Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices 31619

similar facilities, specifically laboratories.

Heat dissipation is generally accomplished

by use of a cooling tower located on the roof

of the building. These cooling towers

typically are on the order of 10′ × 10′ × 10′

and are comparable to cooling towers

associated with the air-conditioning systems

of large office buildings.

Make-up for the cooling system is readily

available and usually obtained from the local

water supply. Radioactive gaseous effluents

are limited to Ar-41 and the release of

radioactive liquid effluents can be carefully

monitored and controlled. Liquid wastes are

collected in storage tanks to allow for decay

and monitoring prior to dilution and release

to the sanitary sewer system. Solid

radioactive wastes are packaged and shipped

offsite for storage at NRC-approved sites. The

transportation of such waste is done in

accordance with existing NRC–DOT

regulations in approved shipping containers.

Chemical and sanitary waste systems are

similar to those existing at other similar

laboratories and buildings.

Environmental Effects of Site Preparation

and Facility Construction

Construction of such facilities invariably

occurs in areas that have already been

disturbed by other building construction and,

in some cases, solely within an already

existing building. Therefore, construction

would not be expected to have any

significant effect on the terrain, vegetation,

wildlife or nearby waters or aquatic life. The

societal, economic and aesthetic impacts of

construction would be no greater than those

associated with the construction of a large

office building or similar research facility.

Environmental Effects of Facility Operation

Release of thermal effluents from a reactor

of less than 2 MWt will not have a significant

effect on the environment. This small amount

of waste heat is generally rejected to the

atmosphere by means of small cooling

towers. Extensive drift and/or fog will not

occur at this low power level.

Release of routine gaseous effluents can be

limited to Ar-41, which Is generated by

neutron activation of air. Even this will be

kept as low as practicable by using gases

other than air for supporting experiments.

Yearly doses to un-restricted areas will be at

or below established guidelines in 10 CFR

part 20 limits. Routine releases of radioactive

liquid effluents can be carefully monitored

and controlled in a manner that will ensure

compliance with current standards. Solid

radioactive wastes will be shipped to an

authorized disposal site in approved

containers. These wastes should not require

more than a few shipping containers a year.

Based on experience with other research

reactors, specifically TRIGA reactors

operating in the 1 to 2 MWt range, the annual

release of gaseous and liquid effluents to

unrestricted areas should be less than 30

curies and 0.01 curies, respectively.

No release of potentially harmful chemical

substances will occur during normal

operation. Small amounts of chemicals and/

or high-solid content water may be released

from the facility through the sanitary sewer

during periodic blowdown of the cooling

tower or from laboratory experiments.

Other potential effects of the facility, such

as aesthetics, noise, societal or impact on

local flora and fauna are expected to be too

small to measure.

Environmental Effects of Accidents

Accidents ranging from the failure of

experiments up to the largest core damage

and fission product release considered

possible result in doses that are less than 10

CFR part 20 guidelines and are considered

negligible with respect to the environment.

Unavoidable Effects of Facility Construction

and Operation

The unavoidable effects of construction

and operation involve the materials used in

construction that cannot be recovered and

the fissionable material used in the reactor.

No adverse impact on the environment is

expected from either of these unavoidable

effects.

Alternatives to Construction and Operation

of the Facility

To accomplish the objectives associated

with research reactors, there are no suitable

alternatives. Some of these objectives are

training of students in the operation of

reactors, production of radioisotopes, and use

of neutron and gamma ray beams to conduct

experiments.

Long-Term Effects of Facility Construction

and Operation

The long-tern effects of research facilities

are considered to be beneficial as a result of

the contribution to scientific knowledge and

training. Because of the relatively small

amount of capital resources involved and the

small impact on the environment, very little

irreversible and irretrievable commitment is

associated with such facilities.

Costs and Benefits of Facility Alternatives

The costs are on the order of several

millions of dollars with very little

environmental impact. The benefits include,

but are not limited to, some combination of

the following: conduct of activation analyses,

conduct of neutron radiography, training of

operating personnel, and education of

students. Some of these activities could be

conducted using particle accelerators or

radioactive sources which would be more

costly and less efficient. There is no

reasonable alternative to a nuclear research

reactor for conducting this spectrum of

activities.

Conclusion

The staff concludes that there will be no

significant environmental impact associated

with the licensing of research reactors or

critical facilities designed to operate at power

levels of 2 MWt or lower and that no

environmental impact statements are

required to be written for the issuance of

construction permits or operating licenses for

such facilities.

[FR Doc. 00–12554 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Experts’ Meeting on High-Burnup Fuel

Behavior Under Postulated Accident

Conditions

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission will hold a meeting to

further develop a Phenomena

Identification and Ranking Table (PIRT)

for fuel rod response to loss of coolant

accidents (LOCAs). PIRTs have been

used at NRC since 1988, and they

provide a structured way to obtain a

technical understanding that is needed

to address certain issues. About twenty

of the world’s best technical experts are

participating in this activity, and the

experts represent a balance between

industry, universities, foreign

researchers, and regulatory

organizations. The current PIRT activity

is addressing postulated LOCAs in a

BWR and a PWR.

DATES: May 31–June 2, 2000, 8:30 a.m.–

5:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Room T10A1 (TWFN) of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545

Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

meeting agenda will be posted on the

NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/

RES/meetings.htm by May 25, 2000. The

meeting is open to the public. Attendees

will need to obtain a visitor badge at the

TWFN building lobby.

31620 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 97 / Thursday, May 18, 2000 / Notices

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Ralph Meyer, SMSAB, Division of

Systems Analysis and Regulatory

Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research, Washington, DC

20555–0001, telephone (301) 415–6789.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day

of May 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Charles E. Rossi,

Director, Division of Systems Analysis and

Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear

Regulatory Research.

[FR Doc. 00–12555 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards, Subcommittee Meeting on

Severe Accident Management;

Cancellation

The meeting of the ACRS

Subcommittee on Severe Accident

Management scheduled for May 18,

2000, in Room T–2B3, 11545 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, Maryland has been

canceled. Notice of this meeting was

previously published in the Federal

Register on Monday, May 8, 2000 (65

FR 26644).

Further information contact: Mr. Paul

A. Boehnert, cognizant ACRS staff

engineer, (telephone 301/415–8065)

between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (EDT).

Dated: May 11, 2000.

Howard J. Larson,

Acting Associate Director for Technical

Support, ACRS/ACNW.

[FR Doc. 00–12552 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Risk Analysis and Evaluation of

Regulatory Options for Nuclear

Byproduct Material Systems

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is announcing the

availability of NUREG/CR–6642, ‘‘Risk

Analysis and Evaluation of Regulatory

Options for Nuclear Byproduct Material

Systems,’’ dated December 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of NUREG/CR–6642

may be obtained by writing to the

Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, P.O. Box

37082, Washington, DC 20402–9328.

Copies are also available from the

National Technical Information Service,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,

Virginia 22161. A copy of the document

is also available for inspection and/or

copying for a fee in the NRC Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW

(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555–

0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Torre Taylor, Mail Stop TWFN 9-C–24,

Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301)

415–7900, e-mail: tmt@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

25, 1999 (64 FR 46456), NRC published

draft NUREG/CR–6642, ‘‘Risk Analysis

and Evaluation of Regulatory Options

for Nuclear Byproduct Material

Systems,’’ for public comment. All

comments received during the comment

period were reviewed in the preparation

of the final NUREG report. The final

version of NUREG/CR–6642 is now

available. NUREG/CR–6642 presents a

detailed, comparative risk analysis of

nuclear byproduct materials, organized

into groups of activities or ‘‘systems,’’

such as nuclear pharmacy, pool

irradiators, and industrial radiography.

It also describes the methodology used

in the risk analysis and provides the

results of the analysis.

Electronic Access

NUREG/CR–6642 will also be

available at NRC’s web site under

Reference Library—Technical Reports or

directly at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/

NUREGS/CR6642/index.html.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day

of March, 2000.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Catherine Haney,

Acting Chief, Rulemaking and Guidance

Branch, Division of Industrial and Medical

Nuclear Safety, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 00–12553 Filed 5–17–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

SUMMARY: In accordance with the

requirement of Section 3506 (c)(2)(A) of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

which provides opportunity for public

comment on new or revised data

collections, the Railroad Board (RRB)

will publish periodic summaries of

proposed data collections.

Comments are invited on: (a) Whether

the proposed information collection is

necessary for the proper performance of

the functions of the agency, including

whether the information has practical

utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB’s

estimate of the burden of the collection

of the information; (c) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information to be collected; and (d)

ways to minimize the burden related to

the collection of information on

respondents, including the use of

automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

Title and purpose of information

collection: Statement of Claimant or

other Person: OMB 3220–0183.

To support an application for an

annuity under Section 2 of the Railroad

Retirement Act (RRA) or for

unemployment benefits under Section 2

of the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act (RUIA), pertinent

information and proofs must be

furnished for the RRB to determine

benefit entitlement. Circumstances may

require an applicant or other person(s)

having knowledge of facts relevant to

the applicant’s eligibility for an annuity

or benefits to provide written statements

supplementing or changing statements

previously provided by the applicant.