23812 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices

II, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW, Suite 23T85, Atlanta,

Georgia within ten days of the date of

this Order.

3. Within ten days of the date of this

Order, the Licensee shall complete a

leak test pursuant to Byproduct Material

License No. 45–24851–02, Condition

14.A.(1), C and D, to confirm the

absence of leakage of radioactive

materials and to establish the levels of

residual radioactive contamination. The

Licensee shall, within five days of the

date the leak test results are known,

submit the results of the leak test in

writing to the NRC Region II office. This

information should be addressed to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region II,

at the address given in Paragraph A.2.

above. If the test reveals the presence of

0.005 microcurie or greater of removable

contamination, the Licensee shall

immediately contact Mr. Douglas M.

Collins, NRC Region II, at the telephone

number given in Paragraph A.2. above.

4. Within 30 days of the date of this

Order, the Licensee shall cause all

licensed material in its possession to be

transferred to an authorized recipient in

accordance with 10 CFR 30.41 and shall

submit for NRC approval a completed

form NRC–314. This information should

be addressed to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region II, at the

address given in Paragraph A.2. above.

5. At least two working days prior to

the date of the transfer of any licensed

material, the Licensee shall notify Mr.

Douglas M. Collins, NRC Region II, at

the telephone number given in

Paragraph A.2. above, so that the NRC

may, if it elects, observe the transfer of

the material to the authorized recipient.

6. Within seven working days

following completion of the transfer, the

Licensee shall provide to the Regional

Administrator, NRC Region II, in

writing, under oath or affirmation: (1)

Confirmation, on form NRC–314, that all

licensed material has been transferred;

(2) the last date that the licensed

material was used; (3) a copy of the leak

test performed prior to transfer; (4) a

copy of the survey performed in

accordance with 10 CFR 30.36(j)(2); and

(5) a copy of the certification from the

authorized recipient that the licensed

material has been received. This

information shall be addressed to the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region II,

at the address given in Paragraph A.2.

above.

B. It is further ordered:

1. Upon a written finding by the

Regional Administrator, NRC Region II,

that no licensed material remains in the

Licensee’s possession and that other

applicable provisions of 10 CFR 30.36

have been fulfilled, Byproduct Material

License No. 45–24851–02 is revoked.

The Director, Office of Enforcement,

may relax or rescind, in writing, any of

the above provisions upon

demonstration of good cause by the

Licensee.

VI

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, the

Licensee must, and any other person

adversely affected by this Order may,

submit an answer to this Order, and

may request a hearing on this Order,

within 20 days of the date of this Order.

Where good cause is shown,

consideration will be given to extending

the time to request a hearing. A request

for extension of time must be made in

writing to the Director, Office of

Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555,

and include a statement of good cause

for the extension. The answer may

consent to this Order. Unless the answer

consents to this Order, the answer shall,

in writing and under oath or

affirmation, specifically admit or deny

each allegation or charge made in this

Order and shall set forth the matters of

fact and law on which the Licensee or

other person adversely affected relies

and the reasons as to why the Order

should not have been issued. Any

answer or request for a hearing shall be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief,

Rulemakings Adjudications Staff,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

Copies also shall be sent to the

Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Deputy

Assistant General Counsel for

Enforcement at the same address, and to

the Regional Administrator, NRC Region

II, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth

Street, SW Suite 23T85, Atlanta, Georgia

30303 and to MPS if the answer or

hearing request is by a person other than

MPS. If a person other than MPS

requests a hearing, that person shall set

forth with particularity the manner in

which his interest is adversely affected

by this Order and shall address the

criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d).

If a hearing is requested by the

Licensee, or a person whose interest is

adversely affected, the Commission will

issue an Order designating the time and

place of any hearing. If a hearing is held,

the issue to be considered at such

hearing shall be whether this Order

should be sustained.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i),

MPS may, in addition to demanding a

hearing, at the time the answer is filed

or sooner, move the presiding officer to

set aside the provisions of this Order

which are immediately effective on the

ground that those provisions, including

the need for immediate effectiveness,

are not based on adequate evidence but

on mere suspicion, unfounded

allegations, or error.

In the absence of any request for

hearing, or written approval of an

extension of time in which to request a

hearing, the provisions specified in

Section IV above shall be final 20 days

from the date of this Order without

further order or proceedings. If an

extension of time for requesting a

hearing has been approved, the

provisions specified in Section V shall

be final when the extension expires if a

hearing request has not been received.

An answer or a request for hearing shall

not stay the provisions of this order

which are immediately effective.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Thomas T. Martin,

Acting Deputy Executive Director for

Regulatory Effectiveness.

[FR Doc. 98–11502 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–306]

Northern States Power Company;

Notice of Withdrawal of Application for

Amendment to Facility Operating

License

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) has

granted the request of Northern States

Power Company (the licensee) to

withdraw its February 10, 1998,

application for proposed amendment to

Facility Operating License No. DPR–60

for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating

Plant, Unit 2, located in Goodhue

County, Minnesota.

The proposed amendment requested a

limited duration change to the Prairie

Island Technical Specifications that

would allow a reduction in the boron

concentration required for Mode 6.

The Commission had previously

published notices in the Minneapolis

Star Tribune on February 16, 1998, and

in the Red Wing Republican Eagle and

Minneapolis Star Tribune on February

17, 1998, requesting comments on the

NRC staff’s proposed determination that

the proposed amendment involved no

significant hazards considerations.

However, by letter dated March 31,

1998, the licensee withdrew the

proposed change.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 83 /Thursday, April 30, 1998 / Notices 23813

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated February 10, 1998,

and the licensee’s letter dated March 31,

1998, which withdrew the application

for license amendment. The above

documents 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

located at the Minneapolis Public

Library, Technology and Science

Department, 300 Nicollet Mall,

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Tae Kim,

Senior Project Manager, Project Directorate

III–1, Division of Reactor Projects—III/IV,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11501 Filed 4–29–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–7001 Certificate No. GDP–

1 EA 98–156]

In the Matter of United States

Enrichment Corporation Bethesda,

MD; Confirmatory Order Modifying

Certificate (Effective Immediately)

I

United States Enrichment Corporation

(Corporation) is the holder of Certificate

No. GDP–1 issued by the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC or

Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part

76. The certificate authorizes the

Corporation to operate the Paducah

Gaseous Diffusion Plant (Paducah) for

the purpose of enriching uranium up to

2.75 percent 235U by weight. The

certificate, originally issued on

November 26, 1996, is due to expire on

December 31, 1998.

II

Since transition to NRC regulatory

oversight on March 3, 1997, the

Corporation has been operating its

withdrawal facilities (Buildings C–310/

310A and C–315) with liquid uranium

hexafluoride (UF6) inventories in

process piping, condensers, and

accumulators. The certificate conditions

placed no restrictions on those

inventories, thereby allowing the

accumulators to contain any amount up

to their full capacity. A certificate

amendment request dated October 31,

1997, submitted by the Corporation,

requested an update to the Safety

Analysis Report (SAR) to include a new

Chapter 4, ‘‘Accident Analysis.’’ An

NRC request for additional information

(RAI) dated February 5, 1998, identified

questions about the conservative nature

of assumptions for the seismic accident

scenario in Chapter 4. In response to the

RAI, the Corporation reviewed

Paducah’s liquid UF6 withdrawal

facilities’ records and determined that

the seismic accident analysis

assumption of no liquid UF6 in both

facilities’ accumulators underestimated

the potential source term from the

withdrawal facilities for the seismic

accident scenario. In telephone

discussions with the NRC on February

18, 1998, the NRC made it clear to the

Corporation that a notification pursuant

to 10 CFR 76.9(b) was warranted.

Thereafter, the Corporation provided

verbal notification to NRC Region III on

February 19, 1998, and a follow-up

written report on February 20, 1998,

identifying the potential

nonconservative assumption in the SAR

updated accident analysis. Then, on

February 24, 1998, in telephone

discussions with NRC, the Corporation

also provided information that the

withdrawal facilities’ current operations

were outside the Certification SAR

because the Chapter 4 seismic accident

analysis assumed no liquid UF6 in

Building C–315 withdrawal facility’s

process piping, condensers, and

accumulators. In addition, the source

term from Building C–310/310A was

probably too low.

Based on the NRC’s review of the

certificate amendment request dated

October 31, 1997, submitted by the

Corporation and the current

Certification SAR, the NRC has

concluded that violations of NRC

requirements occurred. The violations

involve an inadequate accident analysis

and a failure to comply with the

conditions of certification. The

Commission’s regulations in 10 CFR

76.85 require the Corporation, as the

certificate holder, to perform an analysis

of potential accidents and consequences

to establish the basis for limiting

conditions for operations and to provide

assurance that plant operation will be

conducted in a manner to prevent or to

mitigate the consequences from a

reasonable spectrum of postulated

accidents, including natural

phenomena. Further, 10 CFR 76.85

requires that the assessment consider

the full range of operations, including

operations at the maximum capacity

contemplated. The Commission’s

regulations in 10 CFR 76.51 require the

Corporation, as the certificate holder, to

comply with the conditions set forth in

the Certificate of Compliance. Condition

8 of the Certificate of Compliance (GDP–

1) for the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion

Plant requires the Corporation to

conduct its operations in accordance

with the statements and representations

contained in the certification

application and subsequent

amendments. The certification

application includes Safety Analysis

Report (SAR) Chapter 4, ‘‘Accident

Analysis,’’ Section 4.6, ‘‘Natural

Phenomena,’’ describing assumptions

made on facility operations to determine

the consequences of postulated

seismically-induced failures. The

Chapter 4 seismic accident analysis is

based on an inappropriately low

assumption of the amount of liquid UF6

in Buildings C–310/310A and C–315

withdrawal facilities’ process piping,

condensers, and accumulators in

calculating the possible releases.

Current facility configuration and

operations are such that significantly

higher volumes (on the order of several

thousand pounds (lbs)) of liquid UF6

may be present. Therefore the accident

analysis in the Certification SAR is not

in compliance with 10 CFR 76.85 and

operation of that facility is not in

compliance with Condition 8.

Furthermore, operation with the larger

amount of liquid UF6 in the withdrawal

facilities is safety significant because

failure could result in potential on-site

fatalities/injuries and off-site injuries.

During a seismic event of 0.05 g peak

ground acceleration, failure of

equipment in both withdrawal facilities

would likely occur with releases of

liquid UF6. If the 0.05 g seismic event

occurred with substantial amounts of

liquid UF6 in those facilities, the on-site

and off-site consequences would exceed

any analyzed accident and be

unacceptable.

III

By letter dated February 25, 1998, the

Corporation committed to implement

the administrative control as stated

below:

1. Access to Buildings C–310/310A

and C–315 will be limited to only those

individuals essential to operations,

inspections, or those personnel

performing any modifications to fix the

identified seismic failures.

By letter dated March 5, 1998, the

Corporation committed to implement

the following additional administrative

controls in order to mitigate the

consequences of a seismic event:

2. When flow of liquid UF6 has been

diverted to the on-line accumulator in

C–310A or C–315 for greater than one

hour (nominal 2,000 and 5,000 lbs

liquid UF6, respectively, at one hour),