11936 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices

[Docket No. 50–72]

Enviromental Assessment and Finding

of No Significant Impact Regarding

Issuance of a Specific Exemption to

the Requirements of 10 CFR

50.82(b)(6)(ii) University of Utah AGN–

201 Research Reactor

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) is considering

granting, upon its own initiative, a

specific exemption in accordance with

10 CFR 50.12 to the part of the

requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(b)(6)(ii)

that requires a terminal radiation survey

and associated documentation to

demonstrate that the site is suitable for

release as a condition of license

termination for Amended Facility

Operating License No. R–25 for the

University of Utah (the licensee) AGN–

201 Research Reactor (AGN–201)

located on the licensee’s campus in Salt

Lake City, Utah.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

By application dated July 17, 1990, as

supplemented on July 18, 1990, and

June 12, 1991, the licensee requested

authorization to dismantle the AGN–

201, dispose of its component parts in

accordance with the proposed

decommissioning plan, and terminate

Amended Facility Operating License

No. R–25. Following an ‘‘Order

Authorizing Dismantling of Facility and

Disposition of Component Parts,’’ dated

August 1, 1991, (56 FR 37733), the

licensee completed the dismantlement

and submitted a final survey report

dated April 13, 1994, as supplemented

on March 17 and 22, 1995, and February

6, 1996. Representatives of the Oak

Ridge Institute for Science and

Education (ORISE), under contract to

NRC, conducted a survey of the reactor

on April 9, 1996. The survey is

documented in an ORISE report,

‘‘Radiological Survey of the University

of Utah AGN–201M Research Reactor,

Salt Lake City, Utah,’’ dated June 1996.

In a memorandum dated July 15, 1996,

NRC Region IV found that the ORISE

report findings support the data

developed in the licensee’s final survey

report.

Because the AGN–201 is in the same

room as the TRIGA Research Reactor

(Docket No. 50–407, Facility Operating

License No. R–126) that the University

continues to operate, the Reactor Room

of the Merrill Engineering Building will

continue to be subject to the terms of the

TRIGA license. The Reactor Room will

be considered for release by NRC as part

of the request to terminate the TRIGA

license at some time in the future.

Because the site will continue to be

used under a NRC license and will be

surveyed in the future, and because

application of the regulation is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule, the NRC is

considering granting, upon its own

initiative, a specific exemption in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 to the

part of the requirements of 10 CFR

50.82(b)(6)(ii) that requires a terminal

radiation survey and associated

documentation to demonstrate that the

site is suitable for release as a condition

for license termination.

The Need for Proposed Action

The exemption is needed for

termination of Amended Facility

Operating License No. R–25.

Environmental Impact of Granting of

Exemption

The licensee indicates that the

residual contamination and dose

exposures comply with the criteria of

Regulatory Guide 1.86, Table 1, which

establish acceptable residual surface

contamination levels, and the exposure

limit, established by the NRC staff, of

less than 5 micro rem/hr above

background at 1 meter. These

measurements have been verified by the

NRC staff. The NRC finds that since

these criteria have been met, there is no

significant impact on the environment

and the reactor components can be

released for unrestricted use and the

license terminated. Because the site will

continue to be used under an NRC

license, granting the exemption will

have no effect on the status of the site

and, thus, no significant impact on the

environment.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

As an alternative to the proposed

action, the staff considered denying the

proposed action. Not granting the

exemption would result in no change in

current environmental impacts and

would require continuance of the

Amended Facility Operating License

No. R–25. The environmental impacts of

the proposed action and of the

alternative action are similar. Since the

contaminated and activated reactor and

component parts already have been

dismantled and disposed of in

accordance with NRC regulations and

guidelines, there is no alternative with

less environmental impact than the

granting of the exemption and

termination of Amended Facility

Operating License No. R–25.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The staff consulted with personnel

from ORISE (an NRC contractor), who

conducted the confirmatory survey for

the AGN–201. The staff also consulted

with the Utah State official regarding

the environmental impact of the

proposed action. The State official had

no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action. On

the basis of the foregoing environmental

assessment, the NRC has concluded that

the granting of the exemption will have

no significant effect on the quality of the

human environment.

For further details with respect to this

proposed action, see the application for

termination of Amended Facility

Operating License No. R–25, dated July

17, 1990, as supplemented. These

documents are available for public

inspection at the Commission’s Public

Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC. 20037.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Seymour H. Weiss,

Director, Non-Power Reactors and

Decommissioning Project Directorate Division

of Reactor Program Management, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 97–6347 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

Notice of Availability of Memorandum

of Understanding Between the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission and the

Department of Energy Concerning

Agency Cooperation on Projects and

Activities

SUMMARY: On January 15, 1997, the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

and the Department of Energy (DOE)

signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to provide a basis

for agency cooperation on significant

projects and activities. The MOU

establishes cooperative long-range

planning, and encourages the

development of specific MOUs to

support NRC involvement when a joint

effort on a project or activity is

desirable.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices 11937

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Memorandum of Understanding

Between the Department of Energy and

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Cooperation in Support of Significant

Projects and Activities

I. Introduction

The Department of Energy (DOE) and

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) in recognition of a mutual

commitment to protect public health

and safety, common defense and

security, and the environment have

developed this Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) to establish a

framework for carrying out significant

projects and activities where joint

cooperation between DOE and NRC is

desirable.

II. Authority

The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, including but not limited to

Sections 31, 33, 91, and 161(I); the

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974,

including Sections 104, and Section

301(a) of the Department of Energy

Organization Act of 1977 authorize DOE

to engage in various activities involving

nuclear materials and facilities. Sections

53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, and 161(b),

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 and the construction and

operation of certain facilities to protect

health or to minimize danger to life or

property, or to promote the common

defense and security. This agreement is

designed to supplement the February

24, 1978 DOE/NRC MOU. The DOE/

NRC MOU of February 24, 1978,

establishes an overall management

policy regarding interagency

relationships in the conduct of research

programs and related areas and includes

within its scope those guidelines

governing DOE work performed by NRC.

III. Purpose

The purpose of this MOU is to

provide the basis for DOE and NRC to

cooperate on significant projects and

activities of mutual interest.

This MOU does not address DOE/NRC

interaction with respect to those DOE

facilities which by statute are required

to be licensed or otherwise regulated by

NRC under the Energy Reorganization

Act of 1974, the Nuclear Waste Policy

Act or other applicable law, or with

respect to material and facilities within

the responsibility of the DOE Office of

Naval Reactors.

IV. Agreements Between Parties

A. General

1. DOE and NRC will cooperate in the

timely and orderly completion of

projects and activities undertaken

pursuant to this MOU with due regard

for public health and safety, protection

of the environment, and common

defense and security. Essential to

complying with the spirit of this MOU

is maintaining a relationship between

the agencies marked by open and

candid communications at all levels.

2. Toward these goals, DOE and NRC

will explore together the development

of specific MOUs to support NRC

involvement in projects and activities in

areas where joint cooperation is

desirable, such as the efforts covered by

the DOE/NRC MOU on tritium

production dated May 22, 1996.

B. Planning

1. DOE and NRC will cooperate in

long-range planning to ensure that both

agencies are cognizant of the funding,

resource, and timing requirements for

these special projects and activities.

Consultations and information

exchanges between the DOE and NRC

on long-range planning activities,

operating experience or research results,

briefings of advisory committees, and

other normal functions are generally not

subject to reimbursement.

2. DOE and NRC will inform each

other and the Office of Management and

Budget of activities that will require

significant participation of both.

Specific activities related to public

health and safety, protection of the

environment, and common defense and

security for which DOE requests NRC

involvement will require significant

advance notification to allow NRC to

seek appropriate resources in NRC’s

budget requests. DOE will provide NRC

the necessary information required to

support such budget requests. NRC

generally will not participate in projects

and activities pertaining to DOE’s

responsibilities unless Congress

appropriates resources to NRC for such

activities. Exceptions will be considered

by NRC on a case-by-case basis and only

if DOE reimburses NRC for its full

agency cost.

3. This MOU shall not be used to

obligate or commit funds or be used as

the basis for the transfer of funds.

C. Interagency Interfaces

1. Matters of policy coordination,

interpretation of established policy and

implementation oversight are the

responsibility of the Under Secretary for

DOE and the Executive Director for

Operations of the NRC. Functional

responsibilities shall be assigned by

each agency as necessary to fulfill the

provisions of this MOU and any specific

MOUs entered into by DOE and NRC.

The DOE Assistant Secretary for

Environment, Safety and Health and the

Executive Director for Operations of the

NRC will be the initial points of contact

for communication relating to carrying

out the provisions of this MOU.

2. The day-to-day activities performed

in accordance with this MOU are the

responsibility of the designated DOE

representative, in coordination with the

designated NRC representative. Every

attempt shall be made to address topics

and issues at the project level. If they

cannot be resolved at the project level,

they will be raised through each

agency’s management chain, as

necessary and appropriate.

D. Information Management and

Independent Technical Oversight

1. 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, and

procurement-sensitive information;

Safeguards Information; and

Unclassified Controlled Nuclear

Information (UCNI) as described by

Section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, as amended.

2. NRC agrees to use available DOE

information and reports and to comply

with DOE administrative requirements

for handling such information. DOE will

provide NRC such additional

information as NRC may require to

identify issues related to public health

and safety, protection of the

environment, and common defense and

security which may be necessitated by

the project or activity. NRC will

determine whether to establish a public

docket for particular joint projects on a

case-by-case basis.

3. DOE and NRC recognize the

importance of providing timely and

accurate information to the public

regarding projects, activities, and

regulatory decisions that may affect

public health and safety, and protection

of the environment. Meetings between

DOE and NRC staff in connection with

project activities that pertain to specific

regulatory decisions or actions shall be

governed by NRC’s policy on open

meetings (59 FR 48340, September 20,

1994).

4. Committees, such as the Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards and
11938 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 49 / Thursday, March 13, 1997 / Notices

the Advisory Committee on Nuclear

Waste for NRC and the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board for DOE, provide

independent technical advice

concerning facilities, safety studies, and

related matters. As appropriate, DOE

and NRC agree to support these types of

independent reviews by providing

readily available information or

designating representatives to attend

briefings related to their respective areas

of responsibilities.

V. Other Provisions

1. Nothing in this MOU shall limit the

rights or ability of either agency to

exercise its authority independently

with regard to matters that are the

subject of this MOU.

2. Nothing in this MOU shall 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 is not entered into for

purposes of addressing issues related to

possible changes in the scope of either

party’s authority to regulate nuclear

materials and facilities.

4. This MOU may be further

implemented by supplementary

agreements in which authorized

representatives of DOE and NRC may

amplify or modify the policy or

provisions in this MOU or any of its

supplements, provided that any material

modifications of the provisions or any of

its supplements shall be subject to the

approval of the authorized signatories of

this MOU or their designated

representatives.

5. This MOU shall be effective upon

signature of the Secretary of Energy and

the Chairman of the NRC and will

remain in effect until terminated by

mutual agreement or by the written

notice of either party submitted six

months in advance of termination.

Amendments or modifications to this

MOU may be made upon the written

agreement of the parties.

6. In developing specific MOUs for

particular projects and activities, the

parties shall consider what provisions

should be made for the handling of

whistleblower issues or other citizen

complaints.

Hazel R. O’Leary,

Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy.

Shirley A. Jackson,

Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

This Memorandum of Understanding

was signed by the Chairman of the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

Secretary of Energy on January 15, 1997.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5 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. 97–6345 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

[Docket Nos. 70–7001 and 70–7002]

Notice of Transition of Regulatory

Authority Over the U.S. Enrichment

Corporation Gaseous Diffusion Plants

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission assumed regulatory

jurisdiction, from the U.S. Department

of Energy (DOE), over the United States

Enrichment Corporation (USEC) gaseous

diffusion plants (GDPs) located in

Paducah, Kentucky, and Piketon, Ohio,

at 12:01 a.m. on March 3, 1997.

The President signed H.R. 776, the

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (the Act), into

law on October 24, 1992. The Act

amended the Atomic Energy Act of

1954, to establish a new government

corporation, USEC, for the purpose of

operating the uranium enrichment

enterprise owned and previously

operated by DOE. The Act provided that

NRC would promulgate standards that

apply to USEC’s operation of its GDPs,

to protect public health and safety from

radiological hazards, and to provide for

the common defense and security. The

Act directed NRC to establish and

implement a certification process under

which NRC would certify the GDPs for

compliance with these standards. DOE

agreed to retain nuclear safety,

safeguards, and security oversight of the

GDPs until NRC finished its certification

process.

On September 16, 1996, the Director,

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (Director) signed the initial

certification decision. Notice of this

decision appeared in the Federal

Register (61 FR 49360) on September

19, 1996. The Director signed the final

Certificates of Compliance for the GDPs

on November 26, 1996. The Certificates

of Compliance provided for a transition

period before NRC’s assuming

regulatory authority, to allow USEC to

complete necessary procedure revision

and training on the NRC-approved

application. DOE continued regulatory

oversight during this transition period.

The transition period ended at midnight

on March 2, 1997. NRC assumed

regulatory oversight at the GDPs at 12:01

a.m. (local time) on March 3, 1997.

NRC has not assumed regulatory

jurisdiction over the entire Paducah and

Portsmouth reservations. DOE retains

regulatory jurisdiction over those

portions of both sites that have activities

unrelated to the enrichment process and

that are not leased by USEC. Examples

of activities for which DOE retains

responsibility are environmental

restoration activities, cylinder storage

yards that contain depleted UF 6

generated before July 1993, and

activities related to highly enriched

uranium.

All correspondence related to the

GDPs, except for proprietary and

classified information, is available for

public inspection and copying at the

Commission Public Document Room,

2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC

20555 it is also available at the Local

Public Document Rooms, under Docket

No. 70–7001, at the Paducah Public

Library, 555 Washington Street,

Paducah, Kentucky 42003; and under

Docket No. 70–7002, at the Portsmouth

Public Library, 1220 Gallia Street,

Portsmouth, Ohio 45662.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of March 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Carl J. Paperiello,

Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety

and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 97–6346 Filed 3–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Order No. 1162; Docket No. A97–14]

Spottswood, Virginia 24475 (Regina

Kesterson, Petitioner); Notice and

Order Accepting Appeal and

Establishing Procedural Schedule

Under 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(5)

Issued March 10, 1997.

Before Commissioners: Edward J. Gleiman,

Chairman; H. Edward Quick, Jr., ViceChairman; George W. Haley; W.H. ‘‘Trey’’

LeBlanc III.

Docket Number: A97–14.

Name of Affected Post Office:

Spottswood, Virginia 24475.

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Regina

Kesterson.

Type of Determination: Closing.

Date of filing of Appeal Papers: March

3, 1997.

Categories of issues apparently raised:

1. Effect on the community (39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(A)).

2. Effect on postal services (39 U.S.C.

404(b)(2)(C)).

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the