3632 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No 19 / Wednesday January 29. 1986/ Proposed Rules damages. liabilities. or costs are incurred prior to final acceptance of the feed material by DOE However, the customer is not deprived of any nights under indemnification agreements entered into pursuant to section 170 of the Act (Price-Anderson indemnification) DOE's obligation to furnish specification materal to the customer terminates upon final acceptance of such material by the customer. $782.14 Other terms. A contract may contain terms and conditions not specified in these criteria. so long as the terms and conditions are not inconsistent with these criteria $762.15 Prior contracts. All contracts under which DOE was providing enrichment services prior to the adoption of these criteria are valid. These prior contracts may be amended to conform to these criteria without penalty. if both parties agree. Appendix-Finding of No Significant Note-This appendix will not be printed in the Code of Federal Regulations 1 Declaration of Finding The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/EA-0279) which is available to the public on request. on the proposed revision to the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria. Based on the findings of the EA. DOE has determined that the proposed action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, no environmental impact statement is required. II. Description of the Proposed Action DOE proposes to revise the current Uranium Ennchment Services Critena to explicitly address the realities of today's highly competitive market for enrichment uranium. In addition to minor conforming amendments, the proposed Criteria provide contracting flexibility to enable DOE to provide enrichment services under terms which are consistent with the Atomic Energy Act. responsive to the needs of enrichment customers, and which maximize the long term competitive position of the United States in the world market. The revised Cntena would also continue the existing policy against restrictions on the enrichment of foreign uranium for use in domestic reactors. Additional details regarding the description of the proposed action can be found in the Environmental Assessment on Proposed Revision to the Uranium Enrichment Services Critena. III. Alternatives Considered Two reasonable alternatives exist to revising the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria. They are: • Do not revise the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria (No action). • Revise the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria, but in a different manner No action regarding revision of the Cntena is not a desirable option if the United States is to remain a viable supplier of uranium enrichment services. The impact of not revising the Criteria would probably result in DOE eventually losing some of their customers to foreign uranium enrichment suppliers The Criteria could be revised in other ways than those that are proposed. One apparent way that might be proposed dunng the rulemaking process is to include restrictions on the enrichment of foreign uranium for use in domestic reactors. The domestic uranium mining industry argues that import restrictions would benefit the industry. DOE strongly believes that import restrictions would be detnmental to both DOE and the domestic mining industry. Therefore. DOE believes that import restrictions are not a desirable option. Additional details on alternatives can be found in the Environmental Assessment on Proposed Revision to the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria. IV. Description of Impacts and Justification for Conclusion of No Significance Operation of the DOE gaseous diffusion plants for uranium enrichment have impacts on the environment, which include impacts on air quality, water quality, land use, and aquatic and terrestrial biota. Operation also requires large amounts of electrical energy DOE monitors the diffusion plant effluents to assure compliance with environmental standards A summary of the environmental impacts of plant operations can be found in the Environmental Assessment on Proposed Revision to the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria. The proposed Criteria will reinforce DOE's continuing efforts to conduct enrichment activities in a more businesslike manner. There will be no environmental impacts directly attributable to the proposed revision to the Criteria. The revised Criteria will not affect the impacts previously assessed for operating enrichment plants Although the flexibility permitted by the revised Criteria may prevent the US from losing more of its current market share, and possibly may increase the anticipated share over the long term. the enrichment plants currently are operating so far below full capacity that no need for additional plants beyond that previously assessed is anticipated in the near future. Therefore, it is concluded that revising the Criteria as proposed is not a major Federal action with a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Single copies of the Environmental Assessment on Proposed Revision to the Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria are available from: John P Thereault. Office of Technology Deployment and Strategic Planning. NE-34. Office of Uranium Enrichment. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC 20545. (301) 353-4710. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Robert J. Stern. Director. Office of Environmental Guidance. EH-23. U.S. Department of Energy. Washington, DC 20585. (202) 252-4000. Date issued January 10, 1986. Mary L. Walker. Assistant Secretary. Environment. Safety and Health. (FR Doc 88-2030 Filed 1-27-06 12:02 pm) BILLING CODE 0488-01-2 ATTACHMENT B: PRE-HEARING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS RELATING TO THE FEBRUARY 7, 1986 HEARING BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT WITNESS: JAMES W. VAUGHAN, JR. ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR ENERGY U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN MORRIS K. UDALL Uranium Enrichment Question 1: What is the status of negotiations with the Office of Management and Budget concerning the uranium enrichment program's unrecovered debt? If only partial repayment of the debt is required by OMB will the Department seek to amend the full cost recovery requirement of Section 161v of the Atomic Energy Act? If so, what changes is DOE likely to propose? If not, what would be DOE's legal rational for not recovering all of the government's costs? Answer: The Department believes that there is sufficient latitude under section 161(v) of the Atomic Energy Act to permit application of judgment in determining unrecovered costs comprising the uranium enrichment program's unrecovered debt without any amendments to the Act. As originally adopted, section 161(v) provided that prices S. Rep. No. 1325, 88th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1964 Answer 1 (continued): In response to an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) proposal Congress adopted the current version of section 161(v) which Exercising the discretion afforded it under section Answer 1 (continued): The principles of the OMB/DOE approach are: 1. The outstanding Government investment should be recovered in a manner that does not damage the Nation's uranium enrichment capability. 2. The uranium enrichment services and pricing structure should be competitive. 3. The recovery plan recognizes both the competitive nature of the international uranium enrichment market and the compelling national mandate for reduction of the federal deficit. 4. The recovery plan recognizes the need for institutional |