DOE Response to Recommendation 2010-2 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Pulse Jet Mixing at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, 13397-13398 [2011-5608]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices
DOE prepared this Draft EIS in
accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the
Council on Environmental Quality’s
regulations that implement the
procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR
Parts 1500–1508), and DOE’s procedures
implementing NEPA (10 CFR Part 1021).
Projects considered by DOE for possible
CCPI funding originate as a private
party’s (e.g., electric power industry)
application submitted to DOE in
response to requirements specified in
CCPI funding opportunity
announcements. DOE is limited to
considering the application as proposed
by the private party; however, DOE may
require mitigation measures to reduce a
project’s potential impacts.
Consequently, DOE’s consideration of
reasonable alternatives is limited to the
technically acceptable applications and
the No Action Alternative for each
selected project.
Under the No Action Alternative,
DOE would not provide cost-shared
funding for the project beyond that
required to complete the NEPA process.
Although AEP could still elect to
construct and operate the proposed
project, without DOE funding the
project would likely be canceled.
Therefore, for purposes of analysis in
the Draft EIS, the No Action Alternative
is assumed to be equivalent to a ‘‘no
build’’ alternative, meaning that
environmental conditions would remain
as they are (no new construction,
resource utilization, emissions,
discharges, or wastes generated). The No
Action Alternative would not contribute
to the goal of the CCPI program, which
is to accelerate commercial deployment
of advanced technologies that provide
the United States with clean, reliable,
and affordable energy.
The Draft EIS analyzes the
environmental consequences that may
result from the Proposed Action,
including options for pipeline routes
and injection well sites, and the No
Action Alternative. Potential impacts
identified during the scoping process
and analyzed in the Draft EIS relate to
the following: air quality and climate;
greenhouse gases; geology;
physiography and soils; groundwater;
surface water; wetlands and floodplains;
biological resources; cultural resources;
land use and aesthetics; traffic and
transportation; noise; materials and
waste management; human health and
safety; utilities; community services;
socioeconomics; and environmental
justice.
Copies of the Draft EIS have been
distributed to: Members of Congress;
Native American Tribal governments;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:08 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Federal, State, and local officials; and
agencies, organizations and individuals
who may be interested or affected.
Copies of the Draft EIS are available for
review at the New Haven Public Library,
106 Main Street, New Haven, WV
25265, and at the Meigs County Library
District, 216 West Main Street, Pomeroy,
OH 45769. The Draft EIS will also be
available on the Internet at: https://
nepa.energy.gov/
DOE_NEPA_documents.htm; or https://
www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/
nepa/.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 8,
2011.
Mark J. Matarrese,
Director, Office of Environment, Security,
Safety & Health, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–5694 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DOE Response to Recommendation
2010–2 of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, Pulse Jet
Mixing at the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant
Department of Energy.
Notice.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board Recommendation
2010–2, concerning Pulse Jet Mixing at
the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant was published in
the Federal Register on December 27,
2010 (72 FR 24279). In accordance with
section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
2286d(b), the Secretary of Energy
transmitted the following response to
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board on February 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, data,
views, or arguments concerning the
Secretary’s response to: Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana
Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington,
DC 20004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Steven Petras, Nuclear Engineer,
Departmental Representative to the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board,
Office of Health, Safety and Security,
U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585.
SUMMARY:
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28,
2011.
Mari-Jo Campagnone,
Departmental Representative to the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of
Health, Safety and Security.
The Honorable Peter S. Winokur
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
13397
Chairman
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004–2901
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your December 17,
2010 letter, which provided Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (Board)
Recommendation 2010–2, Pulse Jet Mixing at
the Waste Treatment and Immobilization
Plant. Mr. Dale E. Knutson will be the
responsible Manager for this
Recommendation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) agrees
with the Board that more testing and analysis
should be completed to provide additional
confidence that pulse jet mixing (PJM) and
transfer systems for the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant (WTP) will achieve
their design and operating requirements.
DOE has previously made commitments to
address the concerns raised by the Board in
its Recommendation 2010–2. These
commitments were made by the Federal
Project Director in August 2010 during an
internal project management meeting; in the
October 7–8, 2010 public hearing on WTP;
and in our supplement to the public hearing
record submitted to the Board in January
2011. At each point, full disclosure of DOE
plans, with identified timelines for further
details and schedules for testing and
analysis, was included. The implementation
of these commitments is on-going as part of
WTP project plans that supports scheduled
testing to begin in 2012.
The Board acknowledged in its letter that
DOE has taken and continues to take steps to
increase the confidence that the PJM mixed
vessels will comply with their designed
operating requirements. As outlined in your
letter:
• DOE contracted an independent
technical review team, Consortium for Risk
Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation
(CRESP), that presented DOE with 13
recommendations. DOE is continuing to take
actions addressing the CRESP
recommendations.
• On October 7–8, 2010, DOE publicly
committed to large-scale testing and to
complete relevant portions of the testing
before installing remaining process vessels in
the WTP Pretreatment Facility. As part of
that commitment, the testing objectives and
summary schedule for the large-scale testing
was included in the WTP Project’s January
2011 update to the public record.
We believe the Board’s concerns regarding
PJM at the WTP will be addressed by DOE’s
current direction related to resolving PJM
and transfer system uncertainty. Accordingly,
DOE accepts Recommendation 2010–2.
The Board’s Recommendation includes
specific sub-recommendations that it believes
need to be addressed as part of the DOE’s
pulse jet mixed vessel testing program. There
are certain specific details of the Board’s
Recommendation that require clarification
and are summarized below. We believe our
intended actions should satisfy the Board’s
concerns.
• Sub-recommendations 1 and 2: Wording
in both sub-recommendations calls for
‘‘testing that envelope the complete range of
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13398
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2011 / Notices
physical properties for the high-level waste
stored in the Hanford Tank Farms.’’
DOE intends to conduct large-scale testing
with simulants selected to represent the vast
majority of the waste in the tank farms,
consistent with the approach used in WTP’s
pulse jet mixing test program conducted to
date. The WTP design and planned
operations approach is intended to address
residual uncertainty with other actions and
design features. These include (1) waste feed
pre-qualification activities; and (2) specific
design features, including the ability to
inspect vessels and equipment for vessel heel
dilution and cleanout, that would enable
waste particles that may not be mixing with
the bulk of the waste to be moved forward
to the melters.
• Sub-recommendation 3: This subrecommendation calls for ‘‘* * * verification
and validation of any computational models
used by the WTP project team (e.g., Low
Order Accumulation Model and FLUENT)
based on the results from the ‘large-scale
testing.’ ’’
The verification and validation effort is
expected to be completed prior to the ‘‘large
scale testing.’’ The WTP project intends to
compare the results from the ‘‘large scale
testing’’ with the computational models.
• Sub-recommendation 4: This subrecommendation calls for ‘‘* * * including
demonstrating that representative samples
can be obtained even if the assumed WTP
design particle size or density is exceeded.
This will ensure that the sampling system
does not exclude large, dense particles and
artificially bias the measured particle size
and density distribution.’’
The vessel testing activities will include
determining the acceptability of vessel
sampling in conditions where sampling may
be challenged by mixing performance, i.e.,
solids-containing vessels. There may be cases
where the sample system operation during
normal vessel operations does not retrieve
some large dense particles for analysis. As
noted above, this is planned to be
accommodated by the feed-prequalification
process and by the ability to pull a sample
during the heel dilution and cleanout
process, when larger, denser particles would
be retrieved into the sample system.
Consequently, the large-scale testing program
is not intending to demonstrate that normal
sampling activities can retrieve all waste
particles.
DOE is committed to the safe design and
operation of its nuclear facilities, consistent
with the principles of Integrated Safety
Management, and values input on how DOE
can improve its activities. We look forward
to working further with the Board and its
staff on preparation of the DOE’s
Implementation Plan for Recommendation
2010–2 so that the WTP project can complete
its design and construction activities while
promoting nuclear safety for the life of WTP
operations.
If you have any further questions, please
´
contact me or Ines R. Triay, Assistant
Secretary for Environmental Management, at
(202) 586–7709.
Sincerely,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:27 Mar 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
Steven Chu.
[FR Doc. 2011–5608 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
Proposed Agency Information
Collection
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice and Request for
Comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE) invites public comment on a
proposed collection of information to
support the Weatherization Assistance
Program ARRA–Period Evaluation that
DOE is developing for submission to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) pursuant to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. Comments
submitted in response to this notice will
be summarized and/or included in the
request for OMB approval of this
information collection; they also will
become a matter of public record.
Information about the operation of the
program, energy used before and after
weatherization, energy used by control
group low-income homes, the
effectiveness of specific energy
efficiency measures, customer
satisfaction with the program, and nonenergy benefits is needed for a
comprehensive and rigorous evaluation
of the program operated during the
American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (ARRA), which includes
Program Years 2009, 2010, and 2011.
DATES: Comments regarding this
proposed information collection must
be received on or before May 10, 2011.
If you anticipate difficulty in submitting
comments within that period, contact
the person listed in ADDRESSES as soon
as possible.
ADDRESSES: Written comments may be
sent to: Bruce Tonn, Environmental
Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road,
P.O. Box 2008, MS–6038, Oak Ridge, TN
37831–6038, Fax #: (865) 576–8646,
tonnbe@ornl.gov.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection
instrument and instructions should be
directed to Bruce Tonn, Environmental
Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road,
P.O. Box 2008, MS–6038, Oak Ridge, TN
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
37831–6038, Fax #: (865) 576–8646,
tonnbe@ornl.gov.
The plan for this evaluation can be
found at https://weatherization.ornl.gov.
The surveys and data forms that
comprise this information request can
also be found at https://
weatherization.ornl.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
package contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910–
NEW; (2) Package Title: The
Weatherization Assistance Program
ARRA–Period Evaluation; (3) Type of
Review: Regular; (4) Purpose: This
collection of information is necessary
for a complete evaluation of the program
that will weatherize approximately
600,000 low-income homes in Program
Years 2009, 2010 and 2011; (5)
Estimated Number of Total
Respondents: 6,996. Information will be
collected from seventy-four grantees
(fifty states, five U.S. territories,
Washington DC, two Native American
tribes, and sixteen Weatherization
Innovation grantees); one-thousand and
nine local weatherization agencies;
approximately one thousand utilities;
approximately two thousand residents;
and approximately 2,913 individuals
working in the weatherization field; (6)
Estimated Number of Total Responses:
8,196; (7) Estimated Number of Total
Burden Hours: The estimated burden is
67,000 hours; (8) Estimated Reporting
and Recordkeeping Cost Burden: There
is no reporting or recordkeeping cost
burden associated with this request.
Authority: Section 6861 of title 42 of the
United States Code and 10 CFR 440.25
authorize the collection of this information.
Issued in Washington, DC on March 3,
2011.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2011–5614 Filed 3–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings #2
Take notice that the Commission
received the following electric rate
filings:
Docket Numbers: ER07–1195–000.
Applicants: Mittal Steel USA, Inc.
Description: Motion of ArcelorMittal
USA LLC For Determination of Category
1 Seller Status.
Filed Date: 02/09/2011.
Accession Number: 20110209–5165.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time
on Friday, March 25, 2011.
E:\FR\FM\11MRN1.SGM
11MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13397-13398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5608]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
DOE Response to Recommendation 2010-2 of the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board, Pulse Jet Mixing at the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation
2010-2, concerning Pulse Jet Mixing at the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant was published in the Federal Register on December
27, 2010 (72 FR 24279). In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), the Secretary of
Energy transmitted the following response to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board on February 10, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the
Secretary's response to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625
Indiana Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steven Petras, Nuclear Engineer,
Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security, U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28, 2011.
Mari-Jo Campagnone,
Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety
Board, Office of Health, Safety and Security.
The Honorable Peter S. Winokur
Chairman
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20004-2901
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This is in response to your December 17, 2010 letter, which
provided Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board)
Recommendation 2010-2, Pulse Jet Mixing at the Waste Treatment and
Immobilization Plant. Mr. Dale E. Knutson will be the responsible
Manager for this Recommendation.
The Department of Energy (DOE) agrees with the Board that more
testing and analysis should be completed to provide additional
confidence that pulse jet mixing (PJM) and transfer systems for the
Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) will achieve their
design and operating requirements. DOE has previously made
commitments to address the concerns raised by the Board in its
Recommendation 2010-2. These commitments were made by the Federal
Project Director in August 2010 during an internal project
management meeting; in the October 7-8, 2010 public hearing on WTP;
and in our supplement to the public hearing record submitted to the
Board in January 2011. At each point, full disclosure of DOE plans,
with identified timelines for further details and schedules for
testing and analysis, was included. The implementation of these
commitments is on-going as part of WTP project plans that supports
scheduled testing to begin in 2012.
The Board acknowledged in its letter that DOE has taken and
continues to take steps to increase the confidence that the PJM
mixed vessels will comply with their designed operating
requirements. As outlined in your letter:
DOE contracted an independent technical review team,
Consortium for Risk Evaluation and Stakeholder Participation
(CRESP), that presented DOE with 13 recommendations. DOE is
continuing to take actions addressing the CRESP recommendations.
On October 7-8, 2010, DOE publicly committed to large-
scale testing and to complete relevant portions of the testing
before installing remaining process vessels in the WTP Pretreatment
Facility. As part of that commitment, the testing objectives and
summary schedule for the large-scale testing was included in the WTP
Project's January 2011 update to the public record.
We believe the Board's concerns regarding PJM at the WTP will be
addressed by DOE's current direction related to resolving PJM and
transfer system uncertainty. Accordingly, DOE accepts Recommendation
2010-2.
The Board's Recommendation includes specific sub-recommendations
that it believes need to be addressed as part of the DOE's pulse jet
mixed vessel testing program. There are certain specific details of
the Board's Recommendation that require clarification and are
summarized below. We believe our intended actions should satisfy the
Board's concerns.
Sub-recommendations 1 and 2: Wording in both sub-
recommendations calls for ``testing that envelope the complete range
of
[[Page 13398]]
physical properties for the high-level waste stored in the Hanford
Tank Farms.''
DOE intends to conduct large-scale testing with simulants
selected to represent the vast majority of the waste in the tank
farms, consistent with the approach used in WTP's pulse jet mixing
test program conducted to date. The WTP design and planned
operations approach is intended to address residual uncertainty with
other actions and design features. These include (1) waste feed pre-
qualification activities; and (2) specific design features,
including the ability to inspect vessels and equipment for vessel
heel dilution and cleanout, that would enable waste particles that
may not be mixing with the bulk of the waste to be moved forward to
the melters.
Sub-recommendation 3: This sub-recommendation calls for
``* * * verification and validation of any computational models used
by the WTP project team (e.g., Low Order Accumulation Model and
FLUENT) based on the results from the `large-scale testing.' ''
The verification and validation effort is expected to be
completed prior to the ``large scale testing.'' The WTP project
intends to compare the results from the ``large scale testing'' with
the computational models.
Sub-recommendation 4: This sub-recommendation calls for
``* * * including demonstrating that representative samples can be
obtained even if the assumed WTP design particle size or density is
exceeded. This will ensure that the sampling system does not exclude
large, dense particles and artificially bias the measured particle
size and density distribution.''
The vessel testing activities will include determining the
acceptability of vessel sampling in conditions where sampling may be
challenged by mixing performance, i.e., solids-containing vessels.
There may be cases where the sample system operation during normal
vessel operations does not retrieve some large dense particles for
analysis. As noted above, this is planned to be accommodated by the
feed-prequalification process and by the ability to pull a sample
during the heel dilution and cleanout process, when larger, denser
particles would be retrieved into the sample system. Consequently,
the large-scale testing program is not intending to demonstrate that
normal sampling activities can retrieve all waste particles.
DOE is committed to the safe design and operation of its nuclear
facilities, consistent with the principles of Integrated Safety
Management, and values input on how DOE can improve its activities.
We look forward to working further with the Board and its staff on
preparation of the DOE's Implementation Plan for Recommendation
2010-2 so that the WTP project can complete its design and
construction activities while promoting nuclear safety for the life
of WTP operations.
If you have any further questions, please contact me or
In[eacute]s R. Triay, Assistant Secretary for Environmental
Management, at (202) 586-7709.
Sincerely,
Steven Chu.
[FR Doc. 2011-5608 Filed 3-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
