Finding of No Significant Impact for the Commercial Disposal of Contaminated Process Equipment From the Savannah River Site, 46785-46788 [2023-15308]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 138 / Thursday, July 20, 2023 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2023–15379 Filed 7–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED–2023–SCC–0087]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission to the Office of
Management and Budget for Review
and Approval; Comment Request;
Department of Education Green
Ribbon Schools Nominee Presentation
Form
Office of Communications and
Outreach (OCO), Department of
Education (ED).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, the Department is proposing an
extension without change of a currently
approved information collection request
(ICR).
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before August
21, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments and
recommendations for proposed
information collection requests should
be submitted within 30 days of
publication of this notice. Click on this
link www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain to access the site. Find this
information collection request (ICR) by
selecting ‘‘Department of Education’’
under ‘‘Currently Under Review,’’ then
check the ‘‘Only Show ICR for Public
Comment’’ checkbox. Reginfo.gov
provides two links to view documents
related to this information collection
request. Information collection forms
and instructions may be found by
clicking on the ‘‘View Information
Collection (IC) List’’ link. Supporting
statements and other supporting
documentation may be found by
clicking on the ‘‘View Supporting
Statement and Other Documents’’ link.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
specific questions related to collection
activities, please contact Andrea Falken,
202–987–0855.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department is especially interested in
public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jul 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: U.S. Department of
Education Green Ribbon Schools
Nominee Presentation Form.
OMB Control Number: 1860–0509.
Type of Review: An extension without
change of a currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: State,
Local, and Tribal Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 90.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 22.
Abstract: Begun in 2011–2012, U.S.
Department of Education Green Ribbon
Schools (ED–GRS) is a recognition
award that honors schools, districts, and
postsecondary institutions that are
making great strides in three Pillars: 1)
reducing environmental impact and
costs, including waste, water, energy
use, and transportation; 2) improving
the health and wellness of students and
staff, including environmental health of
premises, nutrition, and fitness; and 3)
providing effective sustainability
education, including STEM, civic skills,
and green career pathways.
The award is a tool to encourage state
education agencies, stakeholders and
higher education officials to consider
matters of facilities, health and
environment comprehensively and in
coordination with state health,
environment and energy counterparts.
In order to be selected for federal
recognition, schools, districts and
postsecondary institutions must be high
achieving in all three of the above
Pillars, not just one area. Schools,
districts, colleges and universities apply
to their state education authorities. State
authorities can submit up to six
nominees to ED, documenting
achievement in all three Pillars. This
information is used at the Department to
select the awardees.
ED collects information on nominees
from state nominating authorities
regarding their schools, districts, and
postsecondary nominees. State agencies
are provided sample applications for all
three types of nominees for their use
and adaptation. Most states adapt the
sample to their state competition. There
is no one federal application for the
award, but rather various applications
determined by states. They do use a
required two-page Nominee Submission
Form as a cover sheet, which ED
provides. This document, in school,
district, and postsecondary submission
formats is attached. The burden varies
greatly from state authority to authority
and how they chose to approach the
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46785
award. The recognition award is part of
a U.S. Department of Education (ED)
effort to identify and communicate
practices that result in improved
student engagement, academic
achievement, graduation rates, and
workforce preparedness, and reinforce
federal efforts to increase energy
independence and economic security.
Encouraging resource efficient
schools, districts, and IHEs allows
administrators to dedicate more
resources to instruction rather than
operational costs. Healthy schools and
wellness practices ensure that all
students learn in an environment
conducive to achieving their full
potential, free of the health disparities
that can aggravate achievement gaps.
Sustainability education helps students
engage in hands-on learning, hone
critical thinking skills, learn many
disciplines and develop a solid
foundation in STEM subjects. It
motivates postsecondary students in
many disciplines, and especially those
underserved in STEM subjects, to
persist and graduate with sought after
degrees and robust civic skills.
So that the Administration can
receive states’ nominations, ED seeks to
provide the Nominee Presentation Form
to states—essentially a cover sheet for
states’ evaluation of their nominees to
ED—in three versions; one for school
nominees, another for district nominees,
and a third form for postsecondary
nominees.
Dated: July 17, 2023.
Stephanie Valentine,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and
Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division,
Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. 2023–15434 Filed 7–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Commercial Disposal of
Contaminated Process Equipment
From the Savannah River Site
Office of Environmental
Management, U.S. Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Finding of No Significant
Impact.
AGENCY:
The Department of Energy
(DOE) has completed the Final
Environmental Assessment for the
Commercial Disposal of Savannah River
Site Contaminated Process Equipment
(Final EA). Consistent with the Final
EA, the Proposed Action is the disposal
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
46786
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 138 / Thursday, July 20, 2023 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
of contaminated process equipment
from the Savannah River Site (SRS) at
a commercial low-level radioactive
waste (LLW) disposal facility located
outside of South Carolina and licensed
by a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Agreement State.
Based on the information and analysis
in the Final EA, DOE intends to
implement the Proposed Action and
send the contaminated process
equipment to the Waste Control
Specialists LLC (WCS) Federal Waste
Facility (FWF), a licensed commercial
disposal facility located in Andrews
County, Texas, for disposal.
ADDRESSES: This Finding of No
Significant Impact and the Final EA are
available on the DOE National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
website at: https://www.energy.gov/
nepa/doeea-2154-commercial-disposalsavannah-river-site-contaminatedprocess-equipment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Edgard Espinosa, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental
Management, Office of Waste and
Materials Management (EM–4.2), 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585. Email: Edgard.Espinosa@
hq.doe.gov. Telephone: (202) 586–5382.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DOE prepared the Final EA in
accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 1500–1508 and
DOE NEPA implementing procedures at
10 CFR part 1021. Consistent with the
Final EA, the Proposed Action is the
disposal of contaminated process
equipment from SRS at a commercial
LLW disposal facility located outside of
South Carolina and licensed by an NRC
Agreement State; disposal under the
Proposed Action would be in
accordance with the Agreement State’s
regulations, which are equivalent to the
NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 61 for
land disposal of radioactive waste, and
other requirements. Disposal
alternatives for this waste are discussed
under the ‘‘Proposed Action and
Alternatives’’ section.
Certain SRS process equipment (i.e.,
Tank 28F salt sampling drill string, glass
bubblers, and glass pumps) is
contaminated with reprocessing waste
and is currently conservatively managed
as if it were high-level radioactive waste
(HLW), which is required to be disposed
of in a geologic repository. Because the
NRC has not licensed a geologic
repository in the United States, there is
no current disposal pathway for the SRS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jul 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
contaminated process equipment.
Portions of the Tank 28F salt sampling
drill string, glass bubblers, and glass
pumps contain hazardous components
(e.g., lead) or are contaminated with
hazardous constituents. Because there
are no permitted facilities at SRS for the
disposal of mixed low-level radioactive
waste, this contaminated process
equipment cannot be disposed of on
site. Therefore, the purpose and need for
DOE’s action is to identify a disposal
pathway for the SRS contaminated
process equipment to mitigate on-site
storage constraints, improve worker
safety, and support accelerated
completion of the environmental
cleanup mission at SRS.
As described in the June 10, 2019,
Supplemental Notice Concerning U.S.
Department of Energy Interpretation of
High-Level Radioactive Waste (84 FR
26835) (Supplemental Notice) and
affirmed in the December 21, 2021,
Assessment of the Department of
Energy’s Interpretation of the Definition
of High-Level Radioactive Waste (86 FR
72220), DOE interprets the statutory
term, ‘‘high-level radioactive waste,’’ as
set forth in the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act
(NWPA) (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.) such
that some reprocessing wastes may be
classified as not HLW (non-HLW) and
may be disposed of in accordance with
their radiological characteristics and not
solely the origin of the waste (HLW
interpretation). This interpretation may
be used to facilitate the safe disposal of
defense reprocessing waste if the waste
meets either of the following two
criteria:
1. Does not exceed concentration
limits for Class C low-level radioactive
waste as set out in 10 CFR 61.55, and
meets the performance objectives of a
disposal facility; or
2. Does not require disposal in a deep
geologic repository and meets the
performance objectives of a disposal
facility as demonstrated through a
performance assessment conducted in
accordance with applicable
requirements.
NRC’s performance objectives for
commercial LLW disposal facilities are
specified in 10 CFR part 61, subpart C,
‘‘Performance Objectives.’’
As stated in the Supplemental Notice,
DOE will continue its current practice of
managing all of its defense reprocessing
wastes as if they were HLW unless and
until a specific waste is determined to
be another category of waste based on a
detailed technical assessment of its
characteristics and an evaluation of
potential disposal pathways.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
As discussed in the Final EA, DOE
has estimated the expected radionuclide
concentration levels for each of the
disposal containers for the Tank 28F
drill string, the glass pumps, and the
glass bubblers (see Final EA, Appendix
A) and prepared a technical evaluation
demonstrating that the contaminated
process equipment would meet
Criterion 1 for non-HLW under DOE’s
interpretation of the AEA and NWPA
definition of HLW. Consistent with that
technical evaluation, DOE also prepared
an official determination documenting
that the contaminated process
equipment is non-HLW under Criterion
1 of the HLW interpretation. As part of
implementing this determination, DOE
would verify with the licensee of the
off-site commercial disposal facility that
the disposal containers meet the
facility’s waste acceptance criteria and
all other requirements of the disposal
facility, including applicable regulatory
requirements prior to disposal and
applicable U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT) requirements
for packaging and transportation from
SRS to the commercial disposal facility.
On January 19, 2021, DOE issued a
notice in the Federal Register (86 FR
5175) of its intent to prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the
Commercial Disposal of Savannah River
Site Contaminated Process Equipment.
On December 21, 2021, DOE announced
in the Federal Register (86 FR 72217)
the availability of the Draft
Environmental Assessment for the
Commercial Disposal of Savannah River
Site Contaminated Process Equipment
(Draft EA) for public comment. DOE
also posted the Draft EA on DOE
websites for public review. DOE held an
informational webinar on the Draft EA
on January 11, 2022, to provide the
public and stakeholders with an
overview of the Draft EA and the
Department’s HLW interpretation.
II. Proposed Action and Alternatives
Under the Proposed Action, DOE
would dispose of the SRS contaminated
process equipment (Tank 28F salt
sampling drill string, glass bubblers, and
glass pumps) at a commercial LLW
disposal facility outside of South
Carolina licensed by an NRC Agreement
State. Disposal under the Proposed
Action would be in accordance with the
Agreement State’s regulations, which
are equivalent to 10 CFR part 61, among
other requirements. Prior to disposal,
DOE would submit a waste profile and
supporting characterization
documentation for the SRS
contaminated process equipment to the
licensee of the off-site commercial LLW
disposal facility to further verify with
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 138 / Thursday, July 20, 2023 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
the licensee that the final grouted waste
meets Criterion 1 of the HLW
interpretation for disposal as non-HLW,
in accordance with DOE Manual 435.1–
1, Radioactive Waste Management
Manual. DOE would demonstrate
compliance with the waste acceptance
criteria and all other requirements of the
disposal facility, including any
applicable regulatory requirements for
management of the waste prior to
disposal and applicable USDOT and
NRC requirements for packaging and
transportation from SRS to the
commercial disposal facility. DOE has
identified two reasonable action
alternatives for the Proposed Action:
• Alternative 1—If determined to be
Class B or Class C LLW, DOE would
stabilize and package the waste at SRS
and ship the waste packages to the WCS
FWF in Andrews County, Texas, for
disposal. Implementation would be
dependent upon the waste meeting
WCS’s waste acceptance criteria, among
other requirements.
• Alternative 2—If determined to be
Class A LLW, DOE would stabilize and
package the waste at SRS and ship the
waste packages to either
EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, or WCS
in Andrews County, Texas, for disposal.
Implementation would be dependent
upon the waste meeting the facility’s
waste acceptance criteria, among other
requirements.
The EA also evaluates a No-Action
Alternative under which the
contaminated process equipment would
remain in storage at SRS until another
disposal path was identified.
III. Potential Environmental Impacts
The analyses in the Final EA
demonstrate that the Proposed Action
and alternatives entail minimal risk to
human health or to the quality of the
environment for both action alternatives
analyzed. The proposed alternatives
would have minor potential
environmental impacts. Chapter 3 of the
Final EA analyzed the following
resource areas in detail: (1) air quality,
(2) human health (normal operations),
(3) human health (accidents and
intentional destructive acts), (4) waste
management, and (5) transportation.
Air quality impacts would be
negligible under both action
alternatives. DOE would use typical
radiological containment measures
during the waste preparation activities.
The combination of these measures and
a solid waste form would limit the
potential to emit airborne radiological
materials. Because the transportation
containers and any shielding materials
would be returned to SRS as a nonradiological shipment, DOE analyzed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jul 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
non-radiological air quality impacts
associated with 62 total vehicle
shipments (31 radiological and 31 nonradiological return shipments). The
estimated number of truck shipments
would produce negligible air emissions,
including greenhouse gases, and
disposal actions at the commercial
facilities would not cause any
additional air emissions beyond those
already expected from their ongoing,
permitted, and/or licensed operations.
Potential impacts to workers at SRS
and the public from normal operations
would be minimal under both action
alternatives. Potential doses to workers
would be well within the administrative
control level for SRS workers and would
result in zero latent cancer fatalities
(LCFs). In addition, DOE would
implement measures (e.g., use of
shielding and personal protective
equipment) to minimize worker
exposures and maintain doses as low as
reasonably achievable. Because there
would be no radiological emissions or
effluents associated with either of the
alternatives, and no direct radiation
dose off site, there would be no dose to
the public from normal operations.
Potential impacts from disposal actions
at the commercial disposal facility
would not result in any notable increase
in human health impacts beyond those
already expected from ongoing LLW
disposal operations under the disposal
facility’s environmental permits and
license.
An accident or intentional destructive
act involving the contaminated process
equipment during on-site activities
would result in minimal impacts to
workers and the public. Because the
contaminated process equipment would
be placed in a disposal container and
encased in grout and foam to fill any
void spaces, there would be no
dispersion of radiological materials that
could occur from a drop during any
lifting operations. The maximum
reasonably foreseeable result of this
drop would include damage to the
disposal container that would require
repackaging. If this were to occur,
operations personnel would move away
from the event and develop a plan to
cover the equipment (to prevent direct
radiation effects) and repackage the
equipment in a replacement disposal
container. These recovery actions would
be planned in accordance with the site
procedures under principles to maintain
radiological exposure as low as
reasonably achievable. Any potential
worker doses would be significantly
below DOE’s administrative control
level of 2,000 millirem (mrem) per year
for a worker, and below the SRS
contractor’s administrative control level
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46787
of 500 mrem per year. This exposure
would be expected to result in zero
LCFs. There would be no dispersion or
release of radiological materials from an
accident involving contaminated
process equipment on site; therefore,
DOE would not expect any off-site
consequences from this accident
scenario.
Waste management impacts at SRS
and the potential disposal sites would
be minimal. Based on sample data (see
Appendix A of the Final EA), DOE has
a sound basis to conclude that the waste
stream meets Criterion 1 of the HLW
interpretation. At the time of
implementing any of the alternatives,
DOE would follow the waste acceptance
process for the commercial disposal
facility. The wastes would only be
accepted for disposal if the volume and
radiological constituents fall within the
bounds of the applicable facility’s
license and waste acceptance criteria.
As a result, the LLW would result in
negligible waste management impacts
for either licensed disposal facility.
The transportation of contaminated
process equipment would involve
approximately 31 radiological truck
shipments and 31 non-radiological
return truck shipments under both
Alternatives 1 and 2. The primary
difference between the two alternatives
is the distance traveled from SRS. Under
Alternative 1, disposal containers would
be shipped from SRS to WCS
(approximately 1,400 miles) and under
Alternative 2, disposal containers would
be shipped from SRS to WCS or
EnergySolutions (approximately 2,200
miles). The waste would be packaged
and shipped in accordance with USDOT
requirements. The potential radiological
and nonradiological risks to the truck
crew and the public along the
transportation route would be
negligible. In the event an accident did
occur, impacts to water and ecological
resources would be extremely unlikely
because the solid form would not be
dispersible.
Consistent with both CEQ and DOE
NEPA regulations, the analysis in the
Final EA focused on the subjects
relevant to the Proposed Action and
potential impacts. Based on a screening
analysis described in the Final EA, the
following resource areas did not require
additional detailed analysis: land use;
noise; geology and soils; visual, water
(surface, groundwater, and wetlands),
and ecological resources (biota,
threatened and endangered species);
cultural and paleontological resources;
socioeconomics and environmental
justice; infrastructure and utilities; and
industrial safety.
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
46788
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 138 / Thursday, July 20, 2023 / Notices
IV. External Review and Comments
Signing Authority
Three comment documents were
received during the public comment
period on the Draft EA. Commenters
included one Federal agency, one state
agency, and one local community
organization. Appendix B of the Final
EA includes the comments delineated
within each comment document and
DOE’s responses to the comments. DOE
considered all public comments
received in preparing the Final EA.
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on July 14, 2023, by
Kristen G. Ellis, Acting Assistant
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Regulatory and Policy Affairs, pursuant
to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
V. Determination
In the Final EA, DOE evaluated the
potential environmental impacts
associated with packaging,
transportation, and disposal of
contaminated process equipment from
SRS at a licensed commercial LLW
disposal facility outside of the state of
South Carolina. Implementation of
either action alternative analyzed in the
Final EA would entail minor impacts
and low risks and would not constitute
a major Federal action significantly
affecting the quality of the human
environment in accordance with DOE’s
NEPA implementing procedures, 10
CFR part 1021, and the regulations
promulgated by the CEQ for
implementing NEPA, 40 CFR 1501.6.
Therefore, the preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not
required.
Based on the analysis in the Final EA,
DOE intends to ship the contaminated
process equipment to the WCS FWF, a
licensed off-site commercial disposal
facility located in Andrews County,
Texas, for disposal (Alternative 1). DOE
has characterized the contaminated
process equipment, which included
sampling analyses (see Final EA,
Appendix A), and prepared a technical
evaluation and an official determination
that demonstrate and document, that the
SRS contaminated process equipment
meets Criterion 1 for non-HLW under
DOE’s interpretation of the AEA and
NWPA definition of HLW. The technical
reports are available at: https://
www.energy.gov/em/high-levelradioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation.
Current characterization analysis shows
that the disposal containers of
contaminated process equipment are
either Class B LLW (Tank 28F salt
sampling drill string) or Class C LLW
(glass bubblers and glass pumps). Of the
licensed commercial facilities analyzed
in the Final EA, the WCS FWF is the
only facility that can accept Class B and
Class C LLW for disposal. DOE intends
to initiate shipments of the SRS
contaminated process equipment in
2023.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:19 Jul 19, 2023
Jkt 259001
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 14,
2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023–15308 Filed 7–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
Combined Notice of Filings
Take notice that the Commission has
received the following Natural Gas and
Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report
filings:
Filings Instituting Proceedings
Docket Numbers: RP23–895–000.
Applicants: Alliance Pipeline L.P.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: Tioga
Lateral Waiver and Hess NRA Filing to
be effective 9/1/2023.
Filed Date: 7/14/23.
Accession Number: 20230714–5001.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/23.
Docket Numbers: RP23–896–000.
Applicants: Minnesota Municipal
Power Agency v. Northern Natural Gas
Company.
Description: Complaint of Minnesota
Municipal Power Agency v. Northern
Natural Gas Company.
Filed Date: 7/13/23.
Accession Number: 20230713–5141.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/2/23.
Docket Numbers: RP23–897–000.
Applicants: Carolina Gas
Transmission, LLC.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing: CGT—
Pricing Index Clarification to be
effective 8/14/2023.
Filed Date: 7/14/23.
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Accession Number: 20230714–5002.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/23.
Docket Numbers: RP23–898–000.
Applicants: Midwestern Gas
Transmission Company.
Description: § 4(d) Rate Filing:
Revisions to Part 6 for Contract
Assignment to be effective 8/1/2023.
Filed Date: 7/14/23.
Accession Number: 20230714–5062.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 7/26/23.
Any person desiring to intervene, to
protest, or to answer a complaint in any
of the above proceedings must file in
accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206
of the Commission’s Regulations (18
CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the
Commission’s eLibrary system (https://
elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/
fercgensearch.asp) by querying the
docket number.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed
information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests,
service, and qualifying facilities filings
can be found at: https://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For
other information, call (866) 208–3676
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–8659.
For other information, call (866) 208–
3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502–
8659. The Commission’s Office of
Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and
participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of
the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities,
Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and
navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with
making filings such as interventions,
comments, or requests for rehearing, the
public is encouraged to contact OPP at
(202) 502–6595 or OPP@ferc.gov.
Dated: July 14, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023–15429 Filed 7–19–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
E:\FR\FM\20JYN1.SGM
20JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 138 (Thursday, July 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46785-46788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15308]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Finding of No Significant Impact for the Commercial Disposal of
Contaminated Process Equipment From the Savannah River Site
AGENCY: Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy.
ACTION: Finding of No Significant Impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has completed the Final
Environmental Assessment for the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River
Site Contaminated Process Equipment (Final EA). Consistent with the
Final EA, the Proposed Action is the disposal
[[Page 46786]]
of contaminated process equipment from the Savannah River Site (SRS) at
a commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) disposal facility
located outside of South Carolina and licensed by a U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) Agreement State. Based on the information
and analysis in the Final EA, DOE intends to implement the Proposed
Action and send the contaminated process equipment to the Waste Control
Specialists LLC (WCS) Federal Waste Facility (FWF), a licensed
commercial disposal facility located in Andrews County, Texas, for
disposal.
ADDRESSES: This Finding of No Significant Impact and the Final EA are
available on the DOE National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) website
at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/doeea-2154-commercial-disposal-savannah-river-site-contaminated-process-equipment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edgard Espinosa, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Environmental Management, Office of Waste and
Materials Management (EM-4.2), 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585. Email: [email protected]. Telephone: (202) 586-5382.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
DOE prepared the Final EA in accordance with Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at Title 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 1500-1508 and DOE NEPA implementing procedures
at 10 CFR part 1021. Consistent with the Final EA, the Proposed Action
is the disposal of contaminated process equipment from SRS at a
commercial LLW disposal facility located outside of South Carolina and
licensed by an NRC Agreement State; disposal under the Proposed Action
would be in accordance with the Agreement State's regulations, which
are equivalent to the NRC regulations at 10 CFR part 61 for land
disposal of radioactive waste, and other requirements. Disposal
alternatives for this waste are discussed under the ``Proposed Action
and Alternatives'' section.
Certain SRS process equipment (i.e., Tank 28F salt sampling drill
string, glass bubblers, and glass pumps) is contaminated with
reprocessing waste and is currently conservatively managed as if it
were high-level radioactive waste (HLW), which is required to be
disposed of in a geologic repository. Because the NRC has not licensed
a geologic repository in the United States, there is no current
disposal pathway for the SRS contaminated process equipment. Portions
of the Tank 28F salt sampling drill string, glass bubblers, and glass
pumps contain hazardous components (e.g., lead) or are contaminated
with hazardous constituents. Because there are no permitted facilities
at SRS for the disposal of mixed low-level radioactive waste, this
contaminated process equipment cannot be disposed of on site.
Therefore, the purpose and need for DOE's action is to identify a
disposal pathway for the SRS contaminated process equipment to mitigate
on-site storage constraints, improve worker safety, and support
accelerated completion of the environmental cleanup mission at SRS.
As described in the June 10, 2019, Supplemental Notice Concerning
U.S. Department of Energy Interpretation of High-Level Radioactive
Waste (84 FR 26835) (Supplemental Notice) and affirmed in the December
21, 2021, Assessment of the Department of Energy's Interpretation of
the Definition of High-Level Radioactive Waste (86 FR 72220), DOE
interprets the statutory term, ``high-level radioactive waste,'' as set
forth in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et
seq.) and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) (42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.)
such that some reprocessing wastes may be classified as not HLW (non-
HLW) and may be disposed of in accordance with their radiological
characteristics and not solely the origin of the waste (HLW
interpretation). This interpretation may be used to facilitate the safe
disposal of defense reprocessing waste if the waste meets either of the
following two criteria:
1. Does not exceed concentration limits for Class C low-level
radioactive waste as set out in 10 CFR 61.55, and meets the performance
objectives of a disposal facility; or
2. Does not require disposal in a deep geologic repository and
meets the performance objectives of a disposal facility as demonstrated
through a performance assessment conducted in accordance with
applicable requirements.
NRC's performance objectives for commercial LLW disposal facilities
are specified in 10 CFR part 61, subpart C, ``Performance Objectives.''
As stated in the Supplemental Notice, DOE will continue its current
practice of managing all of its defense reprocessing wastes as if they
were HLW unless and until a specific waste is determined to be another
category of waste based on a detailed technical assessment of its
characteristics and an evaluation of potential disposal pathways.
As discussed in the Final EA, DOE has estimated the expected
radionuclide concentration levels for each of the disposal containers
for the Tank 28F drill string, the glass pumps, and the glass bubblers
(see Final EA, Appendix A) and prepared a technical evaluation
demonstrating that the contaminated process equipment would meet
Criterion 1 for non-HLW under DOE's interpretation of the AEA and NWPA
definition of HLW. Consistent with that technical evaluation, DOE also
prepared an official determination documenting that the contaminated
process equipment is non-HLW under Criterion 1 of the HLW
interpretation. As part of implementing this determination, DOE would
verify with the licensee of the off-site commercial disposal facility
that the disposal containers meet the facility's waste acceptance
criteria and all other requirements of the disposal facility, including
applicable regulatory requirements prior to disposal and applicable
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) requirements for packaging
and transportation from SRS to the commercial disposal facility.
On January 19, 2021, DOE issued a notice in the Federal Register
(86 FR 5175) of its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment for
the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River Site Contaminated Process
Equipment. On December 21, 2021, DOE announced in the Federal Register
(86 FR 72217) the availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment
for the Commercial Disposal of Savannah River Site Contaminated Process
Equipment (Draft EA) for public comment. DOE also posted the Draft EA
on DOE websites for public review. DOE held an informational webinar on
the Draft EA on January 11, 2022, to provide the public and
stakeholders with an overview of the Draft EA and the Department's HLW
interpretation.
II. Proposed Action and Alternatives
Under the Proposed Action, DOE would dispose of the SRS
contaminated process equipment (Tank 28F salt sampling drill string,
glass bubblers, and glass pumps) at a commercial LLW disposal facility
outside of South Carolina licensed by an NRC Agreement State. Disposal
under the Proposed Action would be in accordance with the Agreement
State's regulations, which are equivalent to 10 CFR part 61, among
other requirements. Prior to disposal, DOE would submit a waste profile
and supporting characterization documentation for the SRS contaminated
process equipment to the licensee of the off-site commercial LLW
disposal facility to further verify with
[[Page 46787]]
the licensee that the final grouted waste meets Criterion 1 of the HLW
interpretation for disposal as non-HLW, in accordance with DOE Manual
435.1-1, Radioactive Waste Management Manual. DOE would demonstrate
compliance with the waste acceptance criteria and all other
requirements of the disposal facility, including any applicable
regulatory requirements for management of the waste prior to disposal
and applicable USDOT and NRC requirements for packaging and
transportation from SRS to the commercial disposal facility. DOE has
identified two reasonable action alternatives for the Proposed Action:
Alternative 1--If determined to be Class B or Class C LLW,
DOE would stabilize and package the waste at SRS and ship the waste
packages to the WCS FWF in Andrews County, Texas, for disposal.
Implementation would be dependent upon the waste meeting WCS's waste
acceptance criteria, among other requirements.
Alternative 2--If determined to be Class A LLW, DOE would
stabilize and package the waste at SRS and ship the waste packages to
either EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, or WCS in Andrews County, Texas,
for disposal. Implementation would be dependent upon the waste meeting
the facility's waste acceptance criteria, among other requirements.
The EA also evaluates a No-Action Alternative under which the
contaminated process equipment would remain in storage at SRS until
another disposal path was identified.
III. Potential Environmental Impacts
The analyses in the Final EA demonstrate that the Proposed Action
and alternatives entail minimal risk to human health or to the quality
of the environment for both action alternatives analyzed. The proposed
alternatives would have minor potential environmental impacts. Chapter
3 of the Final EA analyzed the following resource areas in detail: (1)
air quality, (2) human health (normal operations), (3) human health
(accidents and intentional destructive acts), (4) waste management, and
(5) transportation.
Air quality impacts would be negligible under both action
alternatives. DOE would use typical radiological containment measures
during the waste preparation activities. The combination of these
measures and a solid waste form would limit the potential to emit
airborne radiological materials. Because the transportation containers
and any shielding materials would be returned to SRS as a non-
radiological shipment, DOE analyzed non-radiological air quality
impacts associated with 62 total vehicle shipments (31 radiological and
31 non-radiological return shipments). The estimated number of truck
shipments would produce negligible air emissions, including greenhouse
gases, and disposal actions at the commercial facilities would not
cause any additional air emissions beyond those already expected from
their ongoing, permitted, and/or licensed operations.
Potential impacts to workers at SRS and the public from normal
operations would be minimal under both action alternatives. Potential
doses to workers would be well within the administrative control level
for SRS workers and would result in zero latent cancer fatalities
(LCFs). In addition, DOE would implement measures (e.g., use of
shielding and personal protective equipment) to minimize worker
exposures and maintain doses as low as reasonably achievable. Because
there would be no radiological emissions or effluents associated with
either of the alternatives, and no direct radiation dose off site,
there would be no dose to the public from normal operations. Potential
impacts from disposal actions at the commercial disposal facility would
not result in any notable increase in human health impacts beyond those
already expected from ongoing LLW disposal operations under the
disposal facility's environmental permits and license.
An accident or intentional destructive act involving the
contaminated process equipment during on-site activities would result
in minimal impacts to workers and the public. Because the contaminated
process equipment would be placed in a disposal container and encased
in grout and foam to fill any void spaces, there would be no dispersion
of radiological materials that could occur from a drop during any
lifting operations. The maximum reasonably foreseeable result of this
drop would include damage to the disposal container that would require
repackaging. If this were to occur, operations personnel would move
away from the event and develop a plan to cover the equipment (to
prevent direct radiation effects) and repackage the equipment in a
replacement disposal container. These recovery actions would be planned
in accordance with the site procedures under principles to maintain
radiological exposure as low as reasonably achievable. Any potential
worker doses would be significantly below DOE's administrative control
level of 2,000 millirem (mrem) per year for a worker, and below the SRS
contractor's administrative control level of 500 mrem per year. This
exposure would be expected to result in zero LCFs. There would be no
dispersion or release of radiological materials from an accident
involving contaminated process equipment on site; therefore, DOE would
not expect any off-site consequences from this accident scenario.
Waste management impacts at SRS and the potential disposal sites
would be minimal. Based on sample data (see Appendix A of the Final
EA), DOE has a sound basis to conclude that the waste stream meets
Criterion 1 of the HLW interpretation. At the time of implementing any
of the alternatives, DOE would follow the waste acceptance process for
the commercial disposal facility. The wastes would only be accepted for
disposal if the volume and radiological constituents fall within the
bounds of the applicable facility's license and waste acceptance
criteria. As a result, the LLW would result in negligible waste
management impacts for either licensed disposal facility.
The transportation of contaminated process equipment would involve
approximately 31 radiological truck shipments and 31 non-radiological
return truck shipments under both Alternatives 1 and 2. The primary
difference between the two alternatives is the distance traveled from
SRS. Under Alternative 1, disposal containers would be shipped from SRS
to WCS (approximately 1,400 miles) and under Alternative 2, disposal
containers would be shipped from SRS to WCS or EnergySolutions
(approximately 2,200 miles). The waste would be packaged and shipped in
accordance with USDOT requirements. The potential radiological and
nonradiological risks to the truck crew and the public along the
transportation route would be negligible. In the event an accident did
occur, impacts to water and ecological resources would be extremely
unlikely because the solid form would not be dispersible.
Consistent with both CEQ and DOE NEPA regulations, the analysis in
the Final EA focused on the subjects relevant to the Proposed Action
and potential impacts. Based on a screening analysis described in the
Final EA, the following resource areas did not require additional
detailed analysis: land use; noise; geology and soils; visual, water
(surface, groundwater, and wetlands), and ecological resources (biota,
threatened and endangered species); cultural and paleontological
resources; socioeconomics and environmental justice; infrastructure and
utilities; and industrial safety.
[[Page 46788]]
IV. External Review and Comments
Three comment documents were received during the public comment
period on the Draft EA. Commenters included one Federal agency, one
state agency, and one local community organization. Appendix B of the
Final EA includes the comments delineated within each comment document
and DOE's responses to the comments. DOE considered all public comments
received in preparing the Final EA.
V. Determination
In the Final EA, DOE evaluated the potential environmental impacts
associated with packaging, transportation, and disposal of contaminated
process equipment from SRS at a licensed commercial LLW disposal
facility outside of the state of South Carolina. Implementation of
either action alternative analyzed in the Final EA would entail minor
impacts and low risks and would not constitute a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment in
accordance with DOE's NEPA implementing procedures, 10 CFR part 1021,
and the regulations promulgated by the CEQ for implementing NEPA, 40
CFR 1501.6. Therefore, the preparation of an environmental impact
statement is not required.
Based on the analysis in the Final EA, DOE intends to ship the
contaminated process equipment to the WCS FWF, a licensed off-site
commercial disposal facility located in Andrews County, Texas, for
disposal (Alternative 1). DOE has characterized the contaminated
process equipment, which included sampling analyses (see Final EA,
Appendix A), and prepared a technical evaluation and an official
determination that demonstrate and document, that the SRS contaminated
process equipment meets Criterion 1 for non-HLW under DOE's
interpretation of the AEA and NWPA definition of HLW. The technical
reports are available at: https://www.energy.gov/em/high-level-radioactive-waste-hlw-interpretation. Current characterization analysis
shows that the disposal containers of contaminated process equipment
are either Class B LLW (Tank 28F salt sampling drill string) or Class C
LLW (glass bubblers and glass pumps). Of the licensed commercial
facilities analyzed in the Final EA, the WCS FWF is the only facility
that can accept Class B and Class C LLW for disposal. DOE intends to
initiate shipments of the SRS contaminated process equipment in 2023.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 14,
2023, by Kristen G. Ellis, Acting Assistant Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Regulatory and Policy Affairs, pursuant to delegated
authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original
signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes
only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this
document upon publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 14, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2023-15308 Filed 7-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
