25964 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices

requirements set forth in 10 CFR 2.1306,

and should address the considerations

contained in 10 CFR 2.1308(a).

Untimely requests and petitions may be

denied, as provided in 10 CFR

2.1308(b), unless good cause for failure

to file on time is established. In

addition, an untimely request or

petition should address the factors that

the Commission will also consider, in

reviewing untimely requests or

petitions, set forth in 10 CFR

2.1308(b)(1)–(2).

Requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene should be served

upon Jay Silberg, Esq., counsel for BGE,

at Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,

2300 N Street, NW, Washington, DC

20037 (tel: 202–663–8063; fax: 202–

663–8007; e-mail:

jay.silberg@shawpittman.com); the

General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555 (e-mail address for filings

regarding license transfer cases only:

OGCLT@NRC.gov); and the Secretary of

the Commission, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, in accordance

with 10 CFR 2.1313.

The Commission will issue a notice or

order granting or denying a hearing

request or intervention petition,

designating the issues for any hearing

that will be held and designating the

Presiding Officer. A notice granting a

hearing will be published in the Federal

Register and served on the parties to the

hearing.

As an alternative to requests for

hearing and petitions to intervene, by

June 5, 2000, persons may submit

written comments regarding the license

transfer application, as provided for in

10 CFR 2.1305. The Commission will

consider and, if appropriate, respond to

these comments, but such comments

will not otherwise constitute part of the

decisional record. Comments should be

submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001, Attention: Rulemakings

and Adjudications Staff, and should cite

the publication date and page number of

this Federal Register notice.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application dated

February 29, 2000, as supplemented

April 7, 2000, available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC,

and accessible electronically through

the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading

Room link at the NRC Web site (http:/

/www.nrc.gov).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 28th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Director, Project Directorate I, Division of

Licensing Project Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11102 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50–116]

Iowa State University, UTR–10

Research Reactor; Environmental

Assessment and Finding of No

Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering the issuance of a license

amendment to Facility License No. R–

59, issued to Iowa State University (ISU

or the licensee), that would allow

decommissioning of the UTR–10

Research Reactor located on the west

edge of the main campus of the ISU, in

Ames, Iowa.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

By application dated January 6, 1999,

the licensee submitted a

decommissioning plan in accordance

with 10 CFR 50.82(b), in order to

dismantle the 10-kilowatt (thermal) ISU

UTR–10 Argonaut Research Reactor, to

dispose of its component parts and

radioactive material, and to

decontaminate the facility in accordance

with the proposed dismantling plan to

meet the Commission’s unrestricted

release criteria. After the Commission

verifies that the release criteria have

been met, Facility License No. R–59

would be terminated. The licensee

submitted an Environmental Report,

dated January 4, 1999, that addresses

the estimated environmental impacts

resulting from decommissioning the

UTR–10 reactor.

ISU ceased operating the reactor in

May 1998. All the reactor fuel has been

removed from the facility.

A ‘‘Notice of Application for

Decommissioning Amendment, Iowa

State University UTR–10 Research

Reactor’’ was published in the Federal

Register on January 25, 1999, 64 FR

3725. A ‘‘Notice and Solicitation of

Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1405

and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning

Proposed Action to Decommission Iowa

State University UTR–10 Research

Reactor’’ was published in the Federal

Register on February 12, 1999, 64 FR

7214, and in the Ames, Iowa daily

newspaper, The Tribune, on February

19, 1999. There were no comments.

Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed action is necessary

because of ISU’s decision to cease

operations permanently. As specified in

10 CFR 50.82, any licensee may apply

to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

for authority to surrender a license

voluntarily and to decommission the

affected facility. Further, 10 CFR

51.53(d) stipulates that each applicant

for a license amendment to authorize

decommissioning of a production or

utilization facility shall submit with its

application an environmental report

that reflects any new information or

significant environmental change

associated with the proposed

decommissioning activities. ISU is

planning to use the area that would be

released for other academic purposes.

Environmental Impact of the Proposed

Action

All decontamination will be

performed by trained personnel in

accordance with previously reviewed

procedures, and will be overseen by

experienced health physics staff. Solid

and liquid waste will be removed from

the facility and managed in accordance

with NRC requirements. The operations

are calculated to result in a total

occupational radiation exposure of 2.4

person-rem. Radiation exposure to the

general public during decommissioning

is expected to be zero. This will be

accomplished by keeping the public at

a safe distance and by eliminating

effluent releases during

decommissioning.

Occupational and public exposure

may result from offsite disposal of the

low-level residual radioactive material

from the ISU. The handling, storage, and

shipment of this radioactive material are

to meet the requirements of 10 CFR

20.2006, and ‘‘Transfer for Disposal and

Manifest,’’ 49 CFR parts 100–177,

‘‘Transportation of Hazardous

Materials.’’ The proposed low-level

radioactive waste facility (LLRW) has

the licenses and permits to accept and

dispose LLRW from reactor

decommissioning projects. The

materials that are classified LLRW will

be packaged and shipped from ISU

directly to this facility for disposal.

The NRC Final Rule on License

Termination, 10 CFR 20.1402, provides

radiological criteria for release of a site

for unrestricted use. Release criteria for

unrestricted use is a maximum Total

Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) of 25

mrem per year from residual

radioactivity above background.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 87 / Thursday, May 4, 2000 / Notices 25965

Application of As Low As Reasonably

Achievable (ALARA) is also a

requirement. The results of the final

survey will be used to demonstrate that

the predicted dose to a member of the

public from any residual activity does

not exceed the 25 mrem per year dose

limit.

All liquid waste that is generated

during the decommissioning activities

will be collected in barrels and disposed

of in accordance with state and Federal

guidelines. All decommissioning

activities will be carried out within the

Nuclear Engineering Laboratory’s

confinement boundary. Additional

containment measures will be taken as

necessary to minimize the spread of

contamination within the confinement

boundary. These measures will include

wood framing covered with plastic and

low volume water misting. Airborne

releases of radioactive materials are not

expected. Dust production will be

minimized by low volume water mist at

points where dust is produced.

Based on the review of the specific

proposed activities associated with the

dismantling and decontamination of the

ISU facility, the staff has determined

that the proposed action will not

increase the probability or consequences

of accidents, no changes are being made

in the types of any effluents that may be

released off site, and there is no

significant increase in occupational or

public radiation exposure. Therefore,

there are no significant radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not involve any historic

sites. It does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, there

are no significant non-radiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The four alternatives for disposition

of the UTR–10 reactor are: DECON,

SAFSTOR, ENTOMB, and no action.

These alternatives are defined as

follows:

DECON is the alternative in which the

equipment, structures, and portions of the

facility containing radioactive contaminants

are removed or decontaminated to a level

that permits the property to be released for

unrestricted use after cessation of operations.

SAFSTOR is the alternative in which the

nuclear facility is placed and maintained in

a condition that allows the nuclear facility to

be safely stored and subsequently

decontaminated (deferred decontamination)

to levels that permit release for unrestricted

use. ENTOMB is the alternative in which

radioactive contaminants are encased in a

structurally long-lived material, such as

concrete; the entombed structure is

appropriately maintained; and continued

surveillance is carried out until the

radioactivity decays to a level permitting

release of the property for unrestricted use.

The no-action alternative would leave the

facility in its present configuration. However,

the regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(b) only allow

a limited time for this condition to exist.

The radiological impacts of SAFSTOR

would be less because of radioactive

decay prior to DECON. The ENTOMB

option would result in lower

radiological exposure but continued use

of resources. ISU has determined that

the proposed action (DECON) is the

most efficient use of the existing facility,

since it proposes to use the space that

will become available for other

academic purposes. The SAFSTOR,

ENTOMB, and no-action alternatives

would entail continued surveillance and

physical security measures to be in

place and continued monitoring by

licensee personnel.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Environmental Report

submitted on January 4, 1999, and the

Decommissioning Report submitted on

January 6, 1999, for the UTR–10 reactor.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on March 7, 2000, the staff consulted

with the Iowa State official, Donald A.

Flater, Chief, Bureau of Radiological

Health, Iowa Department of Public

Health, regarding the environmental

impact of the proposed action. The state

official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

On the basis of the environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensee’s

letters dated January 4, and 6, 1999,

which are available for public

inspection at the NRC’s Public

Document Room, the Gelman Building,

2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC

20555. Publicly available records will be

accessible electronically from the

ADAMS Public Library component on

the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov

(the Electronic Reading Room).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day

of April 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Ledyard B. Marsh,

Branch Chief, Events Assessment, Generic

Communications and Non-Power Reactors

Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement

Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation.

[FR Doc. 00–11103 Filed 5–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

Agency Information Collection

Request

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health

Review Commission.

ACTION: Notice; Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request.

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and

Health Review Commission (OSHRC)

submitted the following requirements to

OMB for review and clearance under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1965, Pub.

L. 104–13. Interested persons may

obtain copies of the submissions by

calling the OSHRC Clearance Officer

listed. Send comments regarding this

information collection to the OMB

reviewer listed and to the OSHRC

Clearance Officer, Occupational Safety

and Health Review Commission, 1120

20th Street, N.W., Ninth Floor,

Washington, DC 20036–3419.

DATES: Submit written comments on or

before May 18, 2000.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

OMB Number: Not applicable, new

submission.

Form Number: Not applicable.

Type of Review: Emergency—

Approval requested by: 05/26/00.

Title: Evaluation of ‘‘Settlement Part’’

and Evaluation of ‘‘E–Z Trial’’.

Description: Information collection is

required to evaluate the Review

Commission’s ‘‘Settlement Part’’

process. The Review Commission is also

collecting information from key

stakeholders to evaluate the ‘‘E–Z–

Trial’’ program.

Respondents: Employers and/or their

representatives, labor organizations and

staff of the Office of the Solicitor of

Labor who have been involved in cases

with the Review Commission.

Estimated Number of Responses: 80.

Estimated Burden Hours Per

Response: 30 minutes.

Estimated Total Reporting Burden:

130 hours.