ML20135F290

Informs That NRC Rejected 961010 Letter Petition Re Proposed Certification of Usec Gaseous Diffusion Plants

ML20135F290
Person / Time
Site:	07007001
Issue date:	12/10/1996
From:	Pierson R NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To:	Puckett A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 9612120480
Download: ML20135F290 (2)

Text

December 10, 1996

. Mr. A. B. Puck tt 6365 Bethel Ch Ro:d Kevil, KY 42053

Dear Mr. Puckett:

I am responding to your October 10,1996, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which provided comment on the proposed certification of the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC) gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). The Commission rejected your letter petition as late-filed and referred the substantive matters in your letter to the staff for response. The Commission issued this decision in its Memorandum and Order dated November 22,1996 (CLl-96-12), which was served on you.

In your letter, you object to the Finding of No Significant impact regarding the compliance plan and the staffs conclusion that no significant adverse effects on the environment and people will occur from the continued operations of the GDPs in reaching compliance.

Please note that there are no items of non-compliance regarding the effluents from the GDPs and that all effluent releases are currently in compliance with the applicable regulations. Many of the compliance plan items deal with the administrative programs, such as training, procedures, and quality assurance, or hardware issues such as refurbishment of pumps and the public address system. Although these items address improvements needed to achieve full compliance with NRC regulations, they will not result in increased releases from the facility during the period of non-compliance. Therefore, our finding of no significant impact remains valid.

The other issues raised in your letter, including the " dumping of nuclear waste on indian lands" and the failure to address the effect of uranium mining and milling operations, are not relevant to the NRC's action in this proceeding, which is limited to certifying that USEC's continued operation of the GDP's is in compliance with NRC's regulatory requirements for GDP operation (with associated compliance plan approvals). Furthermore, NRC does not regulate ordinary uranium mining, which only involves removal of ore from the ground, and the State of California is responsible for licensing the proposed low-level waste disposal site in Ward Valley.

Sincerely, odded Signed By Robert C. Pierson, Chief Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety 9612120480 961210 and Safeguards, NMSS

)0 PDR C

ADOCK 07007001 paa  ;

r'

)

Docket: 70-7001 DISTRIBUTION:

Docket: 70-7001 ,NRC File Center i/ PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f OGC KO'Brien GShear

• See previous concurrence OFC *SPB 'SPB 'OGC S,Ppf , SPp1 Fts9 NAME MHorn:ij DAHoadley /hrbtin RPh son fTiphi DATE 12/6/96 12/6/96 12/6/96 [7 /96 Ik h/96 p6 ('

C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORgOPY

. gas um JEiCJiLE CENTER COPY

, Mr. A. B. Puckett

.6365 Beth:.1 Ch Road Kevil, KY 42053 '

l

Dear Mr. Puckett:

l l am responding to your October 10,1996, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory C mission, 1 l which provided comment on the proposed certification of the United Stat nrichment l Corporation (USEC) gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). The Commissio jected your letter l l petition as late-filed and referred the substantive matters in your le r to the staff for  !

response. See Commission Memorandum and Order CLl-96-1 ated November 22, l 1996, which has been previously served on you.  !

In your letter, you object to the Finding of No Signi ant impact regarding the compliance plan and the conclusion that no adverse effects the environment and people will occur from the continued operations of the GDPs in aching compliance. Please note that there l are no items of non-compliance regarding t effluents from the GDPs and that all effluent  !

releases are currently in compliance wit e applicable regulations. Many of the ,

compliance plan items deal with the a inistrative programs, such as training, procedures,  !

and quality assurance, or hardware sues such as refurbishment of pumps and the public '

address system. Although thes tems address improvements needed to achieve full compliance with NRC regulat' ns, they will not result in increased releases from the facility during the period of non-c pliance. Therefore, our finding of no significant impact remains valid.  ;

The other issues r' sed in your letter, including the " dumping of nuclear waste on Indian )

lands" and the ilure to address the effect of uranium mining and milling operations, are  !

not relevant the NRC's action in this proceeding which is limited to certifying that  !

USEC's c tinued operation of the GDP's is in compliance with NRC's regulatory require nts for GDP operation (with associated compliance plan approvals). Furthermore, NRC es not regulate ordinary uranium mining, which only involves removal of ore from  !

the round, and the State of California is responsible for licensing the proposed low-level  !

ste disposal site in Ward Valley. l l

Sincerely, Robert C. Pierson, Chief Special Projects Branch Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS Docket: 70-7001 i DISTRIBUTION: I Docket: 70-7001 NRC File Center PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f OGC KO'Brien GShear i G:\PUCKETT.MH OFC SPB C g@PB h OGC 0 SPB SPB l NAME NINn:ij DAHoadley kM DMartin RPierson DATE G /6/96 /k /h/96 -

a/uB6 / /96 / /96 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l