ML20134B970

Forwards FRN Announcing Certification Decision

ML20134B970
Person / Time
Site:	Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant
Issue date:	09/19/1996
From:	Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Redmound F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
References
NUDOCS 9609240171
Download: ML20134B970 (4)

Text

-. -. - -. _ -. - - - - - -

September l'9, 1996

~

-Mr. Frank Redmond, Chief

'. Federal Activities' Branch

-United States Environmental Protection Agency-1

-Region IV-l 345 Courtland Street, NE

. Atlanta, GA 30365 i

Dear Mr.'Redmond:

1

.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 in Paducah, Kentucky. NRC intends to assume regulatory jurisdiction over the plant.from the Department of Energy on March 3,1997.

~

.The Act1 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 consulted with your staff prior to certification, and received Mr. Arthur.Linton's letter dated December 7, 1995, which indicated there were no major problems. associated with the application.

We will contact you again in 1997 when.we. prepare the first annual report to Congress.

i

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 i

staff'at (301) 415-8126.

l Sincerely, M

l John W. N. Hickey, Chief Enrichment Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety

' and Safeguards Enclosurei. Federal' Reaister Notice Distribution: 74-70N

• 74-WA NRC File"Centerr PUBLIC K0'Brien NMSS r/f FCEB r/f CCox MHorn GShear G:\\EPALTR'CRT-0FC FCEB C

-FCEB F

FCEB d.

FCEB FCEB NAME NHorn/ij NWSchwinkr Jkckey

~

DATE 4 /J /96-7 /f/96 P//[/96 l

.C = COVER:

E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY l-0FFICIAL RECORD COPY-l 9609240171 960919 PDR ADOCK 07007001 PDR

'230089 jfrL&O L

NHC BLE Ubwiu. uWi g yj OchdiDf Qdd:km/mdWB

s w

49360 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No.183 / Thursday, September 19, 1996 / Notices (Dechet Nee. 7b7001; 70-7002]

flegulations (CFR), establishing 42003 and under Docket No. 70-.7002, requirements and procedures for the at the Portsmouth Public IJbrary,1220 Nodos of Cerencedon mesaa-I for U.S.

certification promss. After NRC review Gallia Street, Portsmouth Ohio,45662.

Endchment Corporsuon To Operate and consideration of public comments, Notice of receipt of the application Gaseous Diffusion Plante and Finding the final rule was published on appeared in the Federal Register (60 FR of No Signincentimpact September 23,1994 (59 FR 48944).Prit 49026) on September 21,1995, allowing AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 76, " Certification of Gaseous Diffusion for a 45-day public comment period on Commission.

Plants," includes procedural the application and noticing pubhc

. ACTION: Certification of gaseous requirements, generall applicable NRC meetings to solicit public input on the diffusion plants.

health and safety stan ards, technical certification. A second notice appeared safety requirements, and safeguards and in the Federal Register (60 FR 57253) on sumasARY: he U.S. Nuclear Regulatory acurity ratuitements speci6c to the November 14,1995, providing for a 45-Commission is issuing a artification -

GDPs.

day public comment period on the decision for the U.S. Enrichment DOE currently continues nuclear compliance plan. Public meetings were Corporation (USEC) to operate the two safety, safeguards, and security held on November 28,1995, at the Vern gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) located oversight of the GDPs. DOE retains RiffeJoint Vocational Schoolin at Paducah, Kentucky, and at Piketon, twpanaigi of the facilities and will be Portsmouth, Ohio, and on December 5, enersh Ohio. NRCis also issuing a Finding of a sw wentual 1995, at the Paducah information A No Significant impact (FDNSI) daramminalaning of the sites.

Park Resource Centerin Padumb, ge concerning NRC's approval of the USBC sulunitted tu inidal Kentucky. Eleven r.anment letters were Certi8 cation 8PP cation m April 18, received. Comarsna swooived during the li compliance plan prepared by the U.S.

i Department of Ene (DOE) and M5Ms pmHminag miew dse canment period, topher wie submittedb USEC Initial application determined bt it did transcripts of the public meetings, are Y

FOR NRmER WFORMATION CONTACT:

not adequately address the standards available in the PDR and the LPDRs, and Ms. M.L Horn, Office of Nuclear NRC had established for the GDPs and Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

did not contain enough information for were reviewed and considered by the staff during the artification evaluation.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC to determine compliance with to The staff responses to the ublic Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)

CFR Part 76. Therefore, by letter dated comments are also availab e in the Pim 415-8126; Mr. C. B. Sawyer, Office of May 5,1995, NRC formally rejected the and the LPDRs.

initial application and notified USEC As required by the Energy Policy Act, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, that it had to submit a revised NRC consulted with the U.S.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, application. NRC's decision to reject the Environsnental Protection Agency (EPA)

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) application was not a determination that about certi6 cation. EPA did not identify 415-8174.

the operation of these plants was unsafe any sign 16 cant compliance issues.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

or in noncompliance.

The USEC Privatization Act.

USEC submitted a revised contained in Public Law 104-134, was

Background

certification application on September signed into law on April 26,1996.

The President signed H.R. 776, the 15,1995, and a revised. DOE-prepared Among other provisions, it amended the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act),into compliance plan on November 6,1995.

Atomic Energy Act requirement for an law on October 24,1992. The Act he application package includesia annual application for certi8 cation to amended the Atomic Energy Act of safety analysis report; a quality require instead a paiodic application, 1954, to establish a new government assurance program; eachnical safety as determined by the Commission, but corporation, the U.S. Enrichment requirements; an emergency plan:'an not less than every Ave years. Also, as Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of environmental compliance status report; required by the USEC Privatir:stion Act, operating the uranium enrichment a nuclear material 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 h

P ysical protection plan; a security plan Memorandum of Undersranding (MOU) that within two years after enactment of for protection of classified matter; a describing coordination of their the legislation, NRC would promulgate waste manag== ant program; a regulatory activities at the GDPs to standards that apply to USEC's decanmissiming fading program, ensure worker safety.his MOU was operation of its GDPs at Paducah, KY, environmental information; and a DOE-published in the Federal Register on and Piketon, OH, to protect public Prepared com liance plan.he NRC August 1,1996 (61 FR 40249)e health and safety from radiological staffrequest additionalinformation hazards, and to provide for the common and revisions to the certifkation CerH8cados Decision dthe Director, defense and security. The Act directed applicatim and tim comphanna plan, 4

ud the NRC to establish and implement an and USEC responded during the period annual certi6 cation promes under froin October 1995 through August The NRC staff has reviewed the i

e"hich Id be

• fled b 1996 cert 15 cation op lication and the DOS-eNR 1 ce wi h The appliostion and all related non-prepared camp plan submitted by Proprietary,==cla==iRad sug= are standards. For areas where P ant g

USSC, and concluded that,in l

inforandonand - -

combination with certiscate conditions.

[ nm e Dos.oe A,al.,

avaHable fo.r puWc ins' pedia and eey prwide ra==anaNe amurnace d fo a an oo,ying at emamission Pubuc ad.q.t..f.ty..af. guards..nd

,,,,,,e

,Y required NRC to report annually to the Document Room (PDR),2120 L Street, security, and compliance with NRC NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the

@uirements. Derefore, the Director,

$ ary 1 (59 792) local Public Document Rooms (LPDRs),

i ce of Nuclear Material Safety and the Commission published for comment under Docket No. 70-7001, at the Safeguarvis (Director)is prepared to a proposed new Part 76 to Chapter 1 of Paducah Public Library,555 lasue a Complioco Certificate and a Title 10 of the Codsoffederal Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky, compliance plan approval for each

.-.,i

fid:rtl Regist:r / Vol. 61, Nu.183 / Thursday September 19, 1996 / Notices 49361 al Wstu n the air and water emissions, or any j

m I anc Lva uat on o for each l

plant, whi,;.ti provides details of the 8PP ication or compliance plan, under uncontrolled releases. or otherwise 3 76.37. or provided oral comments at adversely affect the environment.

staff's eva'ustions, bases for certificate approval, and responses to public any meeting beld on the ap lication or The maionty of the issues or areas of I l

mP aance plan conducte under noncompliance idenufied in the C

comments. The proposed Compliance mdV e 8 Pemion. not compliance plan involve activities by Certificates and Compliance Evaluation exceedmg 30 pages. requesting renew t SEC to upgrade plant programs.

Reports are available in the PDR and the f the Director s certification decision procedures. and equipment 1.PDR The nitial certificates will be issued The peution must be filed with 'he

'o applicable NRC requirements Commission not later than 15 davs arte C,mtmued operation under existing for an effective penod of approximatelv 2 years, with expiration dates of Publication of this Federal Register plant programs and procedures.by i

December 31,1998. This is consistent N tice Any Person described in this itself will not have a negative impact on with the new provision in Public Law Paragraph may file a response to any the level of effluents from plant Petition for review, not to exceed 30 operations or otherwise adversely affect 104-134, the USEC Privatization Act, which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of Pages, within to days after the fihng of the environment.

a m

mmlukn N 4 h hN d m requirement for an annjte facing the the Atomic Ene'8Y Act grants the petition for review or to plant programs and procedures t at apphcation for a certiScate of compliance with a otherwise acts within 60 days after the may relate to the quality of the publication of this Federal Register environment is " Environmental requirement for an application to be Nod @ inidal dedsim the Tmading Pmdum" for the Paducah filed " periodically, as determined by the P ant. This compliance plan issue will l

Commission, but not less than every five certificate application or compliance plan will become final. If no petition is ensure that all environmental data wf!!

S staff believes that two Years is areceived within the designated 15-day be evaluated for trends to identify long-period, the Director will issue final term changes in the environment that reasonable period for the first Compliance Certificates.

may result from plant operations. The certificates of compliance: in two years staff has examined the current practices significant progress will be made in Finding of No Significant Impact at the plant for reviewing environmental implementing plant improvements As specified in to CFR S 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 frcm the Paducah Plant or in exemption from the requirements m.

compliance, themselves. However, the the dose to members of the public. The SS 76.31 and 76.36 to submit an annual associated compliance plan describes staff finds the current practices to be application for certificate renewalin how and when the plants will be acceptable until new procedures are 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 where 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.

The requirements in SS 76.31 and following environmental assessment on Plant equipment upgrades should -

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 Environmental Assesament requirement for an annual application.

accidental conditions, and, therefore.

l which has been superseded. Therefore Identification of Preposof Action will maintain or reduce the levels of l

the exemptions from these requirements The proposed action is the approval effluents from plant operations. The are justified under S 76.23, which of the compliance plan associated with staff has examined the two specific specifically allows the NRC to grant certification of the GDPs. A proving the items of noncompliance that relate to such exemptions from the requirements compliance plan would aut orize the effluents:"HEPA Filter System Testing _

f r both the Portsmouth and Paducah of Part 76 as it determines are GDPs to operate for a limited period authorized by law and will not endanger before achieving full compliance with P ants, and "High. Volume Ambient Air l

life, property, or the common defense' NRC's requirements.

Samplers" for the Paducah plant, and are otherwise in the public interest.

Not all High Efficiency Particulate Air The exemptions meet these criteria.

The Needfor Action (HEPA) filters have in-place efficiency o"

8 l acc rdan tion 1 d o th t inic e Tranaltion of Regulatory Authority 9

ncan a1 Stm The certificates of compliance will Policy Act of 1992, states that the CDPs Standard N510. Although the failure of l

become effective and the NRC will may not be operated by the Corporation the HEPA filters to perfonn properly j'

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 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 procedures and train employees on the compliance plan is necessary to meet attributed to HEPA filter faihire. As approved application. DOE will the requirement specified by the statute. reported in the USEC Environmental continue regulatory oversight during the Compliance Status Report, the transition period until NRC assumes E,nvironmentallmpacts of the Action maximum dose to a member of the jurisdiction.

The staff has evaluated all the public from radionuclide air emissions Oppostunity To Petition for Review compliance plan issues with regard to for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was their environmental impacts. Individual 0.006 mSv (0.06 mrem) and for the USEC or any person whose interest ssues or areas of noncompliance were Paducah plant in 1994 was 0 0016 mSv may be affected, and who submitted evaluated to determine whather they (0 016 mrem), both well within the EPA written comments in response to the could produce any changes to routine 1 mSv (10 mreml limit in 40 CFR Part 5

1

t l

a 49362 Federal Register / Vol 61. No.183 / Thursday. September 19, 1996 / Notices

61. The staff concludes that the "HEPA Finding of no Significant Impact e

Filter System Testing" noncompliance will not significantly affect the quality On the basis of this assessment, the of the burnan 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 p' reparation 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 hip.-volume air sampling system will action are available for public heap confirm the accuracy of data on inspection and copying at the annual radionuclide air emissions.

Commission's PDR and LPDRs.

However, sinos maximum doses from Paduuh annual radionuclide air Deted at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September.19es.

releases have been in the range of i

0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrom), well within For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl h PW, conc u es th th si il y of data Q*N"#

N'I from the new high volmne air sampling I

system will not significantly affect the IFR to Filed Mm m W quality of the human environment.

8"**C0887'*

• More detailed information on the staff's evaluation 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 Proposed Action The proposed action to approve the compliance plan, along with the l

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 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 l

concerns associated with the certification action or approval of the compliance plan.

Conclusion Based on the foregoing assessment, 2

the NRC staff concludes that the environmental effects of approving the compliance plan will be insignificant, i

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.

,