Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 214 / Wednesday, November 5, 1997 / Notices 59909

action. At a commercial nuclear power

plant, the inadvertent criticality with

which 10 CFR 70.24 is concerned could

occur during fuel handling operations.

The special nuclear material that could

be assembled into a critical mass at a

commercial nuclear power plant is in

the form of nuclear fuel; the quantity of

other forms of special nuclear material

that is stored onsite in any given

location is small enough to preclude

achieving a critical mass. Because the

fuel is not enriched beyond 5.0 weight

percent uranium-235, and because

commercial nuclear plant licensees have

procedures and design features that

prevent inadvertent criticality, the staff

has determined that it is unlikely that

an inadvertent criticality could occur

due to the handling of special nuclear

material at a commercial power reactor.

Therefore, the requirements of 10 CFR

70.24 are not necessary to ensure the

safety of personnel during the handling

of special nuclear materials at

commercial power reactors.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed action and

concludes that inadvertent or accidental

criticality will be precluded through

compliance with the Davis-Besse

Technical Specifications, the design of

the fuel storage racks providing

geometric spacing of fuel assemblies in

their storage locations, and

administrative controls imposed on fuel

handling procedures.

The proposed exemption would not

result in an increase in the probability

or consequences of accidents, affect

radiological plant effluents, or cause any

significant occupational exposures.

Therefore, there are no radiological

impacts associated with the proposed

exemption.

The proposed exemption does not

result in a change in nonradiological

effluents and will have no other

nonradiological environmental impact.

Accordingly, the Commission

concludes that there are no significant

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded

that there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with

the proposed action, any alternatives

with equal or greater environmental

impact need not be evaluated. As an

alternative to the proposed exemption,

the staff considered denial of the

requested exemption. Denial of the

request would result in no change in

current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed

action and the alternative action are

similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement related to the operation of

Davis-Besse dated October 1975.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy,

on July 30, 1997, the staff consulted

with the Ohio State official, Carol

O’Claire, of the Ohio Emergency

Management Agency, regarding the

environmental impact of the proposed

action. The State official had no

comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon 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

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect to the

proposed action, see the licensees’

letters dated January 30, May 28, and

October 3, 1997, which are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room located at the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the

University of Toledo, William Carlson

Library, Government Documents

Collection, 2801 West Bancroft Avenue,

Toledo, OH 43606.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day

of October 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Gail H. Marcus,

Director, Project Directorate III–3, Division

of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–29243 Filed 11–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste; Notice of Meeting

The Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste (ACNW) will hold its 96th

meeting on November 20–22, 1997, in

Room T–2B3, at 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance.

The schedule for this meeting is as

follows:

Thursday, November 20, 1997—8:30

a.m. until 6 p.m.

Friday, November 21, 1997—8:30 a.m.

until 6 p.m.

Saturday, November 22, 1997—8:30

a.m. until 4 p.m.

A. Meeting with NRC’s Director,

Division of Waste Management, Office

of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards—The Committee will meet

with the Director to discuss

developments at the Yucca Mountain

project, resources, rules under

development, and other items of mutual

interest.

B. Waste Classification at West Valley,

Hanford and Savannah River—The NRC

staff will brief the Committee on its

evaluation of the DOE methodology for

classification of waste resulting from

treatment, bulk high-level waste

removal and cleaning of tanks.

Background and history will be

discussed along with current status,

review schedules and criteria for the

classification of wastes as incidental.

C. Standard Review Plan on Dry Cask

Storage Facility—The Committee will

review and provide comments on this

Standard Review Plan.

D. HLW Issue Resolution Status

Reports and Acceptance Criteria—The

NRC staff will update the Committee on

the progress of staff reviews related to

the high-level waste key technical

issues. (Tentative)

E. NRC’s Division of Waste

Management Priorities—The Committee

will review the Division of Waste

Management’s priorities and planned

interactions with the ACNW for the

coming year.

F. Prepare for Next Meeting with the

Commission—The Committee will

prepare for its next formal meeting with

the Commission. The Committee is

scheduled to discuss items of mutual

interest with the Commission on

December 17, 1997.

G. Preparation of ACNW Reports—

The Committee will discuss planned

reports, including comments on the

Standard Review Plan for Spent Fuel

Dry Storage Facilities, comments on

NRC Waste Related Research, ACNW

Priorities, and other topics discussed

during the meeting as the need arises.

H. Committee Activities/Future

Agenda—The Committee will consider

topics proposed for future consideration

by the full Committee and Working

Groups. The Committee will discuss

ACNW-related activities of individual

members.

I. Miscellaneous—The Committee will

discuss miscellaneous matters related to

the conduct of Committee activities and

organizational activities and complete
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