Notice of Certification Decision for U.S. Enrichment Corporation To Operate Gaseous Diffusion Plants and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

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

Notice of Certification Decision for U.S. Enrichment Corporation

To Operate Gaseous Diffusion Plants and Finding of No Significant

Impact

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Certification of gaseous diffusion plants.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is issuing a

certification decision for the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to

operate the two gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs) located at Paducah,

Kentucky, and at Piketon, Ohio. NRC is also issuing a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) concerning NRC's approval of the compliance

plan prepared by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and submitted by

USEC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. M.L. Horn, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8126; Mr. C. B. Sawyer,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8174.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The President signed H.R. 776, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the

Act), into law on October 24, 1992. The Act amended the Atomic Energy

Act of 1954, to establish a new government corporation, the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation (USEC), for the purpose of operating the uranium

enrichment enterprise owned and previously operated by the DOE. The Act

provided that within two years after enactment of the legislation, NRC

would promulgate standards that apply to USEC's operation of its GDPs

at Paducah, KY, and Piketon, OH, to protect public health and safety

from radiological hazards, and to provide for the common defense and

security. The Act directed the NRC to establish and implement an annual

certification process under which the GDPs would be certified by the

NRC for compliance with these standards. For areas where plant

operations are not yet in compliance, the Act provided for a compliance

plan prepared by the DOE. The Act also required NRC to report annually

to the Congress on the status of the GDPs.

On February 11, 1994 (59 FR 6792), the Commission published for

comment a proposed new Part 76 to Chapter I of Title 10 of the Code of

Federal

[[Page 49361]]

Regulations (CFR), establishing requirements and procedures for the

certification process. After NRC review and consideration of public

comments, the final rule was published on September 23, 1994 (59 FR

48944). Part 76, ``Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants,''

includes procedural requirements, generally applicable NRC health and

safety standards, technical safety requirements, and safeguards and

security requirements specific to the GDPs.

DOE currently continues nuclear safety, safeguards, and security

oversight of the GDPs. DOE retains ownership of the facilities and will

be responsible for eventual decommissioning of the sites.

USEC submitted its initial certification application on April 18,

1995. NRC's preliminary review of the initial application determined

that it did not adequately address the standards NRC had established

for the GDPs and did not contain enough information for NRC to

determine compliance with 10 CFR Part 76. Therefore, by letter dated

May 5, 1995, NRC formally rejected the initial application and notified

USEC that it had to submit a revised application. NRC's decision to

reject the application was not a determination that the operation of

these plants was unsafe or in noncompliance.

USEC submitted a revised certification application on September 15,

1995, and a revised, DOE-prepared compliance plan on November 6, 1995.

The application package includes: a safety analysis report; a quality

assurance program; technical safety requirements; an emergency plan; an

environmental compliance status report; a nuclear material control

plan; a transportation protection plan; a physical protection plan; a

security plan for protection of classified matter; a waste management

program; a decommissioning funding program; environmental information;

and a DOE-prepared compliance plan. The NRC staff requested additional

information and revisions to the certification application and the

compliance plan, and USEC responded during the period from October 1995

through August 1996.

The application and all related non-proprietary, unclassified

supporting information and correspondence are available for public

inspection and copying at the Commission Public Document Room (PDR),

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, and at the Local Public

Document Rooms (LPDRs), under Docket No. 70-7001, at the Paducah Public

Library, 555 Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky, 42003; and under

Docket No. 70-7002, at the Portsmouth Public Library, 1220 Gallia

Street, Portsmouth, Ohio, 45662.

Notice of receipt of the application appeared in the Federal

Register (60 FR 49026) on September 21, 1995, allowing for a 45-day

public comment period on the application and noticing public meetings

to solicit public input on the certification. A second notice appeared

in the Federal Register (60 FR 57253) on November 14, 1995, providing

for a 45-day public comment period on the compliance plan. Public

meetings were held on November 28, 1995, at the Vern Riffe Joint

Vocational School in Portsmouth, Ohio, and on December 5, 1995, at the

Paducah Information Age Park Resource Center in Paducah, Kentucky.

Eleven comment letters were received. Comments received during the

comment period, together with transcripts of the public meetings, are

available in the PDR and the LPDRs, and were reviewed and considered by

the staff during the certification evaluation. The staff responses to

the public comments are also available in the PDR and the LPDRs.

As required by the Energy Policy Act, NRC consulted with the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about certification. EPA did not

identify any significant compliance issues.

The USEC Privatization Act, contained in Public Law 104-134, was

signed into law on April 26, 1996. Among other provisions, it amended

the Atomic Energy Act requirement for an annual application for

certification to require instead a periodic application, as determined

by the Commission, but not less than every five years. Also, as

required by the USEC Privatization Act, NRC and the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

describing coordination of their regulatory activities at the GDPs to

ensure worker safety. This MOU was published in the Federal Register on

August 1, 1996 (61 FR 40249).

Certification Decision of the Director, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards

The NRC staff has reviewed the certification application and the

DOE-prepared compliance plan submitted by USEC, and concluded that, in

combination with certificate conditions, they provide reasonable

assurance of adequate safety, safeguards, and security, and compliance

with NRC requirements. Therefore, the Director, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards (Director) is prepared to issue a

Compliance Certificate and a compliance plan approval for each plant.

The staff has prepared a Compliance Evaluation Report, for each plant,

which provides details of the staff's evaluations, bases for

certificate approval, and responses to public comments. The proposed

Compliance Certificates and Compliance Evaluation Reports are available

in the PDR and the LPDRs.

The initial certificates will be issued for an effective period of

approximately 2 years, with expiration dates of December 31, 1998. This

is consistent with the new provision in Public Law 104-134, the USEC

Privatization Act, which amended Section 1701(c)(2) of the Atomic

Energy Act replacing the requirement for an annual application for a

certificate of compliance with a requirement for an application to be

filed ``periodically, as determined by the Commission, but not less

than every five years.''

The staff believes that two years is a reasonable period for the

first certificates of compliance; in two years significant progress

will be made in implementing plant improvements specified in the

compliance plan. Therefore, USEC will receive an exemption from the

requirements in Secs. 76.31 and 76.36 to submit an annual application

for certificate renewal in 1997. USEC will be required to file an

application for renewal of the certificates of compliance by April 15,

1998.

The requirements in Secs. 76.31 and 76.36 for an annual application

were based on the previous statutory requirement for an annual

application, which has been superseded. Therefore the exemptions from

these requirements are justified under Sec. 76.23, which specifically

allows the NRC to grant such exemptions from the requirements of Part

76 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life,

property, or the common defense, and are otherwise in the public

interest. The exemptions meet these criteria.

Transition of Regulatory Authority

The certificates of compliance will become effective and the NRC

will assume regulatory authority over the GDPs on March 3, 1997,

following a transition period. This transition period will give USEC

time to revise procedures and train employees on the approved

application. DOE will continue regulatory oversight during the

transition period until NRC assumes jurisdiction.

Opportunity To Petition for Review

USEC or any person whose interest may be affected, and who

submitted written comments in response to the

[[Page 49362]]

Federal Register Notice on the application or compliance plan, under

Sec. 76.37, or provided oral comments at any meeting held on the

application or compliance plan conducted under Sec. 76.39, may file a

petition, not exceeding 30 pages, requesting review of the Director's

certification decision. The petition must be filed with the Commission

not later than 15 days after publication of this Federal Register

Notice. Any person described in this paragraph may file a response to

any petition for review, not to exceed 30 pages, within 10 days after

the filing of the petition. Unless the Commission grants the petition

for review or otherwise acts within 60 days after the publication of

this Federal Register Notice, the initial decision on the certificate

application or compliance plan will become final. If no petition is

received within the designated 15-day period, the Director will issue

final Compliance Certificates.

Finding of No Significant Impact

As specified in 10 CFR Sec. 51.22(c)(19), an environmental

assessment is not required for the certificates of compliance,

themselves. However, the associated compliance plan describes how and

when the plants will be brought into compliance with NRC requirements

in instances where compliance is lacking at the time of certification.

The staff has prepared the following environmental assessment on the

compliance plan:

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

The proposed action is the approval of the compliance plan

associated with certification of the GDPs. Approving the compliance

plan would authorize the GDPs to operate for a limited period before

achieving full compliance with NRC's requirements.

The Need for Action

Section 1701(d) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended by the

Energy Policy Act of 1992, states that the GDPs may not be operated by

the Corporation unless the NRC ``* * * makes a determination of

compliance * * * or approves a plan...for achieving compliance.'' Thus,

NRC approval of the compliance plan is necessary to meet the

requirement specified by the statute.

Environmental Impacts of the Action

The staff has evaluated all the compliance plan issues with regard

to their environmental impacts. Individual issues or areas of

noncompliance were evaluated to determine whether they could produce

any changes to routine air and water emissions, or any uncontrolled

releases, or otherwise adversely affect the environment.

The majority of the issues or areas of noncompliance identified in

the compliance plan involve activities by USEC to upgrade plant

programs, procedures, and equipment to conform to applicable NRC

requirements. Continued operation under existing plant programs and

procedures, by itself, will not have a negative impact on the level of

effluents from plant operations or otherwise adversely affect the

environment.

The only issue identified with regard to plant programs and

procedures that may relate to the quality of the environment is

``Environmental Trending Procedures'' for the Paducah plant. This

compliance plan issue will ensure that all environmental data will be

evaluated for trends to identify long-term changes in the environment

that may result from plant operations. The staff has examined the

current practices at the plant for reviewing environmental data for any

unusual results that might indicate an increase in radiological

releases from the Paducah Plant or in the dose to members of the

public. The staff finds the current practices to be acceptable until

new procedures are established, in accordance with the plant procedure

upgrade program, to evaluate all environmental data for trends.

Plant equipment upgrades should better ensure confinement of UF \6\

and other effluents during normal and accidental conditions, and,

therefore, will maintain or reduce the levels of effluents from plant

operations. The staff has examined the two specific items of

noncompliance that relate to effluents: ``HEPA Filter System Testing''

for both the Portsmouth and Paducah plants, and ``High-Volume Ambient

Air Samplers'' for the Paducah plant.

Not all High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters have in-

place efficiency performance testing in accordance with American

National Standards Institute Standard N510. Although the failure of the

HEPA filters to perform properly could affect airborne radionuclide

emissions, no significant environmental releases to the ambient air

have been detected, in over ten years, that were attributed to HEPA

filter failure. As reported in the USEC Environmental Compliance Status

Report, the maximum dose to a member of the public from radionuclide

air emissions for the Portsmouth plant in 1994 was 0.006 mSv (0.06

mrem) and for the Paducah plant in 1994 was 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem),

both well within the EPA 1 mSv (10 mrem) limit in 40 CFR Part 61. The

staff concludes that the ``HEPA Filter System Testing'' noncompliance

will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

Although the new high-volume air sampling system has been in

operation at the Paducah plant since August 1995, sufficient data to

establish the capabilities of the system and to establish baseline

radionuclide concentrations at the station have not been completed.

Data from the new high-volume air sampling system will help confirm the

accuracy of data on annual radionuclide air emissions. However, since

maximum doses from Paducah annual radionuclide air releases have been

in the range of 0.0016 mSv (0.016 mrem), well within the EPA regulatory

limit, the staff concludes that the unavailability of data from the new

high-volume air sampling system will not significantly affect the

quality of the human environment.

More detailed information on the staff's evaluation is contained in

the Compliance Evaluation Reports, which have been placed in NRC's PDR

and in the LPDRs located in Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The proposed action to approve the compliance plan, along with the

approval of the certification application, would authorize USEC to

continue operations of the GDPs under NRC regulatory oversight.

The ``No Action'' alternative would be to withhold approval of the

compliance plan. Under this alternative, the GDPs would be shut down,

or would continue to operate under DOE regulatory oversight until

compliance is achieved.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In reviewing the certification application and compliance plan, and

in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the staff consulted

with EPA. EPA did not identify any major concerns associated with the

certification action or approval of the compliance plan.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the

environmental effects of approving the compliance plan will be

insignificant. The staff believes that the compliance plan is

sufficient to ensure that, during the interim period of noncompliance,

plant operation related to areas of noncompliance will not

significantly affect the quality of the human environment.

[[Page 49363]]

Finding of no Significant Impact

On the basis of this assessment, the staff has concluded that

environmental impacts that would be created by this action would not be

significant and do not warrant the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of

No Significant Impact is appropriate.

The Environmental Assessment and the documents related to this

proposed action are available for public inspection and copying at the

Commission's PDR and LPDRs.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of September, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 96-24019 Filed 9-18-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P