[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 58 (Thursday, March 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14737-14739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-7963]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70-7002]


Notice of Amendment to Certificate of Compliance GDP-2 for the 
U.S. Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, 
Portsmouth, OH

    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 Portsmouth 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

[[Page 14738]]

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 of the 
Commission, 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: February 3, 1998.
    Brief description of amendment: On February 3, 1998, United States 
Enrichment Corporation (USEC) submitted a certification amendment 
request (CAR) to temporarily, approximately six weeks, convert the X-
705 South Annex from NRC regulations to Department of Energy (DOE) 
Regulatory Oversight Agreement (ROA) regulations for the replacement of 
inoperable HEU cylinder valves. The changes proposed in USEC's CAR 
involve SAR Section 3.7, ``HEU DOWNBLENDING ACTIVITIES,'' Fundamental 
Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan Section 2.2.7, ``MBA Structure,'' 
and the Plan for Achieving Compliance at the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant (Compliance Plan) Issue A.4., ``Possession of Uranium 
Enriched to Greater than 10% \235\U.''
    The change to SAR Section 3.7 recognizes the HEU cylinder valve 
replacement under DOE ROA regulations as an anticipated evolution and 
provides a description of that activity. The revisions to Section 2 of 
the FNMC Plan and related Issue A.4 of the Compliance Plan describe 
access control into the X-705 facility during the period of six weeks 
that the areas are temporarily converted to DOE ROA regulation, to 
verify that no removal of fissile material occurs during the valve 
replacement activities, and to certify that changing the status of the 
areas will not result in Portsmouth (PORTS) possessing HEU or cause 
PORTS to exceed the HEU possession limit before returning the areas to 
NRC regulation.
    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 amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed 
activity for the facility. The amendment would temporarily change the 
regulatory oversight of the valve replacement due to possession limit 
constraints and would not change the types or increase the amounts of 
any effluents that may be released offsite.
    2. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant increase 
in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed 
activity for the facility. The same radiological controls and 
criticality controls found acceptable for lower enrichment cylinder 
valve replacements would remain in effect for the HEU cylinder valve 
replacement. Therefore the amendment would not result in a significant 
increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
    3. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant 
construction impact.
    The proposed amendment does not involve 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 proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed 
activity for the facility. The same radiological controls, industrial 
hygiene controls, and criticality controls found acceptable for lower 
enrichment cylinder valve replacements would remain in effect for the 
HEU cylinder valve replacement. Therefore, the amendment would not 
result in a significant increase in the potential for, or radiological 
or chemical consequences from, previously analyzed accidents.
    5. The proposed amendment will not result in the possibility of a 
new or different kind of accident.
    The proposed amendment does not propose any new or unanalyzed 
activity for the facility. Therefore, the amendment does not raise the 
possibility of a new or different kind of accident.
    6. The proposed amendment will not result in a significant 
reduction in any margin of safety.
    For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 4 and 5, 
the proposed amendment would not result in a significant reduction in 
any margin of safety.
    7. The proposed amendment will not result in an overall decrease in 
the effectiveness of the plant's safety, safeguards or security 
programs.
    For the reasons provided in the assessment of criterion 4 and 5, 
the proposed amendment would not result in an overall decrease in the 
effectiveness of the plant's safety.
    The amendment proposed changes to the FNMC Plan and Compliance Plan 
to increase the security and safeguards requirements commensurate with 
DOE ROA requirements for high enrichment and provides assurances 
through a special static inventory of the areas at the end of the 
transition to confirm the facility status. Therefore, the proposed 
amendment will not result in an overall decrease in the effectiveness 
of the plant's safeguards or security programs.
    Effective date: The amendment to GDP-2 will become effective 7 days 
after issuance by NRC.
    Certificate of Compliance No. GDP-2: Amendment will allow temporary 
transfer of regulatory oversight of the X-705 Building for high 
enrichment uranium cylinder valve replacement.
    Local Public Document Room location: Portsmouth Public Library,

[[Page 14739]]

1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 17th day of March 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carl J. Paperiello,
Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-7963 Filed 3-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-U