19536 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for

leave to intervene or who has been

admitted as a party may amend the

petition without requesting leave of the

Board up to 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, but such an amended

petition must satisfy the specificity

requirements described above.

Not later than 15 days prior to the first

prehearing conference scheduled in the

proceeding, a petitioner shall file a

supplement to the petition to intervene

which must include a list of the

contentions which are sought to be

litigated in the matter. Each contention

must consist of a specific statement of

the issue of law or fact to be raised or

controverted. In addition, the petitioner

shall provide a brief explanation of the

bases of the contention and a concise

statement of the alleged facts or expert

opinion which support the contention

and on which the petitioner intends to

rely in proving the contention at the

hearing. The petitioner must also

provide references to those specific

sources and documents of which the

petitioner is aware and on which the

petitioner intends to rely to establish

those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner

must provide sufficient information to

show that a genuine dispute exists with

the applicant on a material issue of law

or fact. Contentions shall be limited to

matters within the scope of the

amendment under consideration. The

contention must be one which, if

proven, would entitle the petitioner to

relief. A petitioner who fails to file such

a supplement which satisfies these

requirements with respect to at least one

contention will not be permitted to

participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become

parties to the proceeding, subject to any

limitations in the order granting leave to

intervene, and have the opportunity to

participate fully in the conduct of the

hearing, including the opportunity to

present evidence and cross-examine

witnesses.

If the amendment is issued before the

expiration of the 30-day hearing period,

the Commission will make a final

determination on the issue of no

significant hazards consideration. If a

hearing is requested, the final

determination will serve to decide when

the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves no

significant hazards consideration, the

Commission may issue the amendment

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to

George L. Edgar, Esq., Morgan, Lewis

and Bockius, 1800 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20036, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(I)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated April 9, 1998, which

is 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, located at the

University of Texas at Arlington Library,

Government Publications/Maps, 702

College, P.O. Box 19497, Arlington, TX

76019.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Timothy J. Polich,

Project Manager, Project Directorate IV–1,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–10334 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Notice of Amendment to Certificate of

Compliance GDP–2 for the U.S.

Enrichment Corporation, Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plant, Portsmouth,

Ohio; Docket 70–7002

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 described below.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(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 (PORTS). 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 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
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Notices 19537

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

27, 1998.

Brief description of amendment: The

United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC) submitted a certificate

amendment request for PORTS to add

four facilities including the conversion

shop and cleaning building (X–700), the

maintenance and stores building (X–

720), the chemical and engineering

building (X–760) and the storage

warehouse (XT–847) to Technical Safety

Requirement (TSR) Section 2.8 entitled

‘‘Specific TSRs for X–710 Laboratory,’’

and to delete the associated operational

mode descriptions in TSR Section 2.8.1.

An NRC Inspector Followup Item, 70–

7002/97–206–10B, which was identified

in an NRC nuclear criticality safety

inspection report for PORTS dated

September 29, 1997, noted that no

specific Criticality Accident Alarm

System (CAAS) TSR existed for the X–

700, X–720, X–760 and XT–847

facilities even though fissile material

operations (FMOs) involving greater

than 700 grams of U235 at an

enrichment equal to or greater than

1.0% U235 could be conducted in those

facilities, and CAAS coverage was being

provided. As such, USEC has proposed

to apply the existing NRC-approved

CAAS TSRs for X–710 in TSR Section

2.8, to X–700, X–720, X–760 and XT–

847. In addition, USEC has proposed to

delete the three operational modes

described in TSR Section 2.8.1, namely

(1) ‘‘General Analytical—analyses of

production, ES&H, waste management,

technical support, maintenance/

fabrication activities,’’ (2) ‘‘Uranium

Sampling—subsampling uranium

hexafluoride,’’ and (3) ‘‘Polybottle

Operations—movement of polybottles to

and from labs and storage areas,’’ since

there are no specific operational modes

associated with the TSRs for X–700, X–

710, X–720, X–760 and XT–847.

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.

This amendment (1) adds the X–700,

X–720, X–760 and XT–847 facilities to

TSR Section 2.8 entitled ‘‘Specific TSRs

for X–710 Laboratory,’’ since similar

FMOs are conducted in these facilities

and (2) deletes the associated

operational modes listed in TSR 2.8.1.

This amendment would enhance safety

by adding more rigor to CAAS

operability in terms of maintenance,

calibration, testing, etc., in the four

additional facilities. In addition,

deleting the current operational modes

in TSR 2.8.1, which do not apply to TSR

2.8.3.1 (CAAS TSR) since the CAAS is

required to be operable at all times

when more than 700 grams of U235 at

an enrichment equal to or greater than

1.0% U235 is present in the facility, will

have no significant safety impact. As

such, this amendment will not result in

a significant change in the types or

significant increase in 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.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not result in a

significant increase in individual or

cumulative occupational radiation

exposures.

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.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will 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.

For the reasons provided in the

assessment of criterion 1, the proposed

amendment will not result in new or

different kinds of accidents.

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 1, the proposed

amendment will 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 1, the proposed

amendment will not result in an overall

decrease in the effectiveness of the

plant’s safety program.

The staff has not identified any

safeguards or security related

implications from the proposed

amendment. 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 sixty (60)

days after issuance by NRC.

Certificate of Compliance No. GDP–2:

Amendment will revise PORTS TSR

Section 2.8.

Local Public Document Room

location: Portsmouth Public Library,

1220 Gallia Street, Portsmouth, Ohio

45662.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 98–10327 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P