Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12861

Sunshine Act Meeting

DATE: Weeks of March 17, 24, 31, and

April 7, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners’ Conference

Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,

Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of March 17

There are no meetings scheduled for

the Week of March 17.

Week of March 24—Tentative

Tuesday, March 25

10:00 a.m. Briefing on High-Burnup

Fuel Issues (PUBLIC MEETING)

(Contact: Ralph O. Meyer, 301–415–

6789)

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)

Week of March 31—Tentative

Monday, March 31

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)

2:00 p.m. Classified Security Briefing

(Closed—Ex. 1)

2:30 p.m. Meeting with DOE on

External Regulation of DOE

Facilities (PUBLIC MEETING)

Week of April 7—Tentative

Wednesday, April 9

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session

(PUBLIC MEETING) (if needed)

Note: The schedule for commission

meetings is subject to change on short notice.

To verify the status of meetings call

(recording)—(301) 415–1292. Contact person

for more information: Bill Hill (301) 415–

1661.

The NRC Commission Meeting

Schedule can be found on the Internet

at: http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/

schedule.htm.

This notice is distributed by mail to

several hundred subscribers; if you no

longer wish to receive it, or would like

to be added to it, please contact the

Office of the Secretary, Attn: Operations

Branch, Washington, DC 20555 (301–

415–1661).

In addition, distribution of this

meeting notice over the internet system

is available. If you are interested in

receiving this Commission meeting

schedule electronically, please send an

electronic message to wmh@nrc.gov or

dkw@nrc.gov.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

William M. Hill, Jr.,

SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–6938 Filed 3–14–97; 2:26 pm]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket 70–3091]

Notice of Availability of Memorandum

of Understanding Between the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission and the

Department of Energy Concerning the

Cooperation and Support for

Demonstration Phase (Phase I) of DOE

Hanford Tank Waste Remediation

System Privatization Activities

SUMMARY: On January 29, 1997, the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

and the Department of Energy (DOE)

signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to provide a basis

for cooperation and support during the

demonstration phase (Phase I) of the

DOE Hanford Tank Waste Remediation

System (TWRS) Privatization Activities.

The MOU establishes a cooperative

process to support DOE in developing a

regulatory program consistent with the

NRC’s regulatory approach.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy L. Bryce, Special Projects Branch,

Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and

Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, (301) 415–5848.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Memorandum of Understanding

Between the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission and the Department of

Energy

Cooperation and Support for

Demonstration Phase (Phase I) of DOE

Hanford Tank Waste Remediation

System Privatization Activities

I. Purpose

The purpose of this Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) between the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

and the Department of Energy (DOE) is

to establish the basis for cooperation

and mutual support during the

demonstration phase (defined as Phase

I) of DOE’s Tank Waste Remediation

System (TWRS) Privatization activities.

An objective of this DOE/NRC

interaction is the development and

execution of a comprehensive regulatory

program by DOE that is consistent with

NRC’s regulatory approach for

protecting workers, the general public,

and the environment. DOE’s regulatory

program is to be structured to facilitate

the possible transition of regulatory

responsibilities from DOE to NRC at the

start of the full-scale operations phase

(defined as Phase II). During Phase I,

DOE is responsible for implementing

the TWRS Privatization regulatory

program. This MOU provides for

cooperation and mutual support in an

integrated effort that provides for:

1. DOE to acquire capability to

implement a program of nuclear safety

and safeguards regulation consistent

with NRC’s regulatory approach.

2. NRC to acquire sufficient

knowledge and understanding of the

physical and operational situation at the

Hanford waste tanks and the processes,

technology and hazards involved in

Phase I activities, to enable NRC (a) to

assist DOE in performing reviews in a

manner consistent with NRC’s

regulatory approach and (b) to be

prepared to develop an effective and

efficient regulatory program for the

licensing of DOE contractor-owned and

contractor-operated facilities that will

process waste at Hanford during Phase

II.

II. Introduction

A. Background

During 1991, the Department of

Energy (DOE) established the TWRS

Program at the Hanford Site to manage,

retrieve, treat, immobilize, and dispose

of certain radioactive waste in a safe,

environmentally-sound, and costeffective manner. The requirements and

commitments for the TWRS cleanup

activities are documented in the

Hanford Federal Facilities Agreement

and Consent Order, also known as the

Tri-Party Agreement (TPA). Under the

TPA, DOE, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), and the

Washington State Department of

Ecology have agreed to a timetable for

cleanup of the Hanford Site.

DOE, through the TWRS Program, is

making a fundamental change in its

contracting approach at Hanford,

utilizing privately-owned facilities on

the Hanford Site for processing waste

which contains special nuclear material.

This change in contracting approach

also necessitates a fundamental change

in DOE’s approach to regulation and

oversight.

To accomplish the TWRS

requirements, DOE plans to privatize

treatment operations for the Hanford

tank wastes. The TWRS Privatization is

divided into two phases, a

demonstration phase (defined as Phase

I) and a full-scale operations phase

(defined as Phase II). During both

phases, DOE will purchase waste

treatment services from a DOE

contractor-owned, contractor-operated

facility under a fixed-price type of

contract; DOE will provide the feedstock

to be processed. The DOE TWRS

Privatization Contractor must finance

the project; design the equipment and

facility; apply for and receive required

permits and licenses; construct the

facility and bring it on line; operate the
12862 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

facility to treat waste; and deactivate the

facility.

DOE will undertake nuclear safety

and safeguards regulatory responsibility

associated with the TWRS Privatization

activities during Phase I. The EPA and

the State of Washington have

responsibility to regulate environmental

issues and the Occupational Safety and

Health Administration has

responsibility to regulate occupational

safety. NRC’s participation during Phase

I will primarily be of a cooperative

nature for the purposes of information

transfer and assisting DOE in the

establishment of a regulatory program

that is consistent with NRC’s regulatory

approach for protecting workers, the

general public, and the environment.

This MOU describes the relationship

between NRC and DOE for activities

conducted during Phase I only. The

relationship between NRC, DOE, and

the DOE TWRS Privatization

Contractors during Phase II remains to

be clarified by legislation and/or

regulatory requirements.

B. Phase Descriptions

Phase I

Phase I is a proof-of-concept/

commercial demonstration-scale effort.

The objectives of Phase I are to: (a)

demonstrate the technical and business

viability of using privatized facilities to

treat Hanford tank waste;(b) define and

maintain required levels of safety and

safeguards; (c) maintain environmental

protection and compliance; and (d)

substantially reduce life-cycle costs and

time required to treat Hanford tank

waste.

Phase II

Phase II will be the full-scale

production phase, in which the facilities

are to be configured so that all the

remaining tank waste can be processed.

The objectives of Phase II are to (a)

implement the lessons learned from

Phase I, and (b) process all tank waste

into forms suitable for final disposal.

The current DOE proposal is to have

NRC assume full regulatory

responsibility (consistent with the

manner in which NRC regulates its

licensees) for Phase II, although certain

operational, statutory, and regulatory

issues must be clarified before the

proposed Phase II regulation by NRC

can be implemented. Current estimates

are that DOE procurement documents

and NRC regulatory requirements for

Phase II would be needed by the year

2004.

This MOU does not apply to Phase II

activities.

III. Authority

A. Department of Energy

Sections 31, 91 and 161 of the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954, as amended;

Section 104 of the Energy

Reorganization Act of 1974; and,

Section 301 of the DOE Organization

Act authorize DOE to provide for the

safe storage, processing, transportation

and disposal of hazardous waste,

including radioactive waste, resulting

from nuclear materials production and

weapons production. In addition, with

regard to activities under DOE’s

jurisdiction, Section 161.i.(3) of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

permits DOE to prescribe such

regulations or orders as it may deem

necessary to govern DOE activities

authorized by the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended, including standards

and restrictions governing the design,

location, and operation of facilities used

in the conduct of such activity, in order

to protect health and to minimize

danger to life or property.

B. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104,

and 161b, of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended, and Section 201(f) of

the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

authorize NRC to license and establish

by rule, regulation, or order, standards

and instructions to govern the

possession and use of special nuclear

material, source material, or byproduct

material to protect health or to minimize

danger to life or property, or to promote

the common defense and security. This

agreement is entered into pursuant to

these and other applicable authorities,

including the Economy Act of 1932, as

amended.

IV. Foundation Understandings

1. This MOU applies to Phase I only.

2. DOE will regulate the DOE TWRS

Privatization Contractors during Phase I

under the terms and conditions agreed

upon by DOE and the DOE TWRS

Privatization Contractors, and will be

responsible for the regulatory oversight

of all design, construction, operational,

and event-response activities. NRC will

have no regulatory authority over the

DOE TWRS Privatization Contractors

during Phase I.

3. No regulatory action, process, or

practice established by DOE during

Phase I will be binding on NRC during

any possible NRC regulatory oversight

of DOE TWRS Privatization Contractors

during Phase II.

4. NRC’s regulatory approach is based

(a) on reviewing the applicant’s

systematic and integrated identification

of potential accidents and interactions

resulting from radiological and related

process chemical and fire hazards, and

(b) on ensuring adequate protection

against those hazards which could

impact on the safety of the worker, the

general public and the protection of the

environment.

V. Agreements Between Parties

A. Responsibilities

Department of Energy

The Manager, Richland Operations

Office, will be responsible for

implementing the terms of this

agreement. The TWRS Regulatory

Official, who reports to the Manager,

Richland Operations Office, will be the

DOE point of contact for all

communications relating to carrying out

the provisions of this agreement.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Director of Nuclear Materials

Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) will be

responsible for implementing the terms

of this agreement. The Chief of the

responsible Branch within NMSS will

be the NRC point of contact for all

communications related to carrying out

the provisions of this agreement.

B. General Provisions

1. At the foundation of the DOE

privatization approach is a

predictability and reliability feature

embedded in DOE’s contracts with the

TWRS Privatization Contractors ‘‘

namely contractual commitments for

DOE regulatory actions within specific

time periods. Essential to timely and

orderly DOE regulatory actions is the

awareness by NRC of these contractual

commitments and the need for timely

interaction between DOE and NRC at all

levels.

2. If an issue arises in the

implementation of this MOU which

cannot be resolved at the agency pointof-contact level, the NRC and DOE agree

to refer the matter within 30 days to the

Director, NMSS, and the Manager,

Richland Operations Office, for

appropriate action.

3. It is the intent of both parties to

conduct the TWRS Regulatory Program

in an open, public, and professional

manner. NRC and DOE recognize the

importance of providing timely and

accurate information to the public

regarding regulatory matters that may

affect the protection of workers, the

general public, and the environment.

Meetings between NRC and DOE staff in

connection with this MOU will be

governed by NRC policy on open

meetings (59 FR48340; September 20,

1994). NRC will participate with DOE in

public meetings and other public
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices 12863

interactions, as appropriate. All

transmittals between DOE and NRC

regarding TWRS Privatization activities

will be made publicly available,

consistent with NRC and DOE policies

and requirements, at an established

local public document room.

4. Each agency recognizes that it is

responsible for the protection, control,

and accounting of classified,

proprietary, and procurement-sensitive

information; Safeguards Information

(SGI); and Unclassified Controlled

Nuclear Information (UCNI).

5. Each agency will be responsible for

processing, under its established

program(s), allegations—declarations or

statements or assertions of impropriety

or inadequacy whose validity has not

been established— associated with the

regulated TWRS Privatization activities

covered by this Memorandum of

Understanding. Each agency will keep

the other agency informed, as

appropriate, of such allegations, the

allegations’’ status, and the allegations’’

resolution. Each agency will assure that

allegations are promptly referred to the

agency or entity that has jurisdiction

over the allegation.

6. In support of the DOE TWRS

Privatization activities, DOE will

provide private office space and

equipment, if needed, for NRC in the

vicinity of the TWRS Regulatory Unit in

the Richland, Washington area. DOE

will provide the NRC with ready access

to current TWRS regulatory information;

access to key individuals in the

Regulatory Unit for consistency

discussions; access to TWRS general

information, tank farm status and

operational issues, and safety

perspectives; and access to Hanford Site

safety perspectives.

C. Regulatory Interaction Activities

1. Site Familiarization

NRC will need to acquire knowledge

of the physical and operational situation

for the Hanford waste tanks and of the

processes, technologies, and hazards

involved in processing the tank wastes.

The following activities will be

performed to provide this

familiarization: a. NRC will visit the

Hanford Site, as necessary, to examine

the conditions of the tank farms as they

may relate to TWRS Privatization. As

part of NRC’s orientation, DOE will

provide NRC information on:

• The physical conditions and

operational requirements necessary for

safe storage, retrieval, transfer, and

processing of the tank waste,

Evaluations of the criticality potential

for TWRS Privatization activities,

• Radiation levels of the waste and

chemical forms of the waste,

• Contamination levels in the areas of

the planned TWRS Privatization

facilities and tanks,

• Hydrogen generation/flammable gas

situation of tanks,

• Organic complexant/nitrate

oxidizer situation of tanks,

• Other possible hazards associated

with the waste,

• Available or planned waste

movement systems, and

• The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive

Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA), and Atomic Energy Act of

1954 for the TWRS.

b. DOE will provide NRC access to the

tank farms, tank farm records and

documentation, and other information

concerning operational conditions and

events that NRC may desire in order to

understand the TWRS Privatization

project and associated hazards,

processes, and conditions.

c. Upon request by NRC, DOE will

brief or hold discussions with NRC on

issues related to the TWRS Privatization

effort. The locations, timing, and

content of these meetings will be agreed

upon by the points of contact for each

agency.

d. NRC may occasionally conduct

reviews and special audits or

inspections at DOE’s request to provide

objective perspective on selected

regulatory issues.

2. Regulatory Familiarization

To assist the DOE in establishing the

capability to regulate consistent with

NRC concepts and principles, the NRC

will provide detailed briefings, guidance

documents, and support in developing

important administrative and technical

program elements of a regulatory

program. NRC will provide DOE access

to regulatory training provided by NRC

to its staff on a space available basis

and, with specific agreement, will

provide DOE opportunity to observe

NRC’s regulatory activities.

3. Development of DOE TWRS

Regulatory Program

DOE guidance specific to the

regulation of DOE TWRS Privatization

Contractors will be prepared and issued

by DOE. The guidance is for use by the

DOE’s TWRS Regulatory Unit in its

execution of the regulatory reviews and

resulting regulatory actions and is

provided as information to the DOE

TWRS Privatization Contractors for their

preparation of regulatory submittals.

The guidance will cover those

submittals required of the Contractors

by DOE such as the Quality Assurance

(QA) program, essential set of safety

standards and requirements (including

the site-specific design basis), integrated

safety management plan, safety

assessment, construction authorization

request, operating authorization request,

operational reports and assessments,

and deactivation authorization. DOE

will be responsible for issuing this

guidance in its final form.

The following activities will be

performed by NRC and DOE to develop

the guidance:

a. NRC will provide DOE with

established and evolving NRC guidance

and position documents as input for

DOE to consider in the development

and updating of its guidance for the

DOE regulatory review. NRC will assist

DOE in developing a DOE inspection

program that will be applied during

design, fabrication, construction (e.g.

acceptable codes and standards for

concrete, electrical, welding, etc.),

installation, and qualification testing.

b. DOE will develop guidance for the

review of Contractor submittals and

DOE reviews of TWRS Privatization

activities. NRC will review and provide

a basis for its comments on DOE’s draft

guidance to identify areas that may not

be consistent with NRC’s regulatory

approach.

c. NRC will participate, as

appropriate, with DOE in the joint

development of guidance, based on

industry standards, e.g., ANS/ANSI, for

issuance by DOE as guidance for the

DOE TWRS Privatization Program.

4. Regulatory Program Implementation

Specific DOE regulatory activities are

planned: these include design basis

review, QA program evaluation,

standards approval, initial safety

evaluation, construction authorization

and inspection, operating authorization

oversight, and deactivation

authorization. These actions will begin

in FY 1997 and continue throughout

Phase I. The following activities will be

performed by DOE and NRC in

fulfillment of their respective

responsibilities under this MOU:

a. DOE will be responsible for safety

(e.g. design basis) and safeguards

reviews and determining acceptability

of DOE TWRS Privatization Contractors’

submittals against the DOE TWRS

guidance. DOE will have final decision

authority for regulatory implementation

during Phase I and for all interactions

with the DOE TWRS Privatization

Contractors.

b. NRC will review and provide a

basis for its comments on DOE TWRS

Privatization Contractors’ submittals to

identify any areas that are not consistent
12864 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 52 / Tuesday, March 18, 1997 / Notices

with NRC’s regulatory approach. These

submittals will include all documents

which address the technical and quality

basis for the TWRS facilities and which

could affect nuclear and process safety

and safeguards in design, construction

and operation.

NRC will assist DOE in evaluating

submittals and in verifying effective

implementation of:

• Design—design basis, design

verification, level of design detail and

documentation, design specifications,

calculations and drawings, and

procurement specifications,

• Quality assurance—for design,

procurement, construction, preoperational testing and operation,

• Operator training and qualification,

• Human factors,

• Emergency response.

VI. Other Provisions

1. Nothing in this MOU will limit the

authority of either agency to

independently exercise its authority

with regard to matters that are the

subject of this MOU.

2. Nothing in this MOU will be

deemed to establish any right nor

provide a basis for any action, either

legal or equitable, by any person or class

of persons challenging a government

action or a failure to act.

3. This MOU will be effective upon

signature and upon satisfaction of

conditions in Section VI.4 and will

remain in effect until the end of Phase

I. This agreement may also be

terminated by mutual agreement or by

written notice of either party submitted

six months in advance of termination.

Amendments or modifications to this

agreement may be made upon written

agreement of the parties.

4. This MOU will become effective,

and remain in effect during such time

periods when Congress authorizes, and

provides appropriate funding (or when

there is another acceptable form of

reimbursement) for NRC’s participation

in this project.

5. Activities within the scope of this

MOU and within the scope of

appropriated resources are mutually

agreed to be without reimbursement of

cost for either organization. Special

activities such as described in Sections

V.C.1.d and V.C.2 may be negotiated for

cost reimbursement as needed.

John Wagoner, Manager, Richland

Operations Office, Department of

Energy

Carl Paperiello, Director, Office of

Nuclear Materials Safety and

Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

This Memorandum of Understanding

was signed by the Manager of the

Department of Energy’s Richland

Operations Office on January 15, 1997

and the Director of the Office of Nuclear

Materials Safety and Safeguards, U. S.

Nuclear Rgulatory Commission on

January 29, 1997.

Dated at Rockvile, Maryland, this 7th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Robert C. Pierson,

Chief, Special Projects Branch, Division of

Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 97–6759 Filed 3–17–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and

Deferrals

March 1, 1997.

This report is submitted in fulfillment

of the requirement of Section 1014(e) of

the Congressional Budget and

Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Pub.

L. 93–344). Section 1014(e) requires a

monthly report listing all budget

authority for the current fiscal year for

which, as of the first day of the month,

a special message had been transmitted

to Congress.

This report gives the status, as of

March 1, 1997, of nine rescission

proposals and seven deferrals contained

in two special messages for FY 1997.

These messages were transmitted to

Congress on December 4, 1996, and on

February 10, 1997.

Rescissions (Attachments A and C)

As of March 1, 1997, nine rescission

proposals totaling $397 million had

been transmitted to the Congress.

Attachment C shows the status of the FY

1997 rescission proposals.

Deferrals (Attachments B and D)

As of March 1, 1997, $3,420 million

in budget authority was being deferred

from obligation. Attachment D shows

the status of each deferral reported

during FY 1997.

Information From Special Messages

The special messages containing

information on the rescission proposals

and deferrals that are covered by this

cumulative report is printed in the

editions of the Federal Register cited

below:

61 FR 66172, Monday, December 16,

1996

62 FR 8045, Friday, February 21, 1997

Franklin D. Raines,

Director.

ATTACHMENT A.—STATUS OF FY 1997

RESCISSIONS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetary

resources

Rescissions proposed by the

President ............................... $397.1

Rejected by the Congress ........

Amounts rescinded ...................

Currently before the Congress .............................. 397.1

ATTACHMENT B.—STATUS OF FY 1997

DEFERRALS

[In millions of dollars]

Budgetary

resources

Deferrals proposed by the

President ............................... $3,544.3

Routine Executive releases

through March 1, 1997

(OMB/Agency releases of

$124.3 million.) ...................... ¥124.3

Overturned by the Congress ....

Currently before the Congress .............................. 3,420.0

ATTACHMENT C.—STATUS OF FY 1997 RESCISSION PROPOSALS—AS OF MARCH 1, 1997

[Amounts in thousands of dollars]

Agency/Bureau/Account

Rescission

number

Amounts pending before

Congress

Date of

message

Previously

withheld

and

made

available

Date

made

available

Amount

rescinded

Congressional

Less than action

45 days

More than

45 days

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Foreign Agricultural Service: