ML20134B963
| ML20134B963 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 07007001 |
| Issue date: | 09/19/1996 |
| From: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | UNITED STATES ENRICHMENT CORP. (USEC) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609240165 | |
| Download: ML20134B963 (4) | |
Text
September 19, 1996 T0:
' All Persons Interested in Certification of Safe
, Operation of Gaseous Diffusion Enrichment Plants
SUBJECT:
- ISSUANCE OF INITIAL CERTIFICATION DECISION FOR GASE0US DIFFUSION ENRICHMENT PLANTS In accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued its initial certification decision for the United )
States Enrichment Corporation to operate the two gaseous diffusion plants i located near Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio. The NRC intends to assume l regulatory jurisdiction over these plants from the Department of Energy (DOE) i on March 3, 1997, after a transition period. During this period DOE will retain oversight of the plants. i Enclosed is a copy of the Federal Reaister Notice containing the certification decision, and describing the opportunity for certain persons who provided comments to NRC during the certification process to submit a petition for Commission review of the decision. Any petitions must be submitted within 15 days of publication of the Federal Reaister Notice.
Copies of the proposed Certificates of Compliance and supporting documentation l are available in the Commission's Public Document Room in Washington, D.C., l and the Local Public Documents Rooms in Paducah, Kentucky and Portsmouth, l Ohio. Unless the Commission grants any petition or otherwise acts within 60 l days of publication of the Federal Reaister Notice, the certification decision 1 will become effective and final. l 1
Questions may be directed to the NRC Enrichment Branch in Washington, DC at I (301) 415-7192.
Sincerely, Od$nal Signed By John W. N. Hickey, Chief Enrichment Branch i Division of Fuel Cycle Safety I and Safeguards !
l
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice Docket Nos. 70-7001 & 70-7002 DISTRIBUTION: w/o attachment FCEB r/f CC0X K0'BRIEN GSHEAR PUBLIC NRC ' File' Center NMSS R/F FCEB STAFF 0FC FCEO & FCEB f- FCEB 2 FCEB 6 NAME RCastaneira/ij NHorn C& CSawyer Jkckey I DATE O / Z7/96 # /t)/96 9/f/96 9/ # /96 7 '
C = COVER E = COVER & ENCLOSURE N = NO COPY - m /j 9609240165 960919 l PDR ADOCK 07007001 l C PDR 23a090 afg4 7A MC RE CENTER COPY , ,
/
k&I V%s/nwjnm i ( /
49380 , Federal Register / Vol. 61, No.183 / Thursday, September 19, 1996 / Notices '
lDeelist Nos. 76-7001; 7t>-700E] flegulations (CFR), establishing 42003; and under Docket No. 70-7002, requirements and procedures for the Noeos of Cer#6cedon Ma'asi for U.S. at the Portsmouth Public Library,1220 certification process. After NRC review Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio,45662.
Entlohment Corporsuon To Operate and consideration of public comments, Notice of receipt of the application Gaseous Diffusion 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 Commisska. Plants," includes procedural the application end noticing public ACDON: Certification of gaseous qu rumen s,gerall applicable NRC meetings to solicit public input on the diHusim lP e- heahh and safety stan[ards, technical certification. A second notice appeared safety requirements, and safeguards and in the Federal Register (60 FR 57253) on cuansARY: he U.S. Nuclear Regulatory security mquirements specific to the November 14,1995, providing for a 45 Commission is issuing a artificatiou - GDPs.
day public comment period on the decision for the U.S. Enrichment DOE currently continues nuclear compliana 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 Riffe Joint Vocational Schoolin at Paducah, Kentucky, and at Pikoton, wnership of the facilities and will be Portsmouth, Ohio, and on December 5 Ohio. NRCis also issuing a Finding of 888Ponsible for eventual 1995, at the Paducah Information Age No Significant Impact (FONSI) darammissioning of the sites. Park Resource Center in Padumb, aanmening NRC's approval of the USBC submitted its initial Kentucky, Eleven comment letters were compliana plan prepared by the U.S. certi8 cation application on April 18, received. Comments roosived during the Department of Ene (DOE) and M5.Es pmHelnay miew of es cement period, together wie submitted bYUSEC FOR NR NDON WAct initial application not adequately address thedetermined standards that itindid available the Ptranscnpts R and the LPDRs, of and the bu 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 staffreviewed and during the considered certification by the evaluation.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC to determine compliance with to The staff susponses to the ublic Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) CFR Part 76. Therefore, by letter dated comments are also availab e in the Pix 41541126; 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 Pohey Act, Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, 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 Environn ental Protection Agency (EPA) 415-6174. application was not a determination that about certification. EPA did not identify the operation of these SUPPLEAsENTARY INFORhtADON: or in noncompliance. plants was unsafe TheanyUSECsignificant compliance Privatisation Act, issues.
Background USEC submitted a revised contained in PublJc Mw 104-134, was certi6 cation application on September signed into law an April to,1996.
The President signed H.R. 776, the 15,1995, and a revised, DOE-prepared A4oong other p,ovisions, h amended the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act),into compliana plan on November 6,1995.
law on October 24,1992. The Act Atomic Energy Act requirement for an The application package includesia annual appl % tion for cedi8 cation to amended the Atomic Energy Act of salsty analysis repon; a quality require tasiend a periodic applimtion, 1954, to establish a new government assurance program; forhnical safety as determined by the Commission, but corporation, the U.S. Enrichment requirements; en - . y plan; an not less than every five years. Also, as Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of environmental compliana status report; required by the US8C Privatization Act, operating the uranium enrichment a nuclear material control plan; a NRC and the Occupational Safety and.
enterpnse owned and previously transportation protection plan; a Health Administration developed a operated by the DOE.The Act provided that within two years after enactment of {or pmtection of classi6ed matterdescribing ahysical protection plan; a securit coordination of their thelegislation NRC would promulgate waste managemene program; a regulatory activities at the GDPs to standards that apply to USEC's dam-mi==ioning funding program, ensure worker safety.nis 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 C" liance plan.no NRC August 1,1996 (61 PR 40249).
health and safety from radiological requ==8j" addidonalinformadon hazards, and to provide for the common and revisions to the certi8cadon Certi6caties Dedelen of the Director, defense and security. The Act directed application and the canpliance plan dhdar MaWal Safmy ad se NRC to establish and implement an and USEC responded during the period -
annual certification Process under imin October 1995 thrugh August no NRC staines swiewed e'e which the CDPs would be certi6ed y 1996 ceruncadon ap lic=tian and the DOE-no application and all related non. prepared camp inn = plan submitted by stan wemp *
?
Operations are not yet in compliance, , am inn on th te conditions, the Act pmvided a com ce plan availablelorpublic dyection and they provide :===a==h1= assurance of PNPared by copying at the t'a==tasion Public adequate safety. safeguards, and required NRC to report annually to the Document Room (PDR),2120 L Street, security, and compliance ',vith NRC Congmss on ne status dde GDPs. NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the requirements. Derefore, the f/roctor, Local Public Document Rooms (IEDRs), OfBoe of Nuclear Material Safety and the Co se ap'ub b f m at under Docket No. 70-7001, et the Safeguards (Director) is prepared to a proposed new Part 76 to Chapter I of Paducah Public Library,555 issue a Compliance CertiAcate and a Title 10 of the Codegrederal Washingtu Street, Paducah, Kentucky, compliance plan a proval for each
l t
1
^
Fed:ril Regist:r / Vol. 61. No 183 / Thursday September 19, 1996 / Notices 49361
- plant. We staff has prepared a Federal Register Notice on the air and water emissions. or any 8PPlication or compliance plan, under uncontrolled releases. or otherwise t hi provid deta s of e s 6.37 or provided oral comments at adversely affect the environment.
staff's evaluations, bases for certificate any meeting beld on the application or The maionty of the issues or areas of approval, and responses to public C mPl aance plan conducted under nonumpliance identified in the comments. The proposed Compliance m8 compliance plan involve activities by 9 8 Pendon. not Certificates and Compliance Evaluation exceedmg 30 pages requesting renew t aEC to upgrade plant programs.
Reports are available in the PDR and the of the Director s certification decision procedures. and equipment to conform The peution nust be filed with 'he o apphcable NRC requirements Th nitial certificates will be issued Commisuon w later than 15 davs arter C,munued operanon uncer existmg l for an effective penod of approximatelv '
Publication of this Federal Regiar plant programs and procedures by 2 years, with expiration dates of .
Notice. Any person described in this itself. will not have a negative impact on December 31,1998. This is consistent Paragraph may file a response to any the level of effluents from plant with the new provision in Public Law Petition for review, not to exceed 30 operations or otherwise adversely affect 104-134, the USEC Privatization Act. the environment.
Pages, within 10 days after the filing of which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of the peudon. Unless the Conunission The only issue identified with regard the Atomic Ene'EYAct grants the petition for review or to plant programs and procedures that requirement for an annjre facing application the otherwise acts within 60 days after the may relate to the quality of the for a artificate of compliance with a publication of this Federal Register environment is " Environmental requirement for an application to be Notice, the initial decision on the Trending Procedures" for the Paducah filed " periodically, as determined by the certificate application or compliance plant. This compliance plan issue will Commission, but not less than every five plan will become final. If no pet tion is i
ensure that all environmental data will years. received vrithin the designated 15-day be evaluated for trends to identify long-ne staff believes that two years is a period, the Director will issue final term changes in the environment that Compliance Certificates. may result from plant operations. ne certifi a com an two years ed t pra significant progress will be made in Finding of No Significant Impact *[t th p m ,9 r 1 implementing plant improvements As specif ed in 10 CFR S SI.22(c)(19), data for any unusual results that might
- specified M 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 in 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 j application for certificate renewal in how and when the plants will be acceptable until new procedures are l 1997. USEC will be required to file ao brought into compliance with NRC established, in accordance with the application for renewal of the requirements in instances where plant procedure upgrade program, to artificates 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 $$ 76.31 and following environmental assessment on Plant equipment upgrades should -
76.36 for an annual application were the compliusce plan: better ensure confinement of UF* and based on the previous statutory other effluents during normal and requirement for an annual application. Environmental Assessment accidental conditions, and, therefore, which has been superseded. Therefore Identification of Propose d Action will maintain or reducn the levels of .
the exemptions from these requirements The proposed action is the approval effluents from plant operations. The are justified under $ 76.23, which of the compliance plan associated with staff has examined the two specific specifically allows the NRC to grant certification of the CDPs. A proving the items of noncompliance that relate to such exemptions from the requirements compliance plan would autkorize the effluents:"HEPA Filter System Testing" of Part 76 an it determines are CDPs to operate for a limited period for both the Portsmouth and Paducah authorized by law and will not endanger before achieving full compliance with Pl ants, and "High-Volume Ambient Air 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 ne exemptions meet these criteria. The Needfor Action (HEPA) filters have in-place efliciency "lat"IAv;hort Section 1701(d) of the Atomic Energy Perfonnance testing in accordance with
'*"* f American National Standards Institute Act of 1954, as amended by the Energy
, 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 assume regulatory authority over the unless the NRC "* *
- makes a . could affect airborne radionuch,do 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 failure. 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 Emironmentallmpacts of the Action maximum dose to a member of the juridction. The staff has evaluated all the public from radionuclide air emissions compliance plan issues with regard to for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was Opportunity To Petition for Review their environmental impacts. Individual 0.006 mSv (0.06 mrem) and for the USEC or ny person whose interest issues or areas of noncompliance were Paducah plant in 1994 was 0 0016 mSv may be affected, and who submitted evaluated to determine whether they (0 ott> mrem), cath well within the F.PA written comments in response to the could produce any changes to routine 1 mSv (10 mrem) limit in 40 CFR Part d
,Y
- I 4
i 49362 Federal Register / Vol 61. No.183 / Thursday. September 19. 1996 / Notices
- 61. The staff concludes that the "HEPA Finding of no Significant Impact i
Filter System Testing" noncompliance On the basis of this assessment, the will not significantly affect the quality 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 l
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 i
annual radionuclide air emissions. Commission's PDR and 1.PDRs.
However, since max' mum doses from Paducah annual radionuclide air Dated at Rockville, Maryland this le day of September,1996.
releases have been in the range of . For the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion.
0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), well within the EPA regulatory limit, the staff gp g l concludes that the unavallability of data Director, Office o/ Nuclear Material Safety from the new high. volume air samphng andSafeguards. i system will not significantly affect the (FR Doc. 96-24019 Filed 9-18-96; e.45 amj
)
quality of the human environment. "* C088 ** * "
More detailed information on the staff's evaluation is contained in the 1
Compliance Evaluation Reparts, which i 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 I l approval of the certification application.
I would authorize USEC to continue operations of the GDPs under NRC l l regulatory oversight.
l The "No Action" alternative would be
, to withht,ld approval of the compliance l plan. Under this alternative. the GDPs I
would be shut down. or would continue to operate under DOE regulatory oversight until compliance is achieved.
Agencies and Persons Consulted ha reviewing the certification l application and compliance plan, and in accordance with the Energy Policy Act ref 1992, the staff consulted with EPA.
EPA did not identify any major concerns associated with the i
certification action or approval of the compliance plan.
Conclusion Based on the foregoing assessment, 4
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 f noncompliance will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment. ,