federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

6278 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / NoticesDated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th dayof February 1997.Ronald W. Hernan,Senior Project Manager, Project DirectorateII–3, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Officeof Nuclear Reactor Regulation.[FR Doc. 97–3321 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P[Docket 70–7002]Notice of Amendment to Certificate ofCompliance GDP–2 for the U.S.Enrichment Corporation, PortsmouthGaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth,OHThe Director, Office of NuclearMaterial Safety and Safeguards, hasmade a determination that the followingamendment request is not significant inaccordance with 10 CFR 76.45. Inmaking that determination, the staffconcluded that: (1) There is no changein the types or significant increase inthe amounts of any effluents that may bereleased offsite; (2) there is nosignificant increase in individual orcumulative occupational radiationexposure; (3) there is no significantconstruction impact; (4) there is nosignificant increase in the potential for,or radiological or chemicalconsequences from, previously analyzedaccidents; (5) the proposed changes donot result in the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident; (6) there is nosignificant reduction in any margin ofsafety; and (7) the proposed changeswill not result in an overall decrease inthe effectiveness of the plant’s safety,safeguards, or security programs. Thebasis for this determination for theamendment request is described below.The NRC staff has reviewed thecertificate amendment application andconcluded that it provides reasonableassurance of adequate safety, safeguards,and security and compliance with NRCrequirements. Therefore, the Director,Office of Nuclear MaterialSafety and Safeguards, is prepared toissue an amendment to the Certificate ofCompliance for the Portsmouth GaseousDiffusion Plant (PORTS). The staff hasprepared a Compliance EvaluationReport which provides details of thestaff’s evaluation.The NRC staff has determined thatthis amendment satisfies the criteria fora categorical exclusion in accordancewith 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuantto 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmentalimpact statement or environmentalassessment need be prepared for thisamendment.USEC or any person whose interestmay be affected may file a petition, notexceeding 30 pages, requesting reviewof the Director’s Decision. The petitionmust be filed with the Commission notlater than 15 days after publication ofthis Federal Register Notice. A petitionfor review of the Director’s Decisionshall set forth with particularity theinterest of the petitioner and how thatinterest may be affected by the results ofthe decision. The petition shouldspecifically explain the reasons whyreview of the Decision should bepermitted with particular reference tothe following factors: (1) The interest ofthe petitioner; (2) how that interest maybe affected by the Decision, includingthe reasons why the petitioner shouldbe permitted a review of the Decision;and (3) the petitioner’s areas of concernabout the activity that is the subjectmatter of the Decision. Any persondescribed in this paragraph (USEC orany person who filed a petition) mayfile a response to any petition forreview, not to exceed 30 pages, within10 days after filing of the petition. If nopetition is received within thedesignated 15-day period, the Directorwill issue the final amendment to theCertificate of Compliance withoutfurther delay. If a petition for review isreceived, the decision on theamendment application will becomefinal in 60 days, unless the Commissiongrants the petition for review orotherwise acts within 60 days afterpublication of this Federal RegisterNotice.A petition for review must be filedwith the Secretary of the Commission,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:Docketing and Services Branch, or maybe delivered to the Commission’s PublicDocument Room, the Gelman Building,2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC, bythe above date.For further details with respect to theaction see: (1) The application foramendment and (2) the Commission’sCompliance Evaluation Report. Theseitems are available for public inspectionat the Commission’s Public DocumentRoom, the Gelman Building, 2120 LStreet, NW, Washington, DC, and at theLocal Public Document Room.Date of amendment request:November 8, 1996, as modified by USECresponses dated December 13, 1996, andJanuary 16, 1997, to NRC requests foradditional information dated November29, 1996, and December 31, 1996,respectively.Brief description of amendment: Theamendment changes the TechnicalSafety Requirement (TSR) StandbyOperational Mode definition for the UF6Withdrawal Stations by allowing thecompression loop vent path to thecascade to be open. It should be notedthat venting of the Withdrawal Stationcompression loop to the cascade isroutinely done at PORTS. However,accounting for this procedure wasinadvertently left out of the StandbyOperational Mode definition by USECfrom its proposed TSRs which havebeen approved by the NRC.Basis for finding of no significance:1. The proposed amendment will notresult in a change in the types orsignificant increase in the amounts ofany effluents that may be releasedoffsite.The proposed change to TSR 2.5.1permits evacuating UF6 from thecompression loop in the UF6withdrawal station to the cascade,which acts as a low pressure sink, in theStandby Operational Mode. This changewill not result in significantlyincreasing the potential forunconfinement of UF6 which could leadto an increase in effluents that may bereleased offsite since it only involvesventing of UF6 from one portion ofprocess piping, which confines UF6 inthe Withdrawal Station, to anotherportion of process piping whichconfines UF6 in the enrichmentcascade. Confinement of UF6 within thecascade is primarily provided bymaintaining the cell high-side(compressor discharge) gas pressurebelow 25 psia (TSR 2.2.3.13) and byapplying appropriate quality assurancerequirements to process gas piping andequipment (Safety Analysis ReportSection 3.8.2.2). Therefore, this TSRamendment will not result in significantamounts of effluents that may bereleased offsite.2. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant increase inindividual or cumulative occupationalradiation exposure.Evacuating UF6 from the compressionloop to the cascade in the StandbyOperational Mode will not significantlyimpart additional occupationalradiation exposure. The cascade or thewithdrawal loops do not result insignificant occupational radiationexposures. Some of the reasons beingthat: (1) The occupancy factor is low, (2)distance from the source is generallyhigh, (3) significant shielding isprovided by piping and equipment, (4)depleted and low enriched uranium haslow specific activities and are alsocomparatively low gamma radiationemitters, (5) most of the uranium is ingaseous form (low density), and (6) UF6is confined within quality controlledequipment and piping. Therefore, anytransfer of confined UF6 from thewithdrawal station to the cascade wouldnot measurably modify individual or