. 49360 (September 19,1996).

Ms. Colley's letter, which is attached, is being treated as a petition for review under 10 CFR Sec. 76.62(c). As such, you are invited to file a response or comment by October 15,1996. A copy of the Federal Register notice referenced above is also attached. Your comment may be sent to my office by mail or fax to the attention of the Docketing and Service Branch. The fax number for comments sent to the Office of the Secretary is (301) 415-1672. Fax verification or assistance may be obtained by calling (301) 415-1677.

9610110103 961004 PDR ADOCK 07007001

}ef C

pop

f i

I P.M liLS.S.

Portsmouth.Piketon Restgents for Einvironmental Safety and Security Vina K. CoGry. President 37o0 Mc0ormott Pond Creek

• ucQurmett CH. 45852-0932 uth? P i :-)

(514) 259 4688 FAX (614) 259 3812

A' Notica of Certincaten Decision for USEC Gasecus D1 fusion P! ants HE

Potson for extended comment pencd g<~ pe" 4 p 4 7 l

00)ection to limita:fone on persons who may comment l

Petition to remove limitaliens on persons who may commef't

• Petition for National public hearings to be held 01 :

' ~

D0i! I l

Otnemian in FONSI

= Objedion to tacit and unroviewed acceptance of DOE overseeing nucFear'sefety, Carl J. Paperiello Olrenor of! Ice of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards i

l Nuclear Reguistory Commission Washington, DC 20666 l

September 30,1996 l.

Dear Carl J. Paperiello,

Please find enclosed our commare to the notice in the Federal Register of Septembe 183, pp 4936049363) regardmg the certificaten of the USEC's two gaseous dimision i

the NRC provide a detaded and documented response to our comments, objection Also, this document serves as a/n:

L) Petition for extending the cerement period regardmg certification of the gaseo 2.) Objection to li= Man persons who may comment based onm.)T b,) petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule Any taxpayer has the right to comment l

3.) Petition to open up commenting to "any interested" person of the U.S. with n for action to hold public hearmgs nationally regarding continued opera 4.) Awaantive p+dif!bslon plants in Ohio and K=nyky l

of the gaseous USEC's complianos plan andthat no 5,) Objecdon to the finding of no sirwantimpset re I

tbs aantianad operamon of tbs gaseous advues effects on the envirrement will occur ddthsion plants in reaching en=pli= ace 6.) Objecdon to tacit and unreviewed acceptance of DOE ovwsesing durtag the transition period to slated full privatization of theTJSEC ns who may comment, we regisant ther we Notwithstandin)g our objecdcas to the limitations on those ons in accordance whh tbs requirements as have stu,lo standing toissue our petition and (V. 61, N.133, pp 4958M9563). As semand any l

in the Register nodce of September 19,1 person whoes intseest may be effected, and who ant =

as weR as chises and s, and are working with and suppornas residents near the Ohio commustingprocoes under Soc.

^=2 groups who have in an ometal capacity taksu part in

.;r v A=

76.93.

ll CONnNUED I

b i

5

Y t

L) PETTTION FOR TDCTENDINC THE CQM11ENT PERInD REGARDLNG CERTIT[CgQ}{

The time period of M days to * ~ comte 2nd Gie.nciion is inadeauate and unacceptable.

This is not a sufficient amount of tme for c:tizens to obtain de cecessary materials via mail or in pers to toroughly mview and understand them. We respectf.dly and adamantly requests that the clock sten with no teu than 30 davs for mview and to file comments / petitions The continued operation of these 40 old plants deserves full participation and e.yim h nct only th: citizens directly affected by their o but by di taxpaviu cirnens whose money willparfKt.be;ocrirad onention of these riants through j

j maintenance, secunty, govemment oversight, etc.. and, will pay for the ecsts of decontaminarion.

remediation. md decnramininning. Thus by only havicg materials available at the NRC and at 6e two plants does not allow for full parucipation by the citizens of thn cottntry. demismg notions an j

j of democracy.

l 3.)~OMECTTON TO LIMITING PKMONS WHO WY ^OWENT R ASED ON j

A.) APA 9553(E) walca STATES "ANY" CITIZEN OR "fNTER,ESTED PERSQ3" HAS THE RIGHT "TO PET 1 TION FOR THE ISSUANCE, AMENDMENT, OR REPEAL OF A RULE."

3 s.) ANY TAIPAYER EAS T1DL R.ICHT TO COMMENT l

4.) Prn tion TO OPEN f fP COMMFNTING TO " ANY INTERFSTED" PFRNON OF LIMITATIONS l

2.) ADMINTSTRATIVE PETITION EQ_R ACTION TO ROLD PUBLIC HEA_ RIN l

CONTINUED OPERATION OF Tite C ASEOUS DDTt*SION PLANTS IN OHIO AND KE l

Th: griainal trd2rion of 1992 Entrg4Eoli:y2ci,gr.yv subsecuent 1erislation regardinr the USEC does institute nor pve direcuam tele NPC to create UnHtations on who may comment durmg Nouce and Comment proceedmgs regarding cet*i5 cation of the gaseous diffusion plants The APA a for all interested persons to comment during Neuce and Comment procedures without limitations.

NRC has gone beyond its statutory scope in limiting persons who can comment where such perso comments will become part of the official record deserv:ng due not:ce by NRC as well as receivi comments by the NRC.

Continuing in the same vein of reasocing stated above m point "1.)" for extending the comme period, it seems to have been assumed that only perso is a pateady false and negligent assumpuon. As stated, it is U S taxcavar dallars eher ha

~aital for th <e n12nts to an-rata for the past 40 years and will contin 6e to Mda the neceuarv fwd

• to mamtam operation of these plants, even with the projected privatization of CSEC. To illu It wu U.S. taxpayer dn11ars used to create a 400,000,000 million dollar revolving fund for t USEC to operate fmm.

It is U.S. taxpayers donars that now fund and will centinue to fund clean-up of the faci

• Also and more isp sstly, it is U.S. taxpayer dollars that provided the 12 billion dollars to purchaos weapona grade uranium from the former Soviet Union (supposedly do degree in the fonner Soviet Union) to be converted at the two U.S. gaseous USEC control into nuclear fuel for sale en the domestic and internatio The electric bill to run these two plants has been and will be footed by U.S. taxpayer do These are significant and substantial subsidizations provided by the U.S citize

• ETC.

i of these plants and for the profit of the USEC. We take great issue with any fabricate on those persons who may comment on the certification of these plants.

Moreover and importsndy, the imgs and concems surrounding the continued cn lants are of not only National concern but of international as well due to the nature of US p' unction, that of convertmg Russian weapons grade uranium into nuclear fuel. It i GAO, DOE, and Congress that it will take 20-50 years to

/

/

l i

~.

peaons allowed to comment on the certification of these plants. We demand tha2 national hearings b regardmg the connnuu! operation of these plants and cernfication of USEC as operator.

1 5.) otrECTION TO m FINDING OF NO SIGMFICANT REGARDING USEC'S COMPLIANCE PLAN ANI2, f

THAT NO ADVERSE EFFECIS ON nd ENVIRONMENT WILL OCCUR FROM TliE CONTIN t

OPERATION OF THE G ASEOUS DIFTUSION PLANTS IN REACHING COMPLIANCE.

a.) NOTres DOEs NOT uYO!NT FOR rMPAFT9 4R9 ULT *NG CROM PRIVATIZATION The finding of no significant impact does not mview nor account for impacts, changes, and full ranuScations on the operation of the two plants and environmental compliance post privatization of the USEC nor f: rom the actual noceu of pnvatization. Inaccurately, the Federal Register notice of September 19,1996 (V. 61, N.103, pp 49360-P363) states that DOE retains and will maintain ownership of the plants. Privatization is a significant factor affeedng the safety of the plants workars, the pubhe, and environment and will affect environmental compliuce as wed. Govemme oversight could be severely inhibited once (and if) privatization occurs. In additiot, USEC is a for profit motivated company, not safety. According to the 1992 Energy Policy Act itself, proSt m is the USEC's highest and primary goal. Evidence oflimits on public oversight of ansironmental compliance has already occurred where USEC refused to publis this is a "co analyzed '

uding the economic ability of USEC to fully comply with environmental standards over the next pmjected 50 years of operation, b.) Ft' ort'Ve f rown N rWPOSrr CLc AN-t rD IS NCYT COMIS 1 m POSINQRtSKS OF i

Uranium deposits and the potential of critically is a well documented problem at the placts where clean up began in 1991. Clean-up is not complete. (See No:ional Academy ofSciences re ale clun.un ?) The potential increase of fugitive deposits from continued operation is high N7or given the age of the plants, thus increasing the potential for criticality. Worker safe ic health must not be put at risk. Until clean-ce is absolutely completed these plana thould nj certificerinrt c.) NRC MAS NCfr REVIEWED SYNERGISTIC TMP ACTS ON Wnarens NO FNVfDONMEYr FROM DPI PMER ON AND OFF-ST'TP FROM AMMMMTOS__ fEA M

AND f fRANftJM cobrrahetWA'f'loN, Also accordmg to the National Academy of Sciences report Affordshim C'kma.g2,in a to fugitive uranium deposits, conumination of asbestos is petvasively Icad paint. There is no analysis of the synergistic affects of these

@ation worker health nor on the health of the public and the environment from micases. No cert

• abould be lemaA until thana im r.ats are fully documented and analved We would also like to know how the USEC and NRC -W to meet OSHA re[ulations regardag exposum to workers from asbestos, lead paint, and ba ched=h as wel as radioactsve eye given that fact that on the contaminiation exists?

O Admd OF BtJfT DINCE P(WRt <fGNTFTCAbrT RfREM TO Punt 1c H ENVfunWChr? INri tmtNG MAJOR RnnfRM OF WATM the age of these Jaseous Accordmg to the same National Academy of Sciences worker safety, and the diffusion plants - 40 years - poses sigmficant ra'ska to public h

....r..m immadiately Interestingly and as stated, it is projected by the USEC, GAO, DOE, and Congress that it will ta i

f U.S. E annymt the Ruulan finaita m e4ala into fuel in addition to the convers on o is These two plants do not have another 50 years of life in them. De economics of prohibitive in addition to the health and safety risks. NRC must dema i

the USEC, DOE, and Congress as to when fbil decomminioning and decontaminati with an accompanying agendt Predictably, each cert over the years under pressure to keep the plants in production, thus putting at lac public, workers, and envircoment. In the very least. an acenda on full daca i

l

~.-

Aerontamination should oc demanded and subnut'ed a2E watn Ina very ccritumou gzwaa, - -

i 1

lamf.

i Mom e Jatalv no certification should be issued and henmmininaine and i

deenntamination of the two nlants begin now before the costs become impossible an;1the risks I

unboerable.

In particular, the Portsmouth niact is located directiv above a major annifer and underground j

river, called the Teys River. In fact tsis is the largest aquifer in the midwest. fignificant =dararnund water coataminari= is highly possible and brs ret been thorounhlv and =Aaanatetv investiented.

Also, this plant is surrounded by major surface-water bodies including the Scioto River which feeds directly into the Ohio River. The Ohio River is a major source of water drawn by Municipalities

~

along the river including Cincinatti, Ohio.To allow these plants to continue under non-compliance for any length of time is to put at great risk these water bodies.

i ej DpenMMfRRf0NING AND UFCONTAMTNATf0N Bl*DGET CUTS POKF RISK 9 TO PUBLid MRAI TM.

}

g/ORrtn RAPE"rY. AND'TWE ENVtRONMEVr If these plants continue to operate as is they willinevitably contribute to on-sits i

centamination which is prevalent and significant. Recent D&D budget cuts for these plants pose j

major risks to public health, worker safety, and the environment. Thse n1=ata muct nat & manwed to enntinue mAar nmsent aner=tions without secur-ftqancial resources for etaan-ue of the., ntants in

~

SAEGE i

f.) Snuint1s ADVERSE mALTH EFFEcr5 THAT HAVE OccURP*n FROM OFFErrE m1TORICAL_AND CUnaFNT mRI RASES UNCL_UDING SYNERGISTIC EWECTS FROM NRfdMannrNG INDtis mfRO MAS NOT gFEN THORot10HLY AND ADEOUATELY ADDRESSED BY DOE. USEC NOR NRC l

A very recent reoort as of July 1996 completed by 10 health plannmg agencies in the state of l

Ohio including Cincinnati based CORV A, and the Health Planning and Resource Development Association of the Central Ohio River Valley found sienificant elevarad curer r=tae in ame contiguous counties in southwest Ohio. Six of these counties lie alone the Ohio River including i

Hamittnn, Clermont, Brown, and Adams, of which the GDP of Portamnnth is ueat-d in the lartar counties. Accorthng to the report 152165 people out of 100,000 persons die of cancer. The study raised more questions than answers as to the causes of the elevation m cancer.

As of yet ro thnmo eh and satisferenry study h== been enmnierad on the e=n -* for elevations m cancer and the Anh a tse GDP in Portemnnth he studies cenducted by ASTDR on off-site a

l health effects were neg gently narrow in scope where the results saaved only the interests of the Fedets! Government. Any further studies must be conducted by a non.pardsan, unbiased entity.

j Also, no thamurh investlantion hat Men done on the synere4ene aMaa'a and ; - --': frotn the various industries located in this area combined with the GDP of Portsmouth. This year, based on lab analysis EPA emeadad that svnereiem frnm chemienle combining in the envirnament and in living i

orEnnisms can ine-** adverse imnacts by 16.000 timest This is a serious admiaance by the EPA.

EPA fbrtbar advaiM hat past methods analysis of the impacts of toxic and hasardous eh==irala on j

t living organisms - one toxm or chemical at a time - may be irrelevant and obsoleen necessitanag a smal afama n

totai revamp in analyzing the egccts of toxic and hazanious chamicala. Indood,it is or.4=^=' _at a dme is a m.= mn= tad and diseased method of in

' "- et ' m ae.

such as tbs NRC to step up to the times meias eada da rhar _=

i

_a and envirnnmaar that inctnda svnarnistic ma-c+= and demamling that sneh standards be i

toet.

i j

p hotAccoRA'rK AREUCMWVr OF Wonrun DRAJME ann Oppane em n Aenn The aamali=== evaluation of the Paducah ODP (Docket 70-7001, August 1996) assests that "no incidents at any of the GDP's have caused death or serions injuries to plant personnel Aom ara-=e to redloective materials or radiadon nor have there been any lanidaata that have insulted in off-sits 31 eases of radiadon or radioactive materials" causing dosas in " excess of =d8=h d landts."

i This andre statement la false. According to a document teleased in Lao Goodsman, Sometary of the Atotidc Energy Technical Comtmttee (IUD AFL CIO), J the n s. = en-were am.w to w liniead to c s...a na.

= ma Ci.m h workers at the Portsmouth OD > teased'that is tbs mid lyn S a i

significant rulesse aftmaride gas dispersed off-site. nese and anmarous othflacidents have been hidden and daniad by the overseeing agency the DOE. DOE has a history of oovering op

//

i 4

Th{~~

~" * "* I^-

cacucC?w'Q:"Qt a

~_

i Before any J

environmental contammation and releases at all its falsities throughout the na d there cumulanve ceruficadon takes place a through investgation of environmental releases an ht impacts off site must be conducted. This tnvesuganon must be a l

h h ve been includes the dinction and participation of 6e local peoples and worken a i

and continue to be directly affected. Given the above me i

it eglect NRC's duty to protect the health of the people and the environment.

RISK AS h.) liOPr7DNTAL & VmtTIC41JgEQfGACFRES NOT WELLWTFR umouth AJfGRATION PATHWAYIn EPA's Envimnmental. Safetv and HegtL o C

l d

dcal Gaseous Diffusion Plant of April 1990, there findmgs include conce i

i ration bedrock fractures unduncath the GDP in Ohio that " represent a pote f

h n that determmed pathway in which the directions of groundwater t "of this h

aluation is dire potendal pathway has not been completed." This is still true as of and uanost for this certaticadon process given that fact that, as state, t e midwest lies beneath the Portsmouth GDP.M MUST DE FUllFONRIDEppn 11CpNNFCTTON M LACK OF DfSPOSg3R WCH-LEVF.G3T i i f

f high-level radioactive waste these plants has dinct beanng, effect. and links to the dilemma o ih l mes disposal in this country. To begin, the tw o pl l

clear mdustry, At the current wt11 result from the use of the nuclear fuel by the commexia nu d ith no 6nal moment the domestic nuclear industry is back-logged with spent fue d

reposnory. It is quite known to the NRC the full ram f finding a repository, and the fact that there is no known safe method of disposa.T l

conHanal cwation of hieh level maicactive watetDisconnecte lean and thriving endangers the vitality and the true national security of this country. a cs f high-level wasta" disposal" are envunament We as a country cannot afford to maintain any proce b

d oemd to the political of high level radioacdvs wastes. In addition concems and impacts o not only envirnamentalbut economical as well where more mone SovietUnion abould f

committed to long term storage until a better solution for high-leve was e l

Finally, the fact that USEC will also sell the cuclear fue the health of the pubic and environment.

i l fissile material is to prevent proliferati directly counter to the plutonium is the tryk+eM Does the U.S. also p intentof purchasing R than sddary.

from USECs sales? Although these issues are seemingly mo acads, albeit unsop il these consideradons should and must weigh heav y on the USEC.

ret man =AvnTY o omrem ro TAcrr AND UNREVIEWRD ACCEPT CUmmENTLY AND DURDWG THETRANSmON PgRIOD TO S lear safety currently URBC l

Our concerns with the tacit and unreviewed acceptance of D h

i and during the transition period to slated full privat za oi d

DOE's spency abilities, or rather lack thereof. DOE is plague fh

blic, m Jaht and managing =elaar ma e worksrs and envimect.

/

Our contentions are well supported. The conclusions of the report Higners to ScienceLTechnical Msnaaememt of the Denartment of Fnerev E.vironmentiRemndLation Pmeram, written by the research branch of the National Academy of Scier.ces assetts that the " DOE has an enormous pool of highly talented, dedicated and experienced people working to meet (the technica!) challenges" of enviromnentaliemediation, but " fall short of not only of the ideal but of the standard of reasonable effectheness set by other orgamzations" with similar trussions. E'mphasis added. This highly respectable and credible repon summnnzes the ' obstacles" faced by the Department in manapng nuclear safety, environmental remediation in particular:

• An inability to look at more than one alternative at a time:

• Pnonties driven by naTow interpretadons of regulations, rather than the regulation's purpose of protecting health and the enviroument; Production of documents as an end in itself, rather than as a means to achieve a goal:

Lack of organizational coordination,

. Use of technical problems as excuses to obtain funding, rather than as obstacles to be overcome;

= Cleanup commitments that are made without consideration of technical feasibility, cost and schedule.

Reprintedfrom BNA Environmental Reporter 126-96 recommendations in 30 to 60 days. _ port is classic writing an implementation pla The DOE's response to the re or incorporate the Council's recommendations of not usm; documents as an end itself, examine muldple altematives at the same time, etc. The conclusions formed by be Council and the DOE's typical reaction to this report, gives canoe for great concern overall. The repon suggested the need for " fundamental rethinking of the DOE Environmental Remediation stn:cture" basmg this suggestion on the Galvm Commission trpon of 1995. This conclusion is applicable to the entire scheme and strvetures of the DOE. Review of DOE oversight of the two gaseous plants must be addressed during the certification process and the potential cumulet!ve negative unpacts on the environment, and worker and public health / safety that will iesult from DOE continuing oversight of nuclear safety. To not include such an evaluation is irresponsible, nsulting m a faulty and incomplete analysis of the certifiabthty of the two plants.

lelNAL COMMENTS /REQUERI The exact role and responsibilities of the NRC and DOE as overseers of the two ODP's,in addition to any other agencias who have a role and/or hold responsibility for oversi ht of any and all aspects of the two GDP's, is unclear at best. We respectfully request for the NRC to cle explam the role and tesponsibility of any and all agencies involved with the two GDP's and the SEC. Alongwiththis explanation, we would like exact cites to legislative authority that authonzes such agencies roles and tT==ibuitas in sugard to the two GDP's.

Also, we would like to know who is responsible for any releases in terms of liability, clean-up and costs of clean up fmm the two GDP's? Who is responsible for waste disposal of any and all wastes from the two GDP's in tenns of finances and execution? Who is responsible for environmental monitormg and compliance enforcement?

Dank You, VA W b I

~51 ease send a copy of Compliance Evaluation -Report for the Certification of the United State Enrichment Corporation Portsmouth Gaseous Dif fusion Plant Piketon/Portsmouth Ohio.

j 1

/

i

3

[7590-01-P]

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF CERTiflCATION DECISION FOR U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION TO OPERATE GASE0US DIFFUSION PLANTS AND FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT (DOCKET NOS. 70-7001; 70-7002]

AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Certification of Gaseous Diriusion Plants.

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is issuing a certification decision for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to operate the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) located at Paducah, Kentucky, and at Piketon, Ohio.

NRC is also issuing a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning NRC's approval of the compliance plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and submitted by USEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. M. L. Horn, Office of Nuclear Material Safe.ty and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8126; Mr. C. B. Sawyer, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8174.

6 / FlZ '/ Ud O y Q, spit, m<

i 2

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The President signed H.R. 776, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act),

into law on October 24, 1992.

The Act amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to establish a new government corporation, the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of operating the uranium enrichment enterprise owned and previously operated by the D0E.

The Act provided that within two years after enactment of the legislation, NRC would promulgate standards that apply to USEC's operation of its GDPs at Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio, to protect public health and safety from radiological hazards, and to provide for the common defense and security.

The Act directed the NRC to establish and implement an annual certification process under which the GDPs would be certified by the NRC for compliance with these standards.

For areas where plant operations are not yet in compliance, the Act provided for a compliance plan prepared by the DOE.

The Act also required NRC to report annually to the Congress on the status of the GDPs.

On February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6792), the Commission published for comment a proposed new Part 76 to Chapter I of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (CFR), establishing requirements and procedures for the certification process.

After NRC review and consideration of public comments, the final rule was published on September 23, 1994 (59 FR 48944).

Part 76,

" Certification of Gaseous Dif fusion Plants," includes procedural requirements, generally applicable NRC health and safety standards, technical safety requirements, and safeguards and security requirements specific to the GDPs.

~ -.. -. _. _ - -.

3 j

DOE currently continues nuclear safety, safeguards, and security oversight of the GDPs.

DOE retains ownership of the facilities and will be i

responsible for eventual decommissioning of the sites.

USEC submitted its initial certification application on April 18, 1995.

NRC's preliminary review of the ini'.ial application determined that it did not j

adequately address the standards NRC had established for the GDPs and did not contain enough information for NRC to determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 76.

Therefore, by letter dated May 5, 1995, NRC formally rejected the initial application and notified USEC that it had to submit a revised application.

NRC's decision to reject the application was not a determination that the operation of these plants was unsafe or in noncompliance.

I USEC submitted a revised certification application on September 15, 1995, and a revised, DOE-prepared compliance plan on November 6, 1995.

The application package includes:

a safety analysis report; a quality assurance program; technical safety requirements; an emergency plan; an environmental compliance status report; a nuclear material control plan; a transportation protection plan; a physical protection plan; a security plan for protection of classified matter; a waste management program; a deccmmissioning funding program; environmental information; and a DOE-prepared compliance plan.

The NRC staff requested additional information and revisions to the certification application and the compliance plan, and USEC responded during the period from October 1995 through August 1996.

The application and all related non-proprietary, unclassified supporting information and correspondence are available for public inspection and copying at the Commission Public Document Room (PDR), 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs), under Docket No.

4 70-7001, at the Paducah Public Library, 555 Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky, 42003; and under Docket No. 70-7002, at the Portsmouth Public Library, 1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio, 45662.

Notice of receipt of the application appeared in the Federal Reaister (60 FR 49026) on September 21, 1995, allowing for a 45-day public comment period on the application and noticing public meetings to solicit public input on the certification.

A second notice appeared in the Federal Reaister (60 FR 57253) on November 14, 1995, providing for a 45-day public comment period on the compliance plan.

Public meetings were held on November 28, 1995, at the l

Vern Riffe Joint Vocational School in Portsmouth.. Ohio, and on December 5, 1995, at the Paducah Information Age Park Resource lenter in Paducah, Kentucky.

Eleven comment letters were received.

Comments received during the comment period, together with trhuscripts of the public meetings, are available in the PDR and the LPDRs, and were reviewed and considered by the staff during the certification evaluation.

The staff responses to the public comments are also available in the PDR and the LPDRs.

As required by the Energy Policy Act, NRC consulted with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about certification.

EPA did not identify any significant compliance issues.

The USEC Privatization Act, contained in Public Law 104-134, was signed into law on April 26, 1996.

Among other provisions, it amended the Atomic Energy Act requirement for an annual application for certification to require instead a periodic application, as determined by the Commission, but not less than every five years.

Also, as required by the USEC Privatization Act, NRC and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOV) describing coordination of their regulatory activities

5 at the GDPs to ensure worker safety.

This MOU was published in the Federal Reaister on August 1, 1996 (61 FR 40249).

Certification Decision of the Director, Office of Nuclear Mater al Safety and Safeguards The NRC staff has reviewed the certification application and the DOE-prepared compliance plan submitted by USEC, and concluded that, in combination with certificate conditions, they provide reasonable assurance of adequate safety, safeguards, and security, and compliance with NRC requirements.

Therefore, the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (Director) is prepared to issue a Compliance Certificate and a compliance plan approval for each plant.

The staff has prepared a Compliance Evaiuation Report, for each plant, which provides details of the staff's evaluations, bases for certificate approval, and responses to public comments.

The proposed Compliance Certificates and Compliance Evaluation Reports are available in the PDR and the LPDRs.

The initial certificates will be issued for an effective period of approximately 2 years, with expiration dates of December 31, 1998.

This is consistent with the new provision in Public Law 104-134, the USEC Privatization Act, which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act replacing the requirement for an annual application for a certificate of compli snce with a requirement for an application to be filed " periodically, as deten. ined by the Commission, but not less than every five years."

The staff believes that two years is a reasonable period for the first certificates of compliance; in two years significant progress will be made in implementing piar; improvements specified in the compliance plan.

Therefore,

6 USEC will receive an exemption from the requirements in 6676.31 and 76.36 to submit an annual application for certificate renewal in 1997.

USEC will be required to file an application for renewal of the certificates of compliance by April 15, 1998.

The requirements in ss76.31 and 7:.36 for an annual application were 1

based on the previous statutory requirement for an anne'l application, which has been superseded.

Therefore the exemptions from these requirements are justified under s76.23, which specifically allows the NRC to grant such exemptions from the requirements of Part 76 as it determines are authorized by i

law and will not endanger life, property, or the common defense, and are otherwise in the public interest.

The exemptions meet these criteria.

Transition of Regulatory Authority The certificates of compliance will become effective and the NRC will assume regulatory authcrity over the GDPs on March 3. 1997, following a transition period.

This transition period will give USEC time to revise procedures and train employees on the approved application.

DOE will continue regulatory oversight during the transition period unti) NRC assumes jurisdiction.

Opportunity to Petition for Review USEC or any person whose interest may be affected, and who submitted i

written comments in response to the federal Reaister Notice cn the application or compliance plan, under s76.37, or provided oral comments at any meeting held on the application or compliance plan conducted under s76.39, may file a petition, not exceeding 30 pages, requesting revtew of the Director's

7 certification decision.

The petition must te filed with the Commission not later than 15 days after publication of this Federal Register Notice.

Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 10 days after the filing of the petition.

Unless the Commission grants the petition for review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of this federal Reaister Notice, the initial decision on the certificate application or compliance plan will become

final, if no petition is received within the designated 15-day period, the Director will issue final Compliance Certificates, finding of No Significant Impact As specified in 10 CFR 551.22(c)(19), an environmental assessment is not required for the certificates of compliance, themselves.

However, the associated compliance plan describes how and when the plants will be brought into compliance with NRC requirements in instances where compliance is lacking at the time of certification.

The staff has prepared the following I

environmental assessment on the compliance plan:

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:

The proposed action is the approval of the compliance plan associated with certification of the GDPs.

Approving the compliance plan would authorize the GDPs to operate for a limited period before achieving full compliance with NRC's requirements.

8 The Need for Action:

Section 1701(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, states that the GDPs may not be operated by the Corporation unless the NRC "

, makes a determination of compliance... or approves a plan...for achieving compliaace." Thus, NRC approval of the compliance plan is necessary to meet the requirement specified by the 1

statute.

1 t

Environmental ImDacts of the Action:

The staff has evaluated all the compliance plan issues with regard to

{

their environmental impacts.

Individual issues or areas of noncompliance were 1

evaluated to determine whether they could produce any changes to routine air and water emissions, or any uncontrolled releases, or otherwise adversely affect the environment.

The majority of the issues or areas of noncompliance identified in the compliance plan involve activities by USEC to upgrade plant programs, procedures, and equipment to conform to applicable NRC requirements.

Continued operation under existing plant programs and procedures, by itself, will not have a negative impact on the level of effluents from plant operations or otherwise adversely affect the environment.

The only issue identified with regard to plant programs and procedures that may relate to the quality of the environment is " Environmental Trending Procedures" for the Paducah plant.

This compliance plan issue will ensure that all environmental data will be evaluated for trends to identify long-term The staff changes in the environment that may result from plant operations.

j has examined the current practices at the plant for reviewing environmental

L i

9 i

data for any unusual results that might indicate an increase in radiological i

releases from the Paducah Plant or in the dose to members of the public.

The l

staff finds the current practices to be acceptable until new procedures are i

established, in accordance with the plant procedure upgrade program, to l

evaluate all environmental data for trends.

Plant equipment upgrades should better ensure confinement of UF, and other effluents during normal and accidental conditions, and, therefore, will I

maintain or reduce the levels of effluents from plant operations.

The staff has examined the two specific items of noncompliance that relate to effluents:

"HEPA Filter System Testing" for both the Portsmouth and Paducah plants, and "High-Volume Ambient Air Samplers" for the Paducah plant.

Not all High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters have in-place efficiency performance testing in accordance with American National Standards l

Institute Standard N510.

Although the failure of the HEPA filters to perform properly could affect airborne redionuclide emissions, no significant environmental releases to the ambient air have been detected, in over ten years, that were attributed to HEPA filter failure.

As reported in the USEC Environmental Compliance Status Report, the maximum dose to a member of the public from radionuclide air em.ssions for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was 0.006 mSv (0.06 mrem) and for the Paducah plant in 1994 was 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), both well within the EPA 1 mSv (10 mrem) limit in 40 CFR Part 61.

The staff concludes that the "HEPA Filter System Testing" noncompliance will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Although the new high-volume air sampling system has been in operation l

at the Paducah plant since August 1995, sufficient data to establish the capabilities of the system and to establish baseline radionuclide r

~

10 concentrations at the station have not been completed.

Data from the new high-volume air sampling system will help confirm the accuracy of data on annual radionuclide air emissions.

However, since maximum doses from Paducah annual radionuclide air releases have been in the range of 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), well within the EPA regulatory limit, the staff concludes that the unavailability of data from the new high-volume air sampling system will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

More detailed information on the staff's esaluation is contained in the Compliance Evaluation Reports, which have been placed in NRC's PDR and in the LPDRs located in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio.

Alternatives to the Prooosed Action:

The proposed action to approve the compliance plan, along with the approval of the certification application, would authorize USEC to continue operations of the GDPs under.NRC regulatory oversight.

The "No Action" alternative would be to withhold approval of the compliance plan.

Under this alternative, the GDPs would be shut down, or would continue to operate under DOE regulatory eversight until compliance is achievr:d.

Aaencies and Persons Consulted:

In reviewing the certification application and compliance plan, and in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the staff consulted with EPA.

EPA did not identify any major concerns associated with the certification action or approval of the compliance plan.

l l

11

==

Conclusion:==

Based on the foregoing assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the environmental effects of approving the compliance plan will be insignificant.

The staff believes that the compliance plan is sufficient to ensure that, during the interim period of noncompliance, plant operation related to areas of noncompliance will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

1 FINDING 0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of this assessment, the staff has concluded that 1

environmental impacts that would be created by this action would not be significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Accordingly, it has been determined that a finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate.

The Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this proposed action are available for public inspection and copying at the Commission's PDR and LPDRs.

f Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this /4 day of 3'ef., 1996.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Carl J. Pa eriell, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of U. S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION Docket No.(s) 70-7001/7002 (Paducah, Kentucky and Piketen, Ohio)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing H0YLE MEMO W/COLLEY PETITION.,

have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.*

John F. Cordes, Esq.

Stuart A. Treby, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Mail Stop 15 B18 Mail Stop 15 B18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Robert L. Woolley, Manager Corinne Whitehead, President Nuclear Regulatory Assurance arJ Policy Coalition for Health Concern U.S. Enrichment Corporation Route 9, Box 25 2 Democracy Center - 6903 Rociledge Dr. Benton, KY 42025 Bethesda, MD 20817 Carl J. Paperiello, Directo

• John W. Hickey Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards - Mail Stop T-8 A23 Safeguards - Mail Stop T-8 A33 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Edwards S. Ford, Chairman Mark Donham Low-level Radioactive Waste Commicsion Kristi Hanson Central Midwest Interstate RR#1 1035 Outer Park Drive Brookport, IL 62910 Springfield, IL 62704

• NON-NRC ADDRESSEES BY OVERNIGHT MAIL i

Docket No.(s)70-7001/7002 H0YLE MEMO W/COLLEY PETITION..

j Frank Redmond, Chief George Czerniak, Chief Federal Activities Branch Air Enforcement / Compliance Assur.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV Region V 345 Court 1hnd Street 77 West Jackson Boulevard Atlanta, GA 30365 Chicago, IL 60604 Felix M. Killar, Jr.

Ronald Lamb Manager, Non-Utility Programs 10990 Ogden Landing Road Nuclear Energy Institute Kevil, KY 42053 1776 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006 Rick Cee, Director Physical Measurement and Inorganic Analysis Division Craig Rhodes OSHA Salt Lake Technical Ctr.

3883 Mt. Pleasant Road 1781 South 300 West Brookport, IL 62910 Salt Lake City, UT 84165 Rev. Dr.

Velma M. Shearer Staff Minister Vina Colley Neighbors In Need 3706 McDermott Pond Creek 124 Chestnut Street, #210 McDermott, OH 45652 Englewood, OH 45322 Jotilley Dortch A. B.

Puckett 4205 Buckner Lane 6365 Bethel Ch Road Paducah, KY 42001 Kevil, KY 42053 Dated at Rockville, Md. this 4 day of October 1996 s'/

Wm LL)

OffipeoftheSecretaryoftheCommission 1

)