[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 96 (Monday, May 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27282-27283]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-13025]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket 70-7001]


Amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-1 for the U.S. 
Enrichment Corporation, Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, KY

    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; (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 Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The staff has 
prepared a Compliance Evaluation Report which provides details of the 
staff's evaluation.
    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 environmental impact 
statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for this 
amendment.
    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 Register Notice. A 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 Register Notice.
    A petition for review must be filed with the Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: 
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or may be delivered to the 
Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, 
NW, Washington, DC, by the above date.
    For further 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, the Gelman Building, 2120 L 
Street, NW, Washington, DC, and at the Local Public Document Room.
    Date of amendment request: March 31, 1997.
    Brief description of amendment: The amendment proposes to broaden 
the applicability statement for the Technical Safety Requirement (TSR) 
on the sprinkler system and to correct an editorial error in the TSR on 
the cylinder scale cart movement prevention system.

Basis for Finding of No Significance

    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.
    The proposed change to the TSR on the C-310 and C-315 building 
sprinkler system changes the applicability statement such that the 
system must be operable at all times, except when the lube oil has been 
valved off or removed from the equipment. This change is consistent 
with the accident analysis. The proposed change to the TSR on the 
cylinder scale cart movement prevention system corrects one word and 
does not change the intent of the TSR (withdrawal is changed to 
receiving). These proposed changes will not affect the effluent.
    2. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase 
in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    The proposed changes do not relate to controls used to minimize 
occupational radiation exposures, therefore, the changes will not 
increase exposure.
    3. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant 
construction impact.
    The proposed changes will not result in any construction, 
therefore, there will be no construction impacts.
    4. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase 
in the potential for, or radiological or chemical consequences from, 
previously analyzed accidents.
    The change to the sprinkler system applicability is consistent with 
the accident analysis assumptions. The

[[Page 27283]]

editorial change to the scale cart system maintains the intent of the 
TSR. The proposed changes do no affect the potential for or 
radiological or chemical consequences from previously evaluated 
accidents.
    5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident.
    The proposed changes would not create new operating conditions or 
new plant configuration that could lead to a new or different type of 
accident.
    6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant 
reduction in any margin of safety.
    The proposed change to the applicability statement for the 
sprinkler system is consistent with the accident analysis. The other 
change is an editorial change. These changes do not decrease the 
margins of safety and in fact may increase the margin by eliminating 
potential misunderstandings about TSR requirements.
    7. The proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in 
the effectiveness of the plant's safety, safeguards or security 
programs.
    Implementation of the proposed changes do not change the safety, 
safeguards, or security programs. Therefore, the effectiveness of the 
safety, safeguards, and security programs is not decreased.
    Effective date: June 18, 1997.
    Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-1: Amendment will revise 
Technical Safety Requirements for the fire protection system and the 
cylinder scale cart movement prevention system.
    Local Public Document Room location: Paducah Public Library, 555 
Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky 42003.

    Dated at Rockville, MD., this 9th day of May 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 97-13025 Filed 5-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P