Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20671

and make it immediately effective,

notwithstanding the request for a

hearing. Any hearing held would take

place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the

amendment request involves a

significant hazards consideration, any

hearing held would take place before

the issuance of any amendment.

A request for a hearing or a petition

for leave to intervene must be filed with

the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, Attention:

Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, or

may be delivered to the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC, by the above date. A

copy of the petition should also be sent

to the Office of the General Counsel,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555–0001, and to Jay

Silberg, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts

and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW.,

Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the

licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for

leave to intervene, amended petitions,

supplemental petitions and/or requests

for hearing will not be entertained

absent a determination by the

Commission, the presiding officer or the

presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing

Board that the petition and/or request

should be granted based upon a

balancing of the factors specified in 10

CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)–(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this

action, see the application for

amendment dated August 1, 1996,

which is available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Osterhout Free Library, Reference

Department, 71 South Franklin Street,

Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Bartholomew C. Buckley,

Acting Director, Project Directorate I–2,

Division of Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 98–11119 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

[Docket No. 70–0734]

Finding of No Significant Impact and

Notice of Opportunity for Hearing for

the Amendment of Materials License

SNM–696, General Atomics, San Diego,

CA

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Finding of no significant impact

and notice of opportunity for hearing for

the amendment of materials license

SNM–696, General Atomics, San Diego,

CA.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is considering amendment

of Special Nuclear Material License

SNM–696, issued to General Atomics

(the licensee) located in San Diego,

California to incorporate a Site

Decommissioning Plan. The

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed action,

because the amendment will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the

human environment for reasons

described in the Environmental

Assessment (EA).

Summary of the Environmental

Assessment

Background

General Atomics (GA) has been

authorized by the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its

predecessor, the Atomic Energy

Commission, to use special nuclear

material in nuclear fuel fabrication and

research and development for more than

30 years. Special nuclear material used

at the San Diego site included the

radioactive materials plutonium and

uranium enriched in the isotopes

uranium-233 and uranium-235. As

operations changed at the site, GA

initiated decommissioning activities

affecting portions of the site beginning

in the mid 1980’s. By the early 1990’s,

fuel fabrication operations involving

special nuclear material at the facility

had ceased, and in September of 1996,

GA’s Special Nuclear Material License,

SNM–696, was amended to authorize

only activities incident to

decommissioning. GA also currently has

State of California Radioactive Materials

License No. 0145–37 to possess and use

source and byproduct materials and

NRC Reactor Licenses, R–38 and R–67,

for two Training Reactor-IsotopeGeneral Atomics research reactors. By

application dated October 11, 1996, and

supplements dated December 5, 1996;

April 18, 1997; and January 15, 1998;

GA requested an amendment to its fuel

fabrication License SNM–696 to

incorporate an overall Site

Decommissioning Plan (DP).

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is the

amendment of GA’s license to

incorporate the DP, which describes the

remaining decommissioning activities

planned at the GA facility under License

SNM–696 and release of the site for

unrestricted use. The DP describes the

areas and facilities to be

decommissioned, the decontamination

techniques, and the proposed effluent

control and waste management practices

that will be used during

decommissioning.

GA intends to decommission to

radiation levels required for unrestricted

use and to terminate License SNM–696

for these areas. Soil will be remediated

to levels specified in Option 1 of the

Branch Technical Position (BTP),

‘‘Disposal or Onsite Storage of Thorium

or Uranium Wastes from Past

Operations,’’ (46 FR 52061; October 23,

1981). Facilities and equipment will be

decontaminated to levels specified in

‘‘Guidelines for Decontamination of

Facilities and Equipment Prior to

Release for Unrestricted Use or

Termination of Licenses for Byproduct,

Source, or Special Nuclear Material,’’

(USNRC, Policy and Guidance Directive

FC 83–23, Division of Industrial and

Medical Nuclear Safety, November 4,

1983).

The Need for the Proposed Action

GA is not required to submit an

overall site DP because all procedures

and activities necessary to carry out

decommissioning of the site have been

previously approved by the NRC,

consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR

70.38(g)(1). However, the incorporation

of overall site DP into GA’s license

reduces the administrative effort for

both the licensee and the NRC by

reducing the number of documents

which must be generated and reviewed.

It also facilitates a more consistent and

organized decommissioning approach

across the facility.

Environmental Impacts for the Proposed

Action

The NRC staff performed a

radiological dose assessment to estimate

the impact from airborne radioactive

releases under the proposed action.

Only radioactive effluents were

considered because non-radioactive

releases are expected to be insignificant.

In addition, because liquid effluents

were released only through the sanitary
20672 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices

sewer system, these releases were

considered to be insignificant compared

to airborne releases due to dilution of

these discharges prior to introduction

into any potential drinking water

source. Because the closest resident is

approximately one mile from the facility

and any discharges would be

extensively diluted prior to exposure of

the resident, the NRC assumed the

maximally exposed individual was an

on-site, non-radiation worker. (GA

currently leases areas of the facility that

have been previously released for

unrestricted use). The NRC assumed

this person was exposed 8 hours/day, 40

hours per week, 50 weeks per year.

During decommissioning, NRC

estimated that the annual average

release concentrations would be

5×10¥14 μCi/ml of uranium (of various

enrichments) and thorium, 1×10¥13 μCi/

ml of mixed activation and fission

products, and 15×10¥14 μCi/ml of other

radionuclides ranging from atomic

number 3 to 105. Using these

assumptions, the total effective dose

equivalent (TEDE) to the maximally

exposed individual onsite was

estimated to be approximately 0.15

mSv/yr (15 mrem/yr), which is less than

one fifth of the dose limit for members

of the public specified in 10 CFR

20.1301.

NRC probably overestimated the dose

because it assumed that

decommissioning of all areas of the

facility will be conducted

simultaneously, that Th-232 and Sr-90

are the predominant radionuclides

released, and that there is no dilution

from the release point to the individual

exposed. Actual exposures are expected

to be far lower. There are an estimated

2,000 employees at the GA facility,

which results in a population dose of

0.3 person-Sv (30 person-rem), if every

one of these employees received the

maximum estimated individual dose.

Actual population exposures are

expected to be far lower. Doses to offsite members of the public are expected

to be orders of magnitude lower due to

dilution of the radionuclide

concentrations.

An accident analysis was included in

a 1995 Environmental Assessment,

performed by the U.S. Department of

Energy, to analyze impacts from

Decommissioning of GA’s Hot Cell

Facility. This analysis concluded that

there was no significant risk from

accidents during decommissioning of

this facility. This analysis is considered

bounding for the decommissioning

activities of the proposed action.

Cumulative impacts from the

proposed action were also considered.

As noted previously, substantial

decommissioning activities have been

conducted at the site since the mid

1980s. Continuous environmental

monitoring of the site throughout this

period until the present has not detected

any significant environmental impacts.

The only on-going activities authorized

by the NRC are the decommissioning

activities discussed in the proposed

action and decommissioning of the Hot

Cell Facility, which has been previously

approved. The environmental

assessment performed for the Hot Cell

Facility decommissioning project by the

U.S. Department of Energy estimated a

dose of 4×10¥4 mSv/yr (0.04 mrem/yr)

to the on-site, member of the public

(who was considered to be the

maximally exposed individual) and

concluded that there were no

environmental impacts. Cumulative

impacts from decommissioning of the

Hot Cell Facility and the operations

specified in the site DP are, therefore,

also expected to be insignificant. The

TRIGA research reactors are currently

not operating. The environmental

impact from decommissioning of these

facilities will be considered under the

NRC Reactor Licenses.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

The alternative to the proposed action

is to deny approval of the Site DP and

either require that the site be

maintained in its contaminated state

under the NRC license or terminate the

license after completion of partial

decommissioning, but impose site or

area restrictions to protect the public

from residual radioactivity.

This alternative would reduce the

quantity of radioactive effluents

expected during decommissioning of

the facilities to levels suitable for

unrestricted use. However, if

contamination is left in-place there is a

potential for the spread of this material

to unaffected areas. Decommissioning at

a later time may then result in increased

effluents. If GA is unable to release

these areas for unrestricted use, the

company may also be economically

impacted by the inability to sell or lease

the facilities and by the resources

required to maintain the site. The public

would also not have the opportunity to

use these areas productively.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The DP was approved by the State of

California by License Amendment dated

July 5, 1996. The NRC staff consulted

GA and the State of California,

Department of Health Services, but did

not consult any other State or Federal

agencies in preparation of this

Environmental Assessment.

Conclusion

Extensive decommissioning

operations have been conducted at the

GA facility since the mid-1980’s.

Effluent and environmental monitoring

data indicate that all off-site radioactive

releases have been below the effluent

and dose limits established in 10 CFR

Part 20 and have not resulted in any

significant human health or

environmental impact.

Future decommissioning operations

are expected to be similar to

decommissioning conducted previously

by the facility and are, therefore, not

expected to result in any significant

environmental impact. This conclusion

is also supported by a conservative dose

assessment performed by the staff,

which estimates a dose to the maximally

exposed onsite individual of

approximately 0.15 mSv/yr (15 mrem/

yr). This is significantly below the dose

limit for members of the public of 1

mSv/yr (100 mrem/yr) specified in 10

CFR part 20.

In addition, GA has committed to

engineering controls, waste handling

methods, and an effluent and

environmental sampling program to

keep releases as low as reasonably

achievable and to ensure continued

compliance with applicable laws and

regulations.

Given the engineering controls, waste

handling procedures, projected doses to

members of the public and workers, and

demonstrated ability to conduct these

activities without adverse impacts to the

environment, the staff concludes that

the proposed action can be

implemented without significant

environmental impacts.

This environmental assessment was

conducted based on preliminary

characterization information. If further

characterization data indicates that

significantly greater concentrations of

radionuclides or significantly different

types of radionuclides may be released

off-site, or if GA determines that

significantly different decommissioning

activities will be required that may

result in significant impacts to workers

or the environment, GA will be required

to notify the NRC for review and

approval of the proposed

decommissioning activities.

Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the amendment of Special Nuclear

Material License SNM–696. On the basis

of this assessment, NRC has concluded

that the proposed licensing action

would not cause significant

environmental impacts and does not
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 80 / Monday, April 27, 1998 / Notices 20673

warrant the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement.

Accordingly, it has been determined

that a finding of no significant impact is

appropriate.

The Environmental Assessment, the

license amendment application, and

other documents related to this

proposed action are available for public

inspection and copying at the

Commission’s public document room in

NRC’s Region IV office, Harris Tower,

611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400,

Arlington, Texas 76011–8064, and in

NRC’s headquarters public document

room, Gelman Building, 2120 L St.,

NW., Washington, DC 20037.

Opportunity for a Hearing

Based on the EA and accompanying

safety evaluation, NRC is preparing to

amend License SNM–696. The NRC

hereby provides notice that this is a

proceeding on an application for

amendment of a license falling within

the scope of Subpart L, ‘‘Informal

Hearing Procedure for Adjudication in

Materials Licensing Proceedings,’’ of

NRC’s rules and practice for domestic

licensing processing in 10 CFR part 2.

Pursuant to § 2.1205(a), any person

whose interest may be affected by this

proceeding may file a request for a

hearing in accordance with § 2.1205(d).

A request for a hearing must be filed

within thirty (30) days of the date of this

publication of the Federal Register

notice.

The request for a hearing must be

filed with the Office of Secretary either:

1. By delivery to the Docketing and

Service Branch of the Secretary at One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, MD 20852–2738; or

2. By mail or telegram addressed to

the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Attention: Docketing and Services

Branch.

In addition to meeting other

applicable requirements of 10 CFR part

2 of NRC’s regulations, a request for a

hearing filed by a person other than an

applicant must describe in detail:

1. The interest of the requester in the

proceeding;

2. How that interest may be affected

by the results of the proceeding,

including reasons why the requested

should be permitted a hearing, with

particular reference to the factors set out

in § 2.1205(h);

3. The requester’s areas of concern

about the licensing activity that is the

subject matter of the proceeding; and

4. The circumstances establishing that

the request for a hearing is timely in

accordance with § 2.1205(d).

In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f),

each request for a hearing must also be

served, by delivering it personally or by

mail to:

1. The applicant, General Atomics,

3550 General Atomics Court, San Diego,

CA 92121–1194; Attention: Dr. Keith E.

Asmussen; and

2. The NRC staff, by delivering to the

Executive Director for Operations, One

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville

Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail,

addressed to the Executive Director for

Operations, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Any hearing that is requested and

granted will be held in accordance with

the NRC’s Informal Hearing Procedures

for Adjudications in Material Licensing

Proceedings in 10 CFR part 2, subpart L.

Questions with respect to this action

should be referred to NRC’s project

manager for General Atomics, Charles

Gaskin, at (301) 415–8116 or via Internet

at ceg1@nrc.gov.

Dated at Rockville, Md., this 20th day of

April 1998.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief Licensing Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle

Safety and Safeguards, NMSS.

[FR Doc. 98–11123 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

Notice of Availability of Draft NUREG–

1628 ‘‘Staff Responses to Frequently

Asked Questions Concerning

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors’’

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) is announcing the availability of

NUREG–1628, ‘‘Staff Responses to

Frequently Asked Question Concerning

Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors,’’ a draft report for comment

dated April 1998.

This document, through a questionand-answer format, provides

information to the public on

decommissioning. The questions were

taken from a variety of sources over the

past several years, including written

inquiries and questions asked at public

meetings and during informal

discussions with the NRC staff. The

document was prepared in response to

(1) the increase in the number of power

reactors beginning the decommissioning

process, (2) recent changes in the

decommissioning regulations, and (3) a

perceived lack of information available

to members of the public on

decommissioning. This document is

being issued for public comment. As a

result of comments received from the

members of the public, the final

document may be modified.

The report contains information on

the following topics as they relate to

decommissioning: definition of

decommissioning, decommissioning

alternatives, decommissioning

experience in the U.S. regulation of

decommissioning, low-level waste

storage and disposal of wastes

associated with facility storage and

decommissioning, high-level waste

storage and disposal, license

termination, hazards associated with

decommissioning, financing, and public

involvement during the

decommissioning process.

Draft NUREG–1628 is available for

inspection and copying for a fee at the

NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L

Street NW, (Lower Level), Washington,

D.C. A free single copy of the draft

NUREG–1628 may be requested by

writing to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Reproduction, and

Distribution and Inventory Services

Section, Washington, DC 20555–0001 or

by faxing a request to 301–415–2289.

For further information contact, John L.

Minns, Division of Reactor Program

Management. Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Washington, DC 20555–

0001; telephone: 301–415–3166.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day

of April 1998.

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. 98–11117 Filed 4–24–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Cumulative Report on Rescissions and

Deferrals

April 1, 1998.

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

April 1, 1998, of 24 rescission proposals

and eight deferrals contained in two

special messages for FY 1998. These