[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68699-68701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-28669]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 70-7001 and 70-7002]


Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant; Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion 
Plant; United States Enrichment Corporation; Notice of Approval of 
Request for Exemption

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of approval of request for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) is approving, 
upon publication of this notice, a request for an exemption from the 
requirement to submit written event follow-up reports within 30 days 
for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant and the Portsmouth Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant operated by the United States Enrichment Corporation 
(USEC). The exemption will allow up to 60 days for submitting written 
event follow-up reports, instead of the 30 days specified in 10 CFR 
76.120(d)(2). The NRC has prepared an environmental assessment with a 
finding of no significant impact on the request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan E. Martin, Project Manager, Fuel 
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 415-7254, 
e-mail [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Commission is approving the issuance of 
an exemption from the requirement to submit written event follow-up 
reports in 30 days, pursuant to 10 CFR part 76, for the Paducah Gaseous 
Diffusion Plant (PGDP) and the Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant 
(PORTS), both operated by USEC. Both facilities are authorized to use 
Special Nuclear Material (SNM) in the enrichment of natural uranium to 
prepare low-enriched uranium to be used by others in the fabrication of 
nuclear fuel pellets and fuel assemblies, although enrichment 
operations have ceased at PORTS. The PGDP facility is located near 
Paducah, Kentucky, and the PORTS facility is located near Piketon, 
Ohio.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR part 76.120(a), (b), and (c), certain events are 
required to be reported to the NRC within 1, 4, or 24 hours, 
respectively. For example, an inadvertent criticality event must be 
reported to NRC within 1 hour. In such cases, Section 76.120(d)(2) 
requires that a written event follow-up report be submitted within 30 
days of the initial

[[Page 68700]]

report. Written event follow-up reports must include: (1) A description 
of the event, including the probable cause and the manufacturer and 
model number of any equipment that failed; (2) the exact location of 
the event; (3) a description of the isotopes, quantities, and chemical 
and physical form of the material involved; (4) the date and time of 
the event; (5) the causes, including the direct cause, the contributing 
cause, and the root cause; (6) corrective actions taken or planned and 
the results of any evaluations or assessments; (7) the extent of 
exposure of individuals to radiation or to radioactive materials; and 
(8) lessons learned from the event.
    Because of the comprehensive nature of event follow-up reports, the 
initial 30-day report is often incomplete because event analysis and 
root cause determinations are not completed within 30 days. In these 
cases, a supplemental report must be submitted when information is 
complete. In recognition of this, the NRC revised 10 CFR part 50, for 
nuclear power reactors, to allow 60 days for submitting event follow-up 
reports (Federal Register, October 25, 2000, Volume 65, No. 207, pp. 
63769-63789). Considerations mentioned in connection with revising Part 
50 included that the increased time would allow for completion of 
required engineering evaluations after event discovery, provide for 
more complete and accurate event reports, and result in fewer event 
report revisions and supplemental reports. Similar considerations apply 
to the Paducah and Portsmouth GDPs and the NRC staff has determined 
that the exemption should be granted. The NRC staff has prepared an 
environmental assessment of the proposed action and made a finding of 
no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow written event follow-up reports 
required pursuant to 10 CFR 76.120(d)(2) to be submitted within 60 days 
instead of the 30 days specified in the regulation, for the Paducah and 
Portsmouth GDPs operated by USEC. The proposed action is in accordance 
with USEC's request for exemption dated September 5, 2001.

Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to reduce the number of revised and 
supplemental written event reports made necessary because complete 
information is not available within the 30 days allowed by the 
regulation. USEC has provided data for the Paducah GDP indicating that, 
since NRC began regulating the facility in March 1997, 21 of a total of 
84 written event follow-up reports would have been unnecessary if the 
requirement for submittal of written event follow-up reports had been 
60 days instead of the current 30-day requirement. USEC stated that 
these 21 reports were submitted only to meet the 30-day requirement, 
and, in each case, the root cause analysis was ongoing at the time the 
30-day report was submitted and a subsequent report was required when 
the root cause analysis was completed. Similar data for the Portsmouth 
facility has not been requested or provided since it would not be 
useful in view of the recent termination of virtually all NRC-regulated 
operations at the Portsmouth facility. However, the same general 
considerations apply for Portsmouth, but at a reduced scale since the 
number of reportable events is expected to be decreased but not 
eliminated altogether.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would not materially affect the responsiveness 
of USEC or the NRC to events that do occur and are reported. Changing 
the time limit from 30 days to 60 days for events reported under Part 
76 does not imply that USEC should take longer to develop and implement 
corrective actions, which should continue to be taken on a time scale 
commensurate with the safety significance of the issue. It has no 
impact on initial notifications to the NRC as the change only applies 
to written event follow-up reports. Also, the NRC will continue to have 
resident inspectors at the Paducah facility to provide monitoring and 
evaluation of USEC's responses to events as they are implemented. One 
reason the NRC scrutinizes written event reports is to evaluate the 
potential for generic safety concerns that might exist at other, 
similar facilities. Since the Paducah facility has no comparable 
counterpart other than the Portsmouth facility, which has terminated 
all enrichment and most other operations, the potential for identifying 
generic safety concerns is severely limited. On balance, the NRC 
believes the reduction in burden on USEC and NRC achieved by reducing 
the number of revised and supplemental event reports will be the 
primary impact of granting the requested exemption.
    The proposed exemption should have no impact on the effectiveness 
of USEC's response to reportable events. The proposed action should not 
increase the probability or consequences of accidents as there is no 
change in the time period for taking corrective action. No changes are 
being made in the amounts or types of any effluents that could be 
released offsite, and there is no increase in individual or cumulative 
radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there 
are no significant radiological impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there 
are no significant nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed 
action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action. Denial of the proposed action would 
result in no change in environmental impacts and would result in 
hardship to USEC. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The proposed action does not involve the use of any resources 
beyond those already necessary to prepare and submit event follow-up 
reports, and would likely reduce the expenditure of such resources by 
reducing the number of revised and supplemental event reports required 
to be submitted.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with: 
(1) State of Illinois official Thomas Ortciger, Director, Illinois 
Department of Nuclear Safety; (2) State of Kentucky official Janice H. 
Jasper, Radiation Health and Toxic Agents Branch, Cabinet for Health 
Services; (3) State of Ohio official, Carol O'Claire, Supervisor, 
Radiological Branch, Ohio Emergency Management Agency; and (4) U.S. 
Department of Energy official Randall M. DeVault, Group Leader, 
Transition and Technology Group, Office of Nuclear Fuel Security and 
Uranium Technology, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. No objections were received.
    Consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State 
Historic Preservation Officer were not performed because of the lack of 
any conceivable impact to fish and wildlife or historic assets.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based on the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the

[[Page 68701]]

Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed action.

List of Preparers

    This document was prepared by Dan E. Martin, Project Manager, Fuel 
Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Mr. Martin is the 
Project Manager for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
USEC letter request dated September 5, 2001, and USEC's response to a 
request for additional information, dated October 2, 2002, available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, MD, 
and accessible electronically through the ADAMS Public Electronic 
Reading Room link at the NRC Web site (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 24th day of October, 2002.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel M. Gillen,
Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and 
Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 02-28669 Filed 11-8-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P