ML20134B956

Forwards FRN Announcing Certification Decision

ML20134B956
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	09/19/1996
From:	Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Adamkus V ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
References
NUDOCS 9609240153
Download: ML20134B956 (4)

Text

September 19, 1996 9

! Mr. Valda's V. Adamkus-

• Regional Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency

! Region V l 77 West ' Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604-?507 i

Dear Mr. Adamkus:

In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued its initial certification decision for the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to operate the gaseous diffusion plant near Portsmouth. Ohio. NRC intends to assume regulatory , jurisdiction over the plant from the Department of Energy on March 3,1997.

The Act requires the NRC to report annually to Congress on the health, safety, and environmental conditions as well as consult with the EPA with regard to the certification of the plant. We appreciated the EPA comments provided by Mr. George Czerniak in his letter dated February 29, 1996, which we considered in the certificate review. We will contact EPA again in 1997 when we prepare the first annual report to Congress.

Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Reaister Notice announcing the certification decision.

If you would like additional information, please contact Ms. Merri Horn of my staff at (301) 415-8126.

Sincerely, Offginal Signed By John W. N. Hickey, Chief Enrichment Branch  !

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards

Enclosure:

Federal Reaister Notice l' E

cc: M. Barger-Garvey w/ enclosure M. MacMullen w/ enclosure G. Czerniak w/ enclosure Docket No. 70-7002 l

Distribution: 8'7D5~;/

NRC' File' Center- PUBLIC K0'Brien NMSS r/f FCEB r/f CCox MHorn GShear G:\EPALTR.CRT 0FC FCE6 E- FCEB 6 FCf;fL b FCEB FCEB NAME dMorn/ij Y WSchwinkd" JHYckey 9 / 3 /96 " /r /96 9//[/96 DATE C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY 9609240153 960919 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR ADOCF 07007002 C PDR NRC PLE CENTEli COPY # d

%-L. umq,w/ wig i i DA/6 u

, __ __ . _ _ _ - _ . _ - . - ~ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ..

e'.

i, s

49380 Federal Register / Vol. 61. No.183 / Thursday September 19, 1996 / Notices (Deshot Nos. 70-7001; 70-700Ej Regulations (CFR), establishing 42003; and under Docket No. 70-7002, requimments and procedures for the at the Portsmouth Public IJbrary,1220 Nodce of Certficanon Decielon for U.S. contification promss. After NRC review 1

Enrichment Corporadon To Operate Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.

and consideration of public comments, Notice of receipt of the application Geseous Diffuelon Plants and Finding the final rule was published on of No Signiecentimpact appeared in the Federal Register (60 FR September 23,1994 (59 FR 48944). Part 49026) on September 21,1995, allowing .

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 76 " Certification of Caseous Diffusion for a 45-day public comment period on Commidon. Plants," includes procedural the application and noticing pubhc Acn0N: Certification of 8aseous aguimnents, generally applicable NRC meetings to solicit public input on the diffusion plants. health and safety standards, technical ,

certification. A second notice appeared

! safety requirements, and safeguards and in the Federal Register (60 FR 57253) on i suomeAny:The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory security requirements specific to the November 14,1995, providing for a 45

!- Commission is issuing a certification - CDPs.

day public comment period on the decision for the U.S. Enrichment DOE currently continues nuclear compliana plan. Public meetings were Corpor9 tion (USEC) to operate the two safety, safeguards, and security held on November 28,1995, at the Vern gaseous difusion plants (GDPs) located oversight of the GDPs. DOE retains ownership of the facilities and will be Riffe Joint Vocational Schoolin at Paducah, Kentucky, and at Piketon i Portsmouth Ohio, and on December 5, l Oldo. NRCis also issuing a Finding of 888Poesible for eventual

' 1995, at the Paducah Information A No Signi8 cant Impact RONSf) of the sites. Park Resource Center in Padumb, ge

,.,an=gdng NRC's approval of ee USBC subadtted its initial Kentucky. Eleven wamient letters wue i

compliance plan prepared by the U.S. Cortl88 tion *PPl ication on April 18, I

Department of Ene 5. Es pmH= lay myiew of the recolved. runmanes received dudng the (DOE)and comn=nt period, t wie submitted bYUSEC 1Allial APPl acation determined that it did transcripts of the lic meetings, are a mnwa emesAn0N CONTACT

• not adequately address the standards available in the and the LPDRs and Ms. M.L. Horn, Office of Nuclear NRC had establinhad for the CDPs and were reviewed and considered by th'e Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. did not contain enough information for staff during the certification evaluation.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC to determine compliance with to The staff responses to the public Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) CFR Part 76. Therefore, by letter dated comments are also available in the Pim 415-4126; Mr. C. B. Sawyer, Offim of May 5,1995, NRC formally rejected the and the LPDRs.

initial application and notified USEC Nuclear Matedal Safety and Safeguards, As required by the Energy Policy Act. '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, that it had to submit a revised NRC consulted with the U.S.

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) application. NRC's decision to reject the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 415-8174. application was not a determination that about certification. EPA did not identify the operation of these plants was unsafe any signi6 cant compliance issues.

SUPPt.EteENTARY INFORGAADON: or in noncompliance. The USEC Privatization Act, Background USEC submitted a revised contained in Public Law 104-134, was artification application on September  :;igned into law on April 26,1996.

The President signed H.R. 776, the 15,1995, and a revised, DOE-prepared  ;

A#nong other provisions, it amended the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act),into compliance plan on November 6,1995.  ;

law on October 24,1992. The Act Atomic Energy Act requirement for an

%e application package includesia annual application for certiScation to arnended the Atomic Energy Act of safety analysis report; a quality 1954, to establish a new government require instead a periodic application, ,

assurance program; eachniemi safety as determinert by the Co==Imaion, but I corporation, the U.S. Enrichment requirements;an emergency plan; an not less than every five years. Also, as Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of environmental compliance status report; requimd by the USEC Privatization Act, operating the uranium enrichment a nuclear matarial control plan; a NRC and the Occupational Safety and enterprise owned and previously transportatim protection plan; a Health Administration developed a operated by the DOE. The Act provided that within two years after enactment of {hysical protection Protection plan; ofclassi8ed a security matter; a plan Memorandum of Unders'anding (MOU l describing coordination of their  !

the legislation, NRC would promulgate waste managenant program; a regulatory activities at the GDPs to standards that apply to USEC's L  ; funding program, ensure workar safety.his MOU was operation of its GDPs at Paducah, KY, environmental infonnation; and a DOE- published in the Federal Register on and Piketon, OH, to protect public com liance plan. De NRC August 1,1996 (61 FR 40249).-

health and safety from radiological aquestjadditionalinfwmadon

hazards, and to provide for the common and mvisions to the certi5 cation certi8 cation Decision of the Director, defense and security The Act dimeted application and the mmpliance plan. O. lB,cem_of Nacisar Material Safety and the NRC to establish and implement an and USBC responded during the period -

annual artification Process under from October ms through August - De NRC staH has myiewed e'e

' 1996 licatian and the DOE-I or co n 11 ce wi h th 'I APPl iation and all related am- catification pmpared comp opbam plan submitted i P80Pdetary,unclamained su standards. For where Pl ant USEC, and concluded that,in P "

iniwmadan and == --- p-- - are mobination with certificate conditions, I

'g,eradms am ad evallableIerpubliclashetion and

} . P,gy Pl'an they provide m=ht= assurance of

. PNPamd by for a com{ copying at theemn=Ission Public adequate entsty, safeguards, and

$ '*9"I" 7*h',

• Document Roomi (PDR),21W L Street, secunty, and compliance with NRC NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the requirements. Derefore, the Director, i 11,1994 (59 FR 6792) Local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs), Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

! the Comm on published for comment under Docket No. 70-7001, at the i Safeguards (Director)is prepared to aP{ posed new Part 76 to Chapter I of Paducah Public Library,555 issue a Compliance urtificate and a tit Tashington Street, Pado 10 of the Code,pffederal y Kentucky, compliance plan approval for each 4

i '

,. Fed:r:1 Registir / Vol. 61. Nu,183 / Thursday, September 19, 1996 / Notices 49361

• Federal Register Notico on the m Ianc Eva uat on R po for each air and water emissions, or any 8PPlication or compliance plan, under uncontrolled releases, or otherwise plant. which provides details of the s 6.37 or provided oral comments at adverselv affect the environment, staff's evaluations, bases for certificate any meeting held on the ap lication or The stiaionty of the issues or areas of approval, and responses to public c mP laance plan conducte under noncompliance identified in the comments. The proposed Compliance may i

• Petition. not compliance plan involve activities by Certificates and Compliance Evaluation exceeding 30 pages. requesting renew L SEC to upgrade plant programs, Reports are available in the PDR and the f the Director s certification decision procedures, and equipment to conform l.PDRs The petition must be filed with 'he The imtial certificates will be issued to applicable NRC requirements.

Commission act later than 15 davs uter Contmued operation under existmg for an effective period of approximately Publication of this Federal Register plant programs and procedures, by 2 years, with expiration dates of ,

December 31,1996. This is consistent N tice. Any pers a descnbed in this itself, will not have a negative impact on l Paragraph may file a response to any the level of effluents from plant with the new provision in Public 1.aw Petition for review, not to exceed 30 104-134, the USEC Privatization Act, operations or otherwise adversely affect Pages, within to days after the filing of the environment.

which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of the petition. Unless the Commission ne only issue identified with ard se Atanic E,nergy t o,an aanAct app a (mi grants the petition for review or to plant programs and procedures at v_

otherwise acts within 60 days aAer the may relate to the quality of the for a certiaceto of empliance with a environment is " Environmental publication of this Federal Register

• PP Notim, the initial decision on the Trending Procedures" for the Paducah hui8*m*n P*r' pY. Y certincate application or comphnm plant. %is compliance plan issue will D"' "*' I*** O*" **Y I " plan will become finalcif no petition is ensure that all environmental data will Y'n'"e , staff believes that two years is a received within the designated 15-day be evaluated for trends to identify long-period, the Director will issue final term changes in the environment that i mason 8Me Period far se Amt Compliance Certificates.

certi6 cates of compliance; in two years mef.

sta f hasresult from plant examined operations.

the curmnt practicesDe signi8 cant progress will be made in Finding of No Signsficant impact at the plant for reviewing environmental implementing plant improvements As specified in to CFR $ 51.22(c)(19), data for any unusual results that might specified in the compliance plan. an environmental assessment is not indicate an increase in radiological Therefore, USEC will receive an required for the certificates of releases from the Paducah Plant or in exemption from the requirements m. compliance, themselves. However, the the dose to members of the public. The

$$ 76.31 and 76.36 to submit an annual associated compliance plan describes staff finds the current practices to be i application for certificate renewalin how and when the plants will be acceptable until new procedures are l l

1997. USEC will be required to file an brought into compliance with NRC established,in accordance with the application for renewal of the requirements in instances whem plant procedure upgrade program, to certificates of compliance by April 15 compliance is lacking at the time of evaluate all environmental data for 1998, certification. The staff has prepared the trends.

ne requirements in $$ 76.31 and following environmental assessment on Plant equipment upgrades should - l 76.36 for an annual application were the compliance plan: better ensure confinement of UF* and based on the previous statutory other effluents during normal and requimment for an annual application. Environmental Assessment accidental conditions, and, therefore, which has been superseded. Therefom Identification of Preposed Action will maintain or reduce the levels of .

! the exemptions from these requirements effluents from plant operations. The The proposed action is the op am justined under 9 76.23, which of the compliance plan associatbroval with staff has examined the two specific speci8cally allows the NRC to grant items of noncompliance that mlete to such exemptions from the requirements certification compliance plan of the CDPs.

would Abproving aut orir.e the the effluents:"HEPA Filter System Test of Past 76 as it determines are GDPs to operate for a limited period for both the Portsmouth and Paducah authorimod by law and will not endanger before achieving full compliance with Pl ants, and "High. Volume Ambient Air life, property, or the common defense, S*8uPl ers" for the Paducah plant.

and are otherwise in the public interest. NRC's "9utrements' Not all High Efficiency Particulate Air no exemptions meet these criteria. The Needfor Action (HEPA) 61ters have in place efficiency

• Arn rican a S an d Instit Act i1954 s a e ded th Energ The certificates of compliance will Policy Act of 1992, states that the GDPs Standard N510. Although the failure of become effective and the NRC will may not be operated by the Corporation the HEPA filters to perform properly l

i assume regulatory authority over the unless the NRC "* *

• makes a , could affect airborne radionuclide GDPs on March 3,1997, following a determination of compliance * *

• or emissions, no significant environmental >

l transition period.This transition period approves a plan.-.for achieving releases to the ambient air have been

will give USEC time to revise compliance." Thus, NRC approval of the detected, in over ten years, that were

procedms and train employees on the compliance plan is necessary to meet attributed to HEPA filter failure. As i approved application. DOE will the requirement specified by the statute, reported in the USEC Environmental l continue regulatory oversight during the Compliance Status Report, the j transition period until NRC assumes Environmentallmpacts of the Action maximum does ;o a member of the

. jurisdiction. The staff ha evaluated all the public from radionuclide air emissions 1 j compliance plan issues with regard to for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was a

& ^

w '3To N for Review their environmental impacts. Individual 0.006 mSv (0.06 mrem) and for the

! USEC or any person whose interest issues or areas of noncompliance were Paducah plant in 1994 was 0.0016 mSv -

i may be affected, and who submitted evaluated to determine whether they (0.016 mrem), both well within the EPA 1 written comments in response to the could pmduce any changes to routine 1 mSv (10 mrem) limit in 40 CFR Part

,J ' .

, s 1

4

4 i * . 49362 Federal Register / Vol 61. No.183 / Thursda". September 19. 1996 / Notices

. e l

61. The staff concludes that the "HEPA Finding of no SigniScant impact Filter System Testing" noncompliance On the basis of this assessment, the

, will not signiacantly affect the quality l of the human environment. staff has concluded that environmental impacts that would be created by this Although the new high. volume air action would not be significant and do sampling system has been in operation not warrant the preparation of an

at the Paducah plant since August 1995, Environmental Impact Statement.

sufficient data to establish the Accordingly,it has been determined capabilities of the system and to that a Finding of No Significant Impact establish baseline radionuclide is appropriate.

concentrations at the station have not The Environmental Assessment and been completed. Data from the new the documents related to this proposed high volume air sampling system will action are available for public help confirm the accuracy of data on inspection and copying at the )

annual radionuclide air emissions. Commission's PDR and LPDRs. I However, sina maximum doses from Deted at Rockville. Maryland, this 16th day Paducah annual radionuclide air of September,1996.

releases have been in the range of 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrom), well within For the Nuclear Regulwory Commission.

the EPA regulatory limit, the staff

• concludes that the unavailability of data . fg,cj,,,y,,,,j,jg,j,,y g3 ,g from the new high. volume air samphng system will not significantly affect the FM MWW quality of the human environment. a u sse caos m e More detailed information on the staff's evaluation is contained in the

, Compliance Evaluation Reports, which I

have been placed in NRC's PDR and in the LPDRs located in Paducah,

, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio.

I Alternatives to the Proposed 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 I

to withhold approval of the compliance plan. Under this alternative, the GDPs would be shut down, or would continue to operate under DOE regulatory oversight until compliance is achieved.

! Agencies 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.

, Conclusion Based on the foregoing assessment, j 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, durir.g the interim period of noncompliance, plant operation related to areas of noncompliance will not significantly y affect the quality of the human ,

environment. s ,

i e

i