Department of Energy April 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Department of Energy (DOE) has prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) (DOE/EIS-0383) to assess the environmental impacts associated with a proposed project that would be cost-shared by DOE and Southern Company (in partnership with the Orlando Utilities Commission) (OUC) under DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. The project would demonstrate advanced power generation systems using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) technology at OUC's existing Stanton Energy Center near Orlando, Florida. After careful consideration of the potential environmental impacts, along with program goals and objectives, DOE has decided that it will provide, through a cooperative agreement with Southern Company, a total of $235 million in cost-shared funding (about 41% of the total cost of approximately $569 million) to design, construct, and demonstrate the Orlando Gasification Project proposed by Southern Company.

In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and extension of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received no comments in response to an earlier Federal Register notice of December 15, 2006 (71 FR 75523-75524) and has made this notation in its submission to OMB.

In compliance with the requirements of section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and extension of this information collection requirement. Any interested person may file comments directly with OMB and should address a copy of those comments to the Commission as explained below. The Commission received one comment from an entity in response to an earlier Federal Register notice of January 8, 2007 (72 FR 763-764) and has provided a response to the commenter in its submission to OMB. Copies of the submission were also submitted to the commenter.

This notice is being issued under the authority of Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2160). The Department is providing notice of a proposed ``subsequent arrangement'' under the Agreement for Cooperation between the Government of the United States of America and the Republic of Korea Concerning Civil Uses of Atomic Energy, signed November 24, 1972, as amended. This subsequent arrangement concerns the renewal of the 2002 Joint Determination by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article VIII(C) of that Agreement. This arrangement reaffirms that the provisions of Article XI of the Joint Determination may be effectively applied for the alteration in form or content of U.S.-origin nuclear material contained in irradiated nuclear fuels from pressurized water reactors, CANDU reactors, a research reactor at the Post Irradiation Examination Facility (PIEF), the Irradiated Material Examination Facility (IMEF), the DUPIC Fuel Fabrications Facility (DFDF), and identified analytical laboratories at the Headquarters of the Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, in accordance with the plan contained in KAERI/AR-765/2007, dated January 30, 2007, and KAERI/AR-766/2007, dated January 31, 2007. Any activities additional to the plan or changes in the equipment in the PIEF, IMEF, or the DFDF will be reviewed by both parties to ensure the general consistency with the scope and objectives of the Joint Determination. Reference is made to the Joint Determination signed by the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Korea on March 29, 1996, on April 8, 1999, and on January 29, 2002, covering similar activities at the PIEF, the IMEF, and the DFDF. These facilities are found acceptable to both parties pursuant to Article VIII(C) of the Agreement for the sole purpose of alteration in form or content of irradiated fuel elements for post- irradiation examination and for research, development and manufacture of DUPIC fuel powders, pellets and elements for the period ending March 31, 2012. In accordance with Section 131 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, we have determined that this subsequent arrangement will not be inimical to the common defense and security. This subsequent arrangement will take effect no sooner than 15 days after the date of publication of this notice.

Southeastern Power Administration (Southeastern) proposes to revise existing schedules of rates and charges applicable to the sale of power from the Georgia-Alabama-South Carolina System of Projects effective for a 5-year period, October 1, 2007, through September 30, 2012. Additionally, opportunities will be available for interested persons to review the present rates, the proposed rates and supporting studies, to participate in a forum and to submit written comments. Southeastern will evaluate all comments received in this process.

Pursuant to section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Commission approves 83 of 107 proposed Reliability Standards, six of the eight proposed regional differences, and the Glossary of Terms Used in Reliability Standards developed by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which the Commission has certified as the Electric Reliability Organization (ERO) responsible for developing and enforcing mandatory Reliability Standards. Those Reliability Standards meet the requirements of section 215 of the FPA and Part 39 of the Commission's regulations. However, although we believe it is in the public interest to make these Reliability Standards mandatory and enforceable, we also find that much work remains to be done. Specifically, we believe that many of these Reliability Standards require significant improvement to address, among other things, the recommendations of the Blackout Report. Therefore, pursuant to section 215(d)(5), we require the ERO to submit significant improvements to 56 of the 83 Reliability Standards that are being approved as mandatory and enforceable. The remaining 24 Reliability Standards will remain pending at the Commission until further information is provided. The Final Rule adds a new part to the Commission's regulations, which states that this part applies to all users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power System within the United States (other than Alaska or Hawaii) and requires that each Reliability Standard identify the subset of users, owners and operators to which that particular Reliability Standard applies. The new regulations also require that each Reliability Standard that is approved by the Commission will be maintained on the ERO's Internet Web site for public inspection.

In response to public requests, the Department of Energy (DOE) announces an extension of time to submit comments on the proposed scope, alternatives, and environmental issues to be analyzed in the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP PEIS). This date has been extended to June 4, 2007, thereby giving an additional 61 days to provide comments.

DOE has prepared a Draft Supplement Analysis (SA) pursuant to DOE regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 10 CFR 1021.314. The draft SA addresses DOE's proposal to dispose of the depleted uranium oxide conversion product at either the DOE-owned low-level radioactive waste disposal facility at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) or at EnergySolutions LLC, a commercial low-level waste disposal facility in Clive, Utah (EnergySolutions; formerly known as Envirocare of Utah, Inc.). In April 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for management of its Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6) inventory. The PEIS included a generic assessment of the disposal of depleted uranium oxide conversion product (as U3O8 or UO2) and concluded that disposal of either product in shallow earthen structures, vaults, or mines would adequately protect human health and the environment over the time period considered, as long as the disposal facility is located in a dry environment and appropriately engineered (e.g., the cover material is maintained). Subsequently, DOE prepared site-specific final Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for construction and operation of DUF6 conversion facilities at the DOE's Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio, sites in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky Site, DOE/EIS-0359, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio Site, DOE/EIS- 0360. DOE published its Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Paducah, Kentucky Site, and Record of Decision for Construction and Operation of a Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Facility at the Portsmouth, Ohio Site (RODs) on July 27, 2004 (69 FR 44649 and 69 FR 44654). In each site-specific ROD, DOE announced its decision to implement the actions described as the preferred alternative in the corresponding conversion facility EIS, which included the following actions: DOE will construct and operate a conversion facility at Location A within each of the Paducah and Portsmouth sites. All shipments to and from the conversion facility sites, including any potential shipments of non-DUF6 cylinders currently stored at the East Tennessee Technology Park (ETTP), will be conducted by either truck or rail, as appropriate. Cylinders will be shipped in a manner that is consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations for the shipment of UF6 cylinders. Current cylinder management activities (handling, inspection, monitoring, and maintenance) will continue, consistent with Cylinder Project Management Plan for Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, effective October 2003, which covers actions needed to meet safety and environmental requirements, until conversion can be accomplished. The aqueous hydrofluoric acid (HF) produced during conversion will be sold for use. If necessary, calcium fluoride (CaF2) will be produced and reused, or disposed of as appropriate. The depleted uranium oxide conversion product will be reused to the extent possible or packaged in emptied cylinders for disposal at an appropriate disposal facility. DOE plans to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted uranium oxide conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. Accordingly, DOE will continue to evaluate its disposal options and will consider any further information or comments relevant to that decision. DOE will give a minimum 45-day notice before making the specific disposal decision and will provide any supplemental NEPA analysis for public review and comment. The conversion facility RODs did not declare a decision regarding the location for disposal of depleted uranium oxide conversion product. The reason DOE did not make its disposal decision at the time it issued the RODs for construction and operation of the two DUF6 conversion facilities is that it discovered that it had, through an oversight, not served copies of the draft and final site-specific EISs (DOE 2004a, b) to the States of Utah, home of EnergySolutions, and Nevada, home of NTS, as required in 40 CFR 1502.19. As a result, each ROD states DOE's intention to decide the specific disposal location(s) for the depleted uranium oxide conversion product after additional appropriate NEPA review. This draft SA addresses the additional appropriate NEPA review committed to in the earlier RODs. The draft SA identifies no significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns that bear on DOE's decisions on disposal locations or the impacts of those decisions. Based on the draft SA that is the subject of this Notice, DOE believes that a supplemental EIS is not needed to support amending the conversion facility RODs to decide the disposal location for the depleted uranium oxide conversion product. The depleted uranium oxide conversion product may be disposed either at the EnergySolutions low-level waste disposal facility or at the NTS low- level waste disposal facility. DOE plans to issue amended RODs under the conversion facility EISs no sooner than 45 days from the publication of this Notice.