ML20138F780
| ML20138F780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1997 |
| From: | Paperiello C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F749 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705060046 | |
| Download: ML20138F780 (7) | |
Text
.
=
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE GDP-2 FOR THE U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION i
[
PORTSMOUTH GASEOUS DIFFUSION PLANT j
PORTSMOUTH, OH!O 2
DOCKET 70-7002 i
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; i
(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.
9705060046 970430 PDR ADOCK 07007002 C
l 2
f 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 environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for this i
amendment.
i 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 Baai 1PJ Notice. A E
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 Reaister Notice.
A petition for review must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Warbington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Docketing and Services
M 3
s a
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building.
' 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, by the above date.
For furtt er 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, Gelman Building,2120 L Street, i
l NW, Washington, DC, and at the Local Public Document Room.
e i
j.
Date of amendment request: February 28,1997 i
a Brief description of amendment: The amendment proposes to add a definition for i
completion times and to define the maximum interval between repetitive action completion times in the Technical Safety Requirements and to make the same changes to the Safety Analysis Re. port.
?
J
]
Basis for finding of no significance:
l
- 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.
i 1
The proposed amendment to include a definition for completion time and to define the maximum time interval for repetitive actions is an administrative action. As such, these changes have no impact on plant effluents and will not result in any impact to the f
environment.
4
1 i
4
- 2. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
l The proposed amendment will not increase radiation exposure.
1 s
- i
- 3. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant construction impact.
i l
]
The proposed amendment will not result in any construction, therefore, there will be no i
construction impacts.
i
- 4. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase in the potential for, or i
2 l
radiological or chemical consequences from, previously analyzed accidents.
4 i
r i
The proposed amendment to include a definition for completion time and to define the j
maximum time interval for repetitive actions will provide more formality for the conduct of i
plant operations. This inclusion will ensure consistent interpretation of the requirements.
The proposed changes do not affect the potential for, or radiological or chemical I
consequences from, previously evaluated accidents.
- 5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
J i
The proposed amendment to include a definition for completion time and to define the maximum time interval for repetitive actions will ensure consistent interpretation of the i
?
requirements. The changes will not create new operating conditions or a new plant
\\
.. ~,
e
~
!=
i 5
I configuration that could lead to a new or different type of accident.
l l
l
?
t
- 6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant reduction in any margin of safety.
l I
A definition for completion time and the definition for a maximum time interval for 1
repetitive actions,ve.e not fonnally defined in the past and were subject to interpretation.
The addition of these definitions for completion time and the maximum time interval for repetitive actions provides more formality for the conduct of plant operations. The i
proposed changes cause no reductions in the margins of safety.
e l
- 7. The proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness of l
the plant's safety, safeguards or security programs.
l The proposed amendment to include a definition for completion time and to define the 4
maximum time interval for repetitive actions provides more formality for the conduct of plant operations. The effectiveness of the safety, safeguards, and security programs is not decreased.
1 Effective date: 30 days after issuance l
Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-2: Amendment willincorporate a new Technical Safety l
Requirement, a revised Technical Safety Requirement and Safety Analysis Report changes, i
?
1
-. -. -. -. -. ~
--. ~ -.
6 j
Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3Oday of Ap //1997.
i FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Original Signed By Carl J. Paperiello, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards DISTRIBUTION:
Docket 70-7002 NRC FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f K'OBrien, Rlli CCox, Rlli GShear, Rlli DHeartland, Rlli KWinsberg, OGC WSchwink, FCOB NMSS Dir. Off. r/f A:\\CMPLFRN.YHF cpienoorco/ APRIL 28,1997 OFC SPB' SPB*
SPB SPB FCSS NMy,% /)
NAME YFaraz:ij DHoadley DMartin RPierson ETenEyck CP ello DATE 4/18/97 4/21/97 4/24/97 4/25/97 4/28/97 4 /)d97 C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = hO COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
t 6
i l
Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.
t Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1997.
l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Carl J. Paperiello, Director i
Office of Nuclear Material Safety i
and Safeguards
[
?
e l
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket 70-7002 NRC FILE CENTER PUBLIC NMSS r/f FCSS r/f SPB r/f K'OBrien, Rlli CCox, Rlll GShear, Rlil DHeartland, Rill KWinsberg, OGC WSchwink, FCOB NMSS Dir. Off. r/f A:\\CMPLFRN.YHF h
Sf@g Sfp, k FCp)
NMSS OFC SPB f
SPB YFarak hoadley MbItin M[l[ok hEyck CPaperiello NAME DATE 4 /lf/97 N /M/97
//r//97
//[fT97 YJf /nf97
/ /97 C = COVER E = COVIER & ENCLOliURE N = N O COPY OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
'Nx
.