[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 183 (Thursday, September 19, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49360-49363]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24019]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 70-7001; 70-7002]


Notice of Certification Decision for U.S. Enrichment Corporation 
To Operate Gaseous Diffusion Plants and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Certification of gaseous diffusion plants.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is issuing a 
certification decision for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to 
operate the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) located at Paducah, 
Kentucky, and at Piketon, Ohio. NRC is also issuing a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning NRC's approval of the compliance 
plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and submitted by 
USEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. M.L. Horn, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8126; Mr. C. B. Sawyer, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The President signed H.R. 776, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the 
Act), into law on October 24, 1992. The Act amended the Atomic Energy 
Act of 1954, to establish a new government corporation, the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of operating the uranium 
enrichment enterprise owned and previously operated by the DOE. The Act 
provided that within two years after enactment of the legislation, NRC 
would promulgate standards that apply to USEC's operation of its GDPs 
at Paducah, KY, and Piketon, OH, to protect public health and safety 
from radiological hazards, and to provide for the common defense and 
security. The Act directed the NRC to establish and implement an annual 
certification process under which the GDPs would be certified by the 
NRC for compliance with these standards. For areas where plant 
operations are not yet in compliance, the Act provided for a compliance 
plan prepared by the DOE. The Act also required NRC to report annually 
to the Congress on the status of the GDPs.
    On February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6792), the Commission published for 
comment a proposed new Part 76 to Chapter I of Title 10 of the Code of 
Federal

[[Page 49361]]

Regulations (CFR), establishing requirements and procedures for the 
certification process. After NRC review and consideration of public 
comments, the final rule was published on September 23, 1994 (59 FR 
48944). Part 76, ``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants,'' 
includes procedural requirements, generally applicable NRC health and 
safety standards, technical safety requirements, and safeguards and 
security requirements specific to the GDPs.
    DOE currently continues nuclear safety, safeguards, and security 
oversight of the GDPs. DOE retains ownership of the facilities and will 
be responsible for eventual decommissioning of the sites.
    USEC submitted its initial certification application on April 18, 
1995. NRC's preliminary review of the initial application determined 
that it did not adequately address the standards NRC had established 
for the GDPs and did not contain enough information for NRC to 
determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 76. Therefore, by letter dated 
May 5, 1995, NRC formally rejected the initial application and notified 
USEC that it had to submit a revised application. NRC's decision to 
reject the application was not a determination that the operation of 
these plants was unsafe or in noncompliance.
    USEC submitted a revised certification application on September 15, 
1995, and a revised, DOE-prepared compliance plan on November 6, 1995. 
The application package includes: a safety analysis report; a quality 
assurance program; technical safety requirements; an emergency plan; an 
environmental compliance status report; a nuclear material control 
plan; a transportation protection plan; a physical protection plan; a 
security plan for protection of classified matter; a waste management 
program; a decommissioning funding program; environmental information; 
and a DOE-prepared compliance plan. The NRC staff requested additional 
information and revisions to the certification application and the 
compliance plan, and USEC responded during the period from October 1995 
through August 1996.
    The application and all related non-proprietary, unclassified 
supporting information and correspondence are available for public 
inspection and copying at the Commission Public Document Room (PDR), 
2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public 
Document Rooms (LPDRs), under Docket No. 70-7001, at the Paducah Public 
Library, 555 Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky, 42003; and under 
Docket No. 70-7002, at the Portsmouth Public Library, 1220 Gallia 
Street, Portsmouth, Ohio, 45662.
    Notice of receipt of the application appeared in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 49026) on September 21, 1995, allowing for a 45-day 
public comment period on the application and noticing public meetings 
to solicit public input on the certification. A second notice appeared 
in the Federal Register (60 FR 57253) on November 14, 1995, providing 
for a 45-day public comment period on the compliance plan. Public 
meetings were held on November 28, 1995, at the Vern Riffe Joint 
Vocational School in Portsmouth, Ohio, and on December 5, 1995, at the 
Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center in Paducah, Kentucky. 
Eleven comment letters were received. Comments received during the 
comment period, together with transcripts of the public meetings, are 
available in the PDR and the LPDRs, and were reviewed and considered by 
the staff during the certification evaluation. The staff responses to 
the public comments are also available in the PDR and the LPDRs.
    As required by the Energy Policy Act, NRC consulted with the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about certification. EPA did not 
identify any significant compliance issues.
    The USEC Privatization Act, contained in Public Law 104-134, was 
signed into law on April 26, 1996. Among other provisions, it amended 
the Atomic Energy Act requirement for an annual application for 
certification to require instead a periodic application, as determined 
by the Commission, but not less than every five years. Also, as 
required by the USEC Privatization Act, NRC and the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 
describing coordination of their regulatory activities at the GDPs to 
ensure worker safety. This MOU was published in the Federal Register on 
August 1, 1996 (61 FR 40249).

Certification Decision of the Director, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards

    The NRC staff has reviewed the certification application and the 
DOE-prepared compliance plan submitted by USEC, and concluded that, in 
combination with certificate conditions, they provide reasonable 
assurance of adequate safety, safeguards, and security, and compliance 
with NRC requirements. Therefore, the Director, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards (Director) is prepared to issue a 
Compliance Certificate and a compliance plan approval for each plant. 
The staff has prepared a Compliance Evaluation Report, for each plant, 
which provides details of the staff's evaluations, bases for 
certificate approval, and responses to public comments. The proposed 
Compliance Certificates and Compliance Evaluation Reports are available 
in the PDR and the LPDRs.
    The initial certificates will be issued for an effective period of 
approximately 2 years, with expiration dates of December 31, 1998. This 
is consistent with the new provision in Public Law 104-134, the USEC 
Privatization Act, which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of the Atomic 
Energy Act replacing the requirement for an annual application for a 
certificate of compliance with a requirement for an application to be 
filed ``periodically, as determined by the Commission, but not less 
than every five years.''
    The staff believes that two years is a reasonable period for the 
first certificates of compliance; in two years significant progress 
will be made in implementing plant improvements specified in the 
compliance plan. Therefore, USEC will receive an exemption from the 
requirements in Secs. 76.31 and 76.36 to submit an annual application 
for certificate renewal in 1997. USEC will be required to file an 
application for renewal of the certificates of compliance by April 15, 
1998.
    The requirements in Secs. 76.31 and 76.36 for an annual application 
were based on the previous statutory requirement for an annual 
application, which has been superseded. Therefore the exemptions from 
these requirements are justified under Sec. 76.23, which specifically 
allows the NRC to grant such exemptions from the requirements of Part 
76 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life, 
property, or the common defense, and are otherwise in the public 
interest. The exemptions meet these criteria.

Transition of Regulatory Authority

    The certificates of compliance will become effective and the NRC 
will assume regulatory authority over the GDPs on March 3, 1997, 
following a transition period. This transition period will give USEC 
time to revise procedures and train employees on the approved 
application. DOE will continue regulatory oversight during the 
transition period until NRC assumes jurisdiction.

Opportunity To Petition for Review

    USEC or any person whose interest may be affected, and who 
submitted written comments in response to the

[[Page 49362]]

Federal Register Notice on the application or compliance plan, under 
Sec. 76.37, or provided oral comments at any meeting held on the 
application or compliance plan conducted under Sec. 76.39, may file a 
petition, not exceeding 30 pages, requesting review of the Director's 
certification decision. The petition must be filed with the Commission 
not later than 15 days after publication of this Federal Register 
Notice. Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to 
any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 10 days after 
the filing of the petition. Unless the Commission grants the petition 
for review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of 
this Federal Register Notice, the initial decision on the certificate 
application or compliance plan will become final. If no petition is 
received within the designated 15-day period, the Director will issue 
final Compliance Certificates.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    As specified in 10 CFR Sec. 51.22(c)(19), an environmental 
assessment is not required for the certificates of compliance, 
themselves. However, the associated compliance plan describes how and 
when the plants will be brought into compliance with NRC requirements 
in instances where compliance is lacking at the time of certification. 
The staff has prepared the following environmental assessment on the 
compliance plan:

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the approval of the compliance plan 
associated with certification of the GDPs. Approving the compliance 
plan would authorize the GDPs to operate for a limited period before 
achieving full compliance with NRC's requirements.

The Need for Action

    Section 1701(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the 
Energy Policy Act of 1992, states that the GDPs may not be operated by 
the Corporation unless the NRC ``* * * makes a determination of 
compliance * * * or approves a plan...for achieving compliance.'' Thus, 
NRC approval of the compliance plan is necessary to meet the 
requirement specified by the statute.

Environmental Impacts of the Action

    The staff has evaluated all the compliance plan issues with regard 
to their environmental impacts. Individual issues or areas of 
noncompliance were evaluated to determine whether they could produce 
any changes to routine air and water emissions, or any uncontrolled 
releases, or otherwise adversely affect the environment.
    The majority of the issues or areas of noncompliance identified in 
the compliance plan involve activities by USEC to upgrade plant 
programs, procedures, and equipment to conform to applicable NRC 
requirements. Continued operation under existing plant programs and 
procedures, by itself, will not have a negative impact on the level of 
effluents from plant operations or otherwise adversely affect the 
environment.
    The only issue identified with regard to plant programs and 
procedures that may relate to the quality of the environment is 
``Environmental Trending Procedures'' for the Paducah plant. This 
compliance plan issue will ensure that all environmental data will be 
evaluated for trends to identify long-term changes in the environment 
that may result from plant operations. The staff has examined the 
current practices at the plant for reviewing environmental data for any 
unusual results that might indicate an increase in radiological 
releases from the Paducah Plant or in the dose to members of the 
public. The staff finds the current practices to be acceptable until 
new procedures are established, in accordance with the plant procedure 
upgrade program, to evaluate all environmental data for trends.
    Plant equipment upgrades should better ensure confinement of UF \6\ 
and other effluents during normal and accidental conditions, and, 
therefore, will maintain or reduce the levels of effluents from plant 
operations. The staff has examined the two specific items of 
noncompliance that relate to effluents: ``HEPA Filter System Testing'' 
for both the Portsmouth and Paducah plants, and ``High-Volume Ambient 
Air Samplers'' for the Paducah plant.
    Not all High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters have in-
place efficiency performance testing in accordance with American 
National Standards Institute Standard N510. Although the failure of the 
HEPA filters to perform properly could affect airborne radionuclide 
emissions, no significant environmental releases to the ambient air 
have been detected, in over ten years, that were attributed to HEPA 
filter failure. As reported in the USEC Environmental Compliance Status 
Report, the maximum dose to a member of the public from radionuclide 
air emissions for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was 0.006 mSv (0.06 
mrem) and for the Paducah plant in 1994 was 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), 
both well within the EPA 1 mSv (10 mrem) limit in 40 CFR Part 61. The 
staff concludes that the ``HEPA Filter System Testing'' noncompliance 
will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Although the new high-volume air sampling system has been in 
operation at the Paducah plant since August 1995, sufficient data to 
establish the capabilities of the system and to establish baseline 
radionuclide concentrations at the station have not been completed. 
Data from the new high-volume air sampling system will help confirm the 
accuracy of data on annual radionuclide air emissions. However, since 
maximum doses from Paducah annual radionuclide air releases have been 
in the range of 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), well within the EPA regulatory 
limit, the staff concludes that the unavailability of data from the new 
high-volume air sampling system will not significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    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 
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 concerns associated with the 
certification action or approval of the compliance plan.

Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing assessment, 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 noncompliance will not 
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

[[Page 49363]]

Finding of no Significant Impact

    On the basis of this assessment, the staff has concluded that 
environmental impacts that would be created by this action would not be 
significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental 
Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of 
No Significant Impact is appropriate.
    The Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this 
proposed action are available for public inspection and copying at the 
Commission's PDR and LPDRs.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 96-24019 Filed 9-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P