59910 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices

1The USEC Privatization Act, Pub. L. 104–134,

amends 1701(c)(2) of the Atomic Energy Act, by

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.’’

discussion of matters and specific issues

that were not completed during

previous meetings, as time and

availability of information permit.

Procedures for the conduct of and

participation in ACNW meetings were

published in the Federal Register on

September 2, 1997 (62 FR 46382). In

accordance with these procedures, oral

or written statements may be presented

by members of the public, electronic

recordings will be permitted only

during those portions of the meeting

that are open to the public, and

questions may be asked only by

members of the Committee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the Chief, Nuclear Waste Branch, Mr.

Richard K. Major, as far in advance as

practicable so that appropriate

arrangements can be made to schedule

the necessary time during the meeting

for such statements. Use of still, motion

picture, and television cameras during

this meeting will be limited to selected

portions of the meeting as determined

by the ACNW Chairman. Information

regarding the time to be set aside for this

purpose may be obtained by contacting

the Chief, Nuclear Waste Branch, prior

to the meeting. In view of the possibility

that the schedule for ACNW meetings

may be adjusted by the Chairman as

necessary to facilitate the conduct of the

meeting, persons planning to attend

should notify Mr. Major as to their

particular needs.

Further information regarding topics

to be discussed, whether the meeting

has been canceled or rescheduled, the

Chairman’s ruling on requests for the

opportunity to present oral statements

and the time allotted therefor can be

obtained by contacting Mr. Richard K.

Major, Chief, Nuclear Waste Branch

(telephone 301/415–7366), between 8:00

A.M. and 5:00 P.M. EST.

ACNW meeting notices, meeting

transcripts, and letter reports are now

available on FedWorld from the ‘‘NRC

MAIN MENU.’’ Direct Dial Access

number to FedWorld is (800) 303–9672;

the local direct dial number is 703–321–

3339.

Dated: October 30, 1997.

John C. Hoyle,

Acting, Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 97–29241 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 70–7001; 70–7002]

Memorandum of Understanding

Between the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Department of

Energy on Cooperation Regarding the

Gaseous Diffusion Plants

AGENCIES: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and Department of Energy.

ACTION: Memorandum of Understanding

between the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Department of

Energy.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) and the Department

of Energy (DOE) have entered into a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

on cooperation regarding the gaseous

diffusion plants. The MOU is intended

to describe the various responsibilities

with respect to continued cooperation

between NRC and DOE, and to set forth

a framework for coordination of issues

now that NRC has assumed regulatory

oversight. The text of the MOU is set

forth below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert C. Pierson, telephone 301–415–

7192, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards, MS T–8A–33, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck,

Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety, and

Safeguards, NMSS.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the

Department of Energy and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission; Cooperation

Regarding the Gaseous Diffusion Plants

I. Background

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (the Act),

as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992

(42 U.S.C. 2297 et seq.), created the United

States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), a

government corporation, for the purpose of

managing and operating the uranium

enrichment enterprise owned and previously

operated by the Department of Energy (DOE).

USEC leased those portions of the plants

related to gaseous diffusion plant (GDP)

operations from DOE. Certain portions of the

plants, such as waste storage areas and burial

grounds, are not leased by USEC and remain

under DOE’s jurisdiction. The Act also

required that the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) establish standards for

regulation of the GDPs located in Paducah,

Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio, in order to

protect the worker and public health and

safety and to provide for the common defense

and security. NRC published its final

standards, 10 CFR part 76, ‘‘Certification of

Gaseous Diffusion Plants,’’ on September 23,

1994 (59 FR 48944). The Act also directed

NRC to establish and implement an annual 1

certification process by which the gaseous

diffusion plants would be certified by NRC

for compliance with these standards. For

areas where plant operations are not yet in

compliance, the Act provided that DOE will

prepare compliance plans. Based upon a

review of the certification applications and

the DOE-prepared compliance plans

submitted by USEC, on September 16, 1996,

a Notice of Certification Decision for the

USEC to operate the GDPs and a Finding of

No Significant Impact (the notice) was issued

by NRC, 61 FR 49360 (September 19, 1996).

After disposition of public comments

received in response to NRC’s Notice of

Certification Decision, NRC issued a

Certificate of Compliance and a compliance

plan approval for each plant on November

26, 1996. The Certificates of Compliance

became effective and NRC assumed

regulatory oversight of the GDPs on March 3,

1997.

This Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) is designed to supplement the

‘‘Agreement Defining Security

Responsibilities at the Paducah and

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants

Between the Department of Energy’s Office of

Safeguards and Security and the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission’s Division of

Security,’’ dated March 10, 1995, and replace

the ‘‘Agreement Establishing Guidance for

NRC Inspection Activities at the Paducah and

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants

between Department of Energy Regulatory

Oversight Manager and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission,’’ dated August 11, 1994.

II. Authority and Scope

Pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, including in particular the

provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 1992

on regulation and certification as generally

described above, NRC and DOE are issuing

this MOU to describe the various

responsibilities with respect to continued

cooperation between NRC and DOE, and to

set forth a framework for coordination of

issues now that NRC has assumed regulatory

oversight.

A. NRC assumed regulatory oversight for

nuclear safety, safeguards, and security at the

leased portions of the GDPs on March 3,

1997, with the exception of the Highly

Enriched Uranium (HEU) Refeed activity in

Buildings X–326 and X–705 at the

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

B. The Regulatory Oversight Agreement

(ROA), Exhibit D to the Lease Agreement

between DOE and USEC, sets forth the

requirements and safety basis for the

operation of DOE activities in the leased

areas of the GDPs. The activities governed by

the ROA consist of HEU Refeed activity in

Buildings X–326 and X–705 at the

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Nothing
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices 59911

2Matters of common interest concern

modifications to GDP site areas, railways, roadways,

structures, systems, components, hazards, activities,

tenant mix, population, etc., which can impact

safety, safeguards or security risks (likelihood or

consequence) under DOE or NRC jurisdiction

during normal, off-normal or emergency conditions.

The tenant mix includes multiple organizations

other than DOE and USEC with GDP site space

leased from DOE. These organizations are not

staffed with GDP workers, i.e. National Guard,

Defense Logistic Agency, etc.

in this MOU is intended to restrict or expand

the authority of DOE or to affect or otherwise

alter the terms of the ROA until by its terms

it ceases to apply to facilities or activities for

which NRC assumes regulatory oversight.

C. NRC certification of the GDPs is in part

conditioned upon USEC adherence to a

Compliance Plan prepared and approved by

DOE for each GDP in accordance with the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and

10 CFR Part 76. Modification(s) to the

Compliance Plan requires DOE approval

prior to submittal to NRC for final approval.

D. NRC re-certification of the GDPs is in

part conditioned upon USEC compliance

with all terms and conditions of the NRC

certificate of compliance.

E. Nothing in this MOU is intended to

restrict or otherwise limit the authority of

NRC to exercise its full regulatory authority,

including both inspection and enforcement

authority.

III. Interfaces Between DOE and NRC

A. Exchange of Information and Technical

Staff Support

1. DOE and NRC agree to make available

to each other information and technical

support concerning matters of common

interest.2 DOE and NRC agree to meet, as

necessary, at mutually agreeable times and

locations to exchange information on matters

of common interest.

2. DOE agrees to notify NRC of the

following:

a. Substantial proposed changes to the GDP

site involving matters of common interest.

b. Substantial proposed changes to the

Lease Agreement between the Department of

Energy and the United States Enrichment

Corporation, dated July 1, 1993.

c. Substantial proposed changes to the DOE

Regulatory Oversight Agreement between

DOE and USEC.

d. Substantial proposed changes to ‘‘USEC

AND DOE Resolution of Shared Site Issues at

the Gaseous Diffusion Plants,’’ dated January

24, 1996.

e. Substantial proposed changes to the

HEU Refeed Program.

3. NRC agrees to notify DOE of the

following:

a. Substantial proposed changes in USEC’s

operations potentially impacting safety,

safeguards and/or security on site.

b. Substantial changes to the conditions or

terms of the NRC certificate of compliance

issued to USEC.

c. Substantial changes to USEC’s

compliance with the conditions or terms of

the certificate of compliance issued to USEC.

4. NRC will consult with DOE on health,

safety and environmental issues at the GDPs

when preparing the required annual report to

Congress on the GDPs.

5. NRC and DOE will share all audit,

assessment, and inspection reports on shared

systems or areas.

6. DOE and NRC will coordinate with each

other for proposed enforcement actions

involving those shared systems or areas in

Buildings X–326 and X–705 at the

Portsmouth GDP where there is HEU activity.

USEC is responsible for all system

components required for USEC LEU/GDP

operability. These components are subject to

NRC inspection and enforcement, although

they may be physically located in DOE

controlled space.

7. Each agency recognizes that it is

responsible for the identification, protection,

control and accounting of information used

or otherwise furnished in connection with

this MOU in accordance with its established

procedures. This information consists of

classified, proprietary, Safeguards

Information (SGI) and Unclassified

Controlled Nuclear Information (UCNI).

B. Emergency Response

1. In accordance with the Federal

Radiological Emergency Response Plan

(FRERP), the NRC is the Lead Federal Agency

(LFA) for an emergency involving DOEowned GDPs operating under NRC regulatory

oversight. If the origin of the emergency is

determined to be in the DOE portion of the

plant, then the LFA would be transferred to

DOE. DOE and NRC will develop appropriate

joint procedures which will ensure

compatibility in response to emergencies in

leased areas under NRC regulatory oversight.

2. The emergency planning requirements

for GDPs, including offsite notifications and

emergency classification levels and their

corresponding emergency action levels, will

be in accordance with the site emergency

plans and procedures which will be

coordinated among shared site regulators and

tenants before and during implementation.

C. Referrals

1. DOE will not conduct inspections of

nuclear safety, safeguards, and security in

leased areas, except where there is shared

safety, safeguards, or security features in

USEC leased space, or as related to the HEU

Refeed Program and DOE nuclear material

and activities in USEC leased space.

However, DOE personnel may, during the

course of performing DOE activities, identify

nuclear safety, safeguards or security

concerns within the area of NRC

responsibility. In such instances these and

any other nuclear safety, safeguards or

security concerns within NRC’s purview

identified by DOE will be referred to the NRC

Resident Inspector for appropriate action. If

DOE identifies situations with immediate

safety, safeguards, or security significance, it

will immediately communicate this

information to USEC and the NRC Resident

Inspector.

2. Similarly, although NRC will not

conduct nuclear safety, safeguards, and

security inspections in non-leased areas, NRC

personnel may, during the course of

performing NRC activities, identify nuclear

safety, safeguards or security concerns within

the area of DOE responsibility. NRC will refer

these concerns to the DOE Site Manager for

appropriate disposition. If the NRC identifies

situations with immediate safety, safeguards,

or security significance, it will immediately

communicate this information to USEC and

the DOE Site Manager.

3. Each agency will be responsible for

processing, under its established program(s),

allegations—declarations, statements or

assertions of impropriety or inadequacy

whose validity has not been established—and

employee complaints or concerns of

regulatory significance. Each agency will

keep the other agency informed, as

appropriate, of the existence, status and

resolution of such allegations, complaints, or

concerns. Each agency will assure that each

allegation, complaint, or concern is promptly

referred to the agency or entity that has

jurisdiction over the allegation, complaint, or

concern.

D. Coordinations

1. DOE will coordinate with USEC to

inform NRC of reportable events, under

DOE’s occurrence reporting system, for

which DOE is responsible.

2. DOE and NRC shall consult with each

other before disclosure of information related

to this MOU to preclude dissemination of

information which may be exempt from

disclosure under the Freedom of Information

Act. It is NRC’s practice to place all docket

related DOE correspondence that is not

classified or proprietary in the Public

Document Room, unless DOE specifically

requests, with appropriate justification, that

the information be withheld.

3. On occasion, DOE may need to move its

nuclear materials not in process through

USEC areas to another location. NRC will not

require DOE to fill out Forms 741 and/or 742

if the nuclear materials not in process only

pass through USEC areas, i.e., not normally

involving more than one shift, and remaining

under DOE’s continuous custody.

IV. Points of Contact

A. The principal senior management

contacts for this MOU will be the DOE

Assistant Manager for Enrichment Facilities,

Oak Ridge Operations Office, and the

Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards, NRC. These individuals may

designate appropriate staff representatives for

the purpose of administering this MOU.

B. Identification of these contacts is not

intended to restrict communication between

DOE and NRC staff members on technical

and other day-to-day activities.

V. Resolution of Disputes

A. If disagreements or conflicts about

matters within the scope of this MOU arise,

DOE and NRC will work together to resolve

these differences.

B. Resolution of differences between DOE

and NRC staff will be the initial

responsibility of the DOE Site Manager,

Portsmouth Site Office, or the DOE Site

Manager, Paducah Site Office, and the Chief

of the responsible Branch within the Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards,

NRC.

C. If the issue can not be resolved at the

staff level, the NRC and DOE agree to refer

the matter within 30 days to the Assistant
59912 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices

Manager for Enrichment Facilities, Oak Ridge

Operations Office, DOE, and the Director,

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards, NRC.

VI. Effective Date and Modification

This MOU shall become effective upon

signing by the DOE Assistant Manager for

Enrichment Facilities, Oak Ridge Operations,

and the Director, Division of Fuel Cycle

Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards, NRC, and

will be subject to periodic reviews and may

be amended or modified upon written

agreement by the parties. This MOU may be

terminated by mutual agreement or by

written notice of either party submitted six

months in advance of termination.

VII. Separability

If any provision(s) of this MOU, or the

application of any provision(s) to any person

or circumstances, is held invalid, the

remainder of this MOU and the application

of such provision(s) to other persons or

circumstances shall not be affected.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dated: October 27, 1997.

Elizabeth Q. Ten Eyck,

Director Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards, Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

For the Department of Energy.

Dated: October 28, 1997.

Joseph W. Parks,

Assistant Manager for Enrichment Facilities,

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Department of

Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–29244 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Biweekly Notice; Applications and

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses Involving No Significant

Hazards Considerations

Background

Pursuant to Public Law 97–415, the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(the Commission or NRC staff) is

publishing this regular biweekly notice.

Public Law 97–415 revised section 189

of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended (the Act), to require the

Commission to publish notice of any

amendments issued, or proposed to be

issued, under a new provision of section

189 of the Act. This provision grants the

Commission the authority to issue and

make immediately effective any

amendment to an operating license

upon a determination by the

Commission that such amendment

involves no significant hazards

consideration, notwithstanding the

pendency before the Commission of a

request for a hearing from any person.

This biweekly notice includes all

notices of amendments issued, or

proposed to be issued from October 10,

1997, through October 24, 1997. The last

biweekly notice was published on

October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54866).

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendments to Facility Operating

Licenses, Proposed No Significant

Hazards Consideration Determination,

and Opportunity for a Hearing

The Commission has made a

proposed determination that the

following amendment requests involve

no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission’s regulations in

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation

of the facility in accordance with the

proposed amendment would not (1)

involve a significant increase in the

probability or consequences of an

accident previously evaluated; or (2)

create the possibility of a new or

different kind of accident from any

accident previously evaluated; or (3)

involve a significant reduction in a

margin of safety. The basis for this

proposed determination for each

amendment request is shown below.

The Commission is seeking public

comments on this proposed

determination. Any comments received

within 30 days after the date of

publication of this notice will be

considered in making any final

determination.

Normally, the Commission will not

issue the amendment until the

expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change

during the notice period such that

failure to act in a timely way would

result, for example, in derating or

shutdown of the facility, the

Commission may issue the license

amendment before the expiration of the

30-day notice period, provided that its

final determination is that the

amendment involves no significant

hazards consideration. The final

determination will consider all public

and State comments received before

action is taken. Should the Commission

take this action, it will publish in the

Federal Register a notice of issuance

and provide for opportunity for a

hearing after issuance. The Commission

expects that the need to take this action

will occur very infrequently.

Written comments may be submitted

by mail to the Chief, Rules and

Directives Branch, Division of Freedom

of Information and Publications

Services, Office of Administration, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and

should cite the publication date and

page number of this Federal Register

notice. Written comments may also be

delivered to Room 6D22, Two White

Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15

p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of

written comments received may be

examined at the NRC Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The filing

of requests for a hearing and petitions

for leave to intervene is discussed

below.

By December 5, 1997, the licensee

may file a request for a hearing with

respect to issuance of the amendment to

the subject facility operating license and

any person whose interest may be

affected by this proceeding and who

wishes to participate as a party in the

proceeding must file a written request

for a hearing and a petition for leave to

intervene. Requests for a hearing and a

petition for leave to intervene shall be

filed in accordance with the

Commission’s ‘‘Rules of Practice for

Domestic Licensing Proceedings’’ in 10

CFR Part 2. Interested persons should

consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714

which is available at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC and at the local public

document room for the particular

facility involved. If a request for a

hearing or petition for leave to intervene

is filed by the above date, the

Commission or an Atomic Safety and

Licensing Board, designated by the

Commission or by the Chairman of the

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel, will rule on the request and/or

petition; and the Secretary or the

designated Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board will issue a notice of a hearing or

an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a

petition for leave to intervene shall set

forth with particularity the interest of

the petitioner in the proceeding, and

how that interest may be affected by the

results of the proceeding. The petition

should specifically explain the reasons

why intervention should be permitted

with particular reference to the

following factors: (1) The nature of the

petitioner’s right under the Act to be

made a party to the proceeding; (2) the

nature and extent of the petitioner’s

property, financial, or other interest in

the proceeding; and (3) the possible

effect of any order which may be

entered in the proceeding on the

petitioner’s interest. The petition should

also identify the specific aspect(s) of the

subject matter of the proceeding as to

which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for