federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

Recommendations

Info

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / Notices6279cumulative occupational radiationexposures.3. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant constructionimpact.Since the proposed changes do notinvolve any construction, therefore,there will be no construction impacts.4. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant increase in thepotential for, or radiological or chemicalconsequences from, previously analyzedaccidents.The proposed changes which involveevacuating UF6 from the compressionloop to the cascade (low pressure sink)in the Standby Operational Mode willnot result in a significant increase in thepotential for UF6 releases. In fact,venting the compression loop to thecascade may enhance safety byminimizing the potential for overpressurizationof the UF6 withdrawalloop with subsequent confinementrupture. To avoid enrichment losses,UF6 is vented back to the A-suction ofa compressor in the cascade that hasUF6 of similar enrichment. All A-suction pressures in lines that wouldreceive the vented UF6 aresubatmospheric. Therefore, anyconfinement failure would likely resultin inleakage as opposed to outleakage.In addition, cascade units that wouldreceive vented UF6 would likely becomprised of relatively smaller sizedequipment containing relatively smallerquantities of UF6 since they would belocated near the top and at the bottomof the cascade. Therefore, the proposedchange will not result in a significantincrease in the potential for UF6releases.Going from a closed compression loopvent path to an open compression loopvent path will not result in a significantincrease for, or radiologicalconsequences from, previouslyevaluated criticality accidents. Thelikelihood of an accidental criticality inthe cascade due to wet-air (moderator)inleakage would not be increasedsignificantly for the following reasons:a. This amendment involves a valvethat is internal to several valves evenwhen the pigtail is not attached to thewithdrawal manifold. These valveswould be in the closed position.Therefore, several misvalving errorswould be required to permit significantwet-air inleakage into the cascadethrough the compression loop ventvalve.b. To maintain the integrity of theUF6 pressure boundary, USEC iscommitted to applying appropriatequality assurance requirements toprocess gas piping and equipment(including valves) with diameters of 2inches or larger.c. Formation of UO2F2 in the cascadedue to significant inleakage of wet-airwould result in compressor vibrationand would reduce barrier permeabilitythus affecting cascade compressorperformance which would be observedin the control rooms via motor loadindications. Changes in compressor A-suction pressures would also bedetected.d. Introduction of wet-air into thecascade would be detected on the linerecorders that continuously indicatenitrogen and oxygen concentrations.Based on the primary reasonsprovided above, the proposed TSRchange will also not significantly raisethe probability or consequences of acriticality accident.5. The proposed amendment will notresult in the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident.For similar reasons provided in theassessment of criterion 4, evacuatingUF6 from the compression loop to thecascade in the Standby OperationalMode will not result in a new potentialaccident involving UF6 releases orcriticality. In fact, venting thecompression loop to the cascade mayenhance safety by minimizing thepotential for over-pressurization of theUF6 withdrawal loop with subsequentconfinement rupture.6. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant reduction in anymargin of safety.As discussed above, from a UF6release accident standpoint, venting tothe cascade may enhance safety, andfrom a criticality accident standpoint,the safety impact is insignificant. Thisprocedure, which is routine operation atPORTS, will not result in the violationof any limiting condition of operation.Therefore, the opening of the ventpathway in the Standby OperationalMode will not significantly reduce anymargin of safety.7. The proposed amendment will notresult in an overall decrease in theeffectiveness of the plant’s safety,safeguards, or security programs.As discussed above, from a UF6confinement standpoint venting to thecascade may enhance the plant’s safetyprogram and from a criticality safetyprogram standpoint, the safety impact isinsignificant.The staff has not identified anysafeguards or security relatedimplications from the proposedamendment. Therefore, the opening ofthe vent pathway in the StandbyOperational Mode will not result in anoverall decrease in the effectiveness ofthe plant’s safety, safeguards, or securityprograms.Effective date: This amendmentbecomes effective at 12:00 noon on theday following the day issued.Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–2:Amendment will revise the TechnicalSafety Requirements.Local Public Document Roomlocation: Portsmouth Public Library,1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio45662.Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th dayof February 1997.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Carl J. Paperiello,Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safetyand Safeguards.[FR Doc. 97–3322 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–P[Docket 70–7001]Notice of Amendment to Certificate ofCompliance GDP–1 for the U.S.Enrichment Corporation, PaducahGaseous Diffusion Plant, Paducah, KYThe 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 change inthe types or significant increase in theamounts 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 shown 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 Material Safety andSafeguards, is prepared to issue anamendment to the Certificate ofCompliance for the Paducah GaseousDiffusion Plant. The staff has prepareda Compliance Evaluation Report whichprovides details of the staff’s evaluation.
6280 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28 / Tuesday, February 11, 1997 / NoticesThe 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:September 30, 1996.Brief description of amendment: Theamendment changes the TechnicalSafety Requirement for the cascade celltrip function and revises limitingspecific values for battery performance.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 changes to TSR 2.4.4.12and SAR section 3.9.1.3.2 provide limitsfor battery voltage and air circuitbreaker air pressure, improve thesurveillance requirements for measuringbattery cell specific gravity, as well asimproved bases for the limits. Thesechanges provide improved assurancethat the cell trip function will beavailable, if required. As such, thesechanges enhance the ability of thecascade trip function to deenergize theprocess motors (‘‘tripping the cell’’),thus bringing the cell belowatmospheric pressure. By enhancing theability to perform the cell trip function,the ability to mitigate the consequencesof postulated accidents has beenimproved. As such, these changes haveno impact on plant effluents and willnot result in any impact to theenvironment.2. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant increase inindividual or cumulative occupationalradiation exposure.The proposed changes provideenhanced assurance that the cell tripfunction will be available if necessary.The changes will not increase exposure.3. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant constructionimpact.The proposed changes will not resultin any construction, therefore, there willbe no construction impacts.4. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant increase in thepotential for, or radiological or chemicalconsequences from, previously analyzedaccidents.The proposed changes enhance theavailability of the cascade cell tripfunction and affect no other equipmentfunctions. The cascade cell trip functionis not involved in any precursor to anevaluated accident; therefore, thepotential of occurrence of an evaluatedevent is unaffected. The cell tripfunction is involved in the mitigation ofthe consequences of previouslyevaluated accidents by deenergizing theprocess motors, thus bringing the cellbelow atmospheric pressure. Revisingthe limiting specific values for batteryperformance and the air pressurerequirements for the ‘‘000’’ air circuitbreakers enhances the ability of the celltrip function by ensuring that adequateDC voltage and air pressure are availableto effect cell trip. Since the proposedchanges provide enhanced assurancethat the function will be available ifrequired, the consequences ofpreviously evaluated accidents are notincreased.5. The proposed amendment will notresult in the possibility of a new ordifferent kind of accident.The proposed changes establish newoperating limits for plant equipmentthat are within the existing operatingranges of that equipment. The changescreate no new operating conditions ornew plant configuration that could leadto a new or different type of accident.6. The proposed amendment will notresult in a significant reduction in anymargin of safety.The minimum air pressures andbattery voltages established by theseproposed changes are within theexisting operating ranges of theequipment and have been increased toenhance the cell trip function, which isthe only safety function affected bythese parameters. The proposed changescause no reductions in the margins ofsafety.7. The proposed amendment will notresult in an overall decrease in theeffectiveness of the plant’s safety,safeguards or security programs.The proposed changes enhance theavailability of the cascade cell tripfunction and do not affect any otherequipment functions or administrativerequirements. The cell trip function isnot addressed in the safeguards andsecurity programs. The effectiveness ofthe safety, safeguards, and securityprograms is not decreased.Effective date: 60 days after issuance.Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–1:Amendment will revise the TechnicalSafety Requirements.Local Public Document Roomlocation: Paducah Public Library, 555Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky42003.Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th dayof February 1997.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Carl J. Paperiello,Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safetyand Safeguards.[FR Doc. 97–3323 Filed 2–10–97; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7590–01–PSunshine Act MeetingAGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: NuclearRegulatory Commission.DATE: Weeks of February 10, 17, 24, andMarch 3, 1997.
Page 2 and 3:
IIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 4 and 5:
IVFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 6 and 7:
VIFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 8 and 9:
6099Rules and RegulationsFederal Re
Page 12 and 13:
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139: Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 28
Page 216 and 217: 6308 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 238 and 239:
6330 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
federal registerTuesdayFebruary 11,
Page 274 and 275:
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 316 and 317:
Page 318 and 319:
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 330 and 331:
Page 332 and 333:
Page 334 and 335:
Page 336 and 337:
Page 338 and 339:
Page 340 and 341:
Page 342 and 343:
Page 344 and 345:
Page 346 and 347:
Page 348 and 349:
Page 350 and 351:
iiFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
Page 352:
ivFederal Register / Vol. 62, No. 2
show all

federal register - U.S. Government Printing Office

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?