13606 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Notices 

stainless steel canisters where the 

mixture hardened into a solid glass 

waste form. DOE used the vitrification 

melter as part of this process, 

specifically to melt glass frit (material 

used in making glass) together with 

reprocessing waste sludge and treatment 

material (spent ion removal resin). 

DOE operated the vitrification melter 

between 1996 and 2002. In 2002, prior 

to shut down, the vitrification melter 

was flushed three times with 

decontamination solutions and emptied 

using an evacuated canister process so 

as to remove key radionuclides to the 

maximum extent technically and 

economically practical. After 

completing this decontamination, a 

small amount of hardened residual 

radioactive glass material that could not 

be removed remained inside the 

vitrification melter. The vitrification 

melter with the remaining residual 

waste was characterized for 

radioactivity and determined to have 

radionuclide concentrations that do not 

exceed concentration limits for Class C 

low-level waste. It was removed from 

the vitrification cell in 2004 and is 

presently safely stored at the West 

Valley Demonstration Project in a 

Department of Transportation-certified 

Industrial Package-2 steel transportation 

container. DOE plans to further stabilize 

the vitrification melter waste package by 

filling the melter and the waste package 

with cement grout before shipment 

offsite. It will be disposed of at a 

suitable off-site low-level waste disposal 

facility, either the Area 5 Radioactive 

Waste Management Site at DOE’s 

Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) 

in Nevada or the Waste Control 

Specialists Federal Facility Waste 

Disposal Facility near Andrews, Texas. 

DOE intends to dispose of the 

vitrification melter waste package in 

accordance with applicable waste 

acceptance criteria using specific waste 

profile documentation. 

DOE Manual 435.1–1, which 

implements DOE Order 435.1, 

Radioactive Waste Management, 

contains a rigorous evaluation process 

which DOE uses to determine whether 

or not certain waste from the 

reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is 

incidental to reprocessing and therefore 

is not high-level waste and can be 

managed as low-level waste. This 

process, in relevant part, requires 

demonstrating that: 

(1) Key radionuclides have been 

removed to the maximum extent that is 

technically and economically practical; 

(2) The waste will be managed to meet 

safety requirements comparable to the 

performance objectives set out in 10 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 

61, Subpart C, Performance Objectives; 

and 

(3) The waste will be managed, 

pursuant to DOE’s authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and in accordance with the provisions 

of Chapter IV of DOE Manual 435.1–1, 

provided the waste will be incorporated 

in a solid physical form at a 

concentration that does not exceed the 

applicable concentration limits for Class 

C low-level waste as set out in 10 CFR 

61.55, Waste Classification. 

The draft waste-incidental-toreprocessing evaluation summarizes 

DOE’s analysis and shows that the 

vitrification melter: 

(1) Has had key radionuclides 

removed to the maximum extent 

technically and economically practical; 

(2) Will be managed to meet safety 

requirements comparable to the NRC 

performance objectives at 10 CFR part 

61, subpart C; and 

(3) Will be in a solid physical form 

that does not exceed concentration 

limits for Class C low-level waste and 

will be managed and disposed of 

pursuant to DOE’s authority under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

and in accordance with applicable 

provisions of Chapter IV of DOE Manual 

435.1–1. 

Accordingly, the draft evaluation 

demonstrates using the wasteincidental-to-reprocessing evaluation 

process that the West Valley 

vitrification melter waste package may 

be managed and disposed of as lowlevel waste. The vitrification melter 

waste package will meet the applicable 

waste acceptance criteria for the 

selected offsite low-level waste disposal 

facility, either the NNSS Area 5 

Radioactive Waste Management Site or 

the Waste Control Specialists Federal 

Facility Waste Disposal Facility in 

Texas. The vitrification melter waste 

package has been approved for disposal 

by the NNSS in case a final decision is 

made to send the waste package to that 

site for disposal. 

DOE is consulting with the NRC 

before finalizing this evaluation. 

Although not required by DOE Manual 

435.1–1, DOE is making the draft 

evaluation available for public and state 

review and comment during the NRC 

consultative review period. DOE plans 

to issue a final determination as to 

whether the vitrification melter is highlevel waste or can be managed and 

disposed of as low-level waste following 

review and consultation with the NRC 

and consideration of public and state 

comments. 

DOE’s decision on the disposal site to 

be used is not within the scope of this 

draft evaluation. Any DOE decision on 

the facility to which the Vitrification 

Melter waste package would be sent 

would be made after the final DOE 

evaluation and determination, following 

consideration of NRC and public 

comments on this draft evaluation, and 

after DOE confers with appropriate State 

officials in the state where the waste 

package may be disposed. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 8, 

2011. 

Frank Marcinowski, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Technical and 

Regulatory Support, Office of Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5789 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, Office of 

Fossil Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Ultra-Deepwater 

Advisory Committee. The Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92– 

463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public 

notice of this meeting be announced in 

the Federal Register. 

DATES: Wednesday, April 6, 2011, 8 

a.m.–5 p.m. (CDT). Thursday, April 7, 

2011, 8 a.m.–4 p.m. (CDT). 

ADDRESSES: Crowne Plaza Hotel, 

Houston North—Greenspoint, 425 North 

Sam Houston Parkway East, Houston, 

Texas 77060. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elena Melchert, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Oil and Natural Gas, 

Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 

586–5600. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of 

the Committee: The purpose of the 

Ultra-Deepwater Advisory Committee is 

to provide advice on the development 

and implementation of programs related 

to ultra-deepwater architecture and 

technology to the Secretary of Energy 

and provide comments and 

recommendations and priorities for the 

Department of Energy Annual Plan per 

requirements of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, Title IX, Subtitle J, Section 999D. 

Tentative Agenda 

April 6 

7:30 a.m. Registration. 

8 a.m.–4:45 p.m. Welcome & 

Introductions, Opening Remarks, 

and Discussion of Subcommittee 

Reports, and Findings regarding the 

Draft 2011 Annual Plan. 

4:45 p.m. Public Comments, if any. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 49 / Monday, March 14, 2011 / Notices 13607 

5 p.m. Adjourn. 

April 7 

7:30 a.m. Registration. 

8 a.m.–4 p.m. Discussion of 

Recommendations regarding the 

Draft 2011 Annual Plan. 

4 p.m. Adjourn. 

Public Participation: The meeting is 

open to the public. The Designated 

Federal Officer and the Chairman of the 

Committee will lead the meeting for the 

orderly conduct of business. If you 

would like to file a written statement 

with the Committee, you may do so 

either before or after the meeting. If you 

would like to make oral statements 

regarding any of the items on the 

agenda, you should contact Elena 

Melchert at the address or telephone 

number listed above. You must make 

your request for an oral statement at 

least two business days prior to the 

meeting, and reasonable provisions will 

be made to include the presentation on 

the agenda. Public comment will follow 

the three-minute rule. 

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting 

will be available for public review and 

copying within 60 days by contact Ms. 

Melchert at the address above or at the 

Committee’s Web site: http://www.fossil.

energy.gov/programs/oilgas/advisory

committees/UltraDeepwater.html. 

Issued at Washington, DC, on March 8, 

2011. 

LaTanya Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5806 Filed 3–11–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Availability of Department of EnergyQuadrennial Technology Review 

Framing Document and Request for 

Public Comment 

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: DOE has initiated a 

Quadrennial Technology Review (DOE– 

QTR) of its energy technology policies 

and programs. The DOE–QTR Framing 

Document (framing document) has been 

developed as a principal means of 

facilitating stakeholder engagement in 

that review process. The framing 

document describes the Nation’s energy 

landscape and challenges, important 

research, development, and 

demonstration (RD&D) policy choices to 

be made, and summarizes the current 

status of energy technologies and DOE 

technology program goals. It is intended 

to serve as the common framework for 

stakeholder engagement through 

advisory committees, workshops, and 

expert discussion groups. 

DATES: Submit written comments on or 

before April 15, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Electronic mail comments 

may be submitted to: DOE– 

QTRmailbox@hq.doe.gov. Please 

include ‘‘DOE–QTR RFI’’ in the subject 

line. Please put the full body of your 

comments in the text of the electronic 

message and as an attachment. Please 

include your name, title, organization, 

postal address, telephone number, and 

e-mail address in the text of the 

message. 

Comments may also be submitted by 

surface mail to: Department of Energy, 

Office of the Under Secretary for 

Science (S4), 1000 Independence Ave., 

SW., Washington, DC 20585. 

Respondents are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically to 

ensure timely receipt. The DOE–QTR 

framing document can be accessed at 

http://energy.gov/QTR. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Asa 

Hopkins, Office of the Under Secretary 

for Science at (202) 586–0505, or e-mail 

asa.hopkins@science.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

energy technology development and 

deployment programs of the Department 

of Energy include the Advanced 

Research Projects Agency–Energy 

(ARPA–E) and the Offices of Electricity 

Delivery & Energy Reliability, Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, Fossil 

Energy, and Nuclear Energy—a set of 

programs with an annual collected 

budget of about $4.3 billion. 

Additionally, the Department 

administers loan guarantees to eligible 

clean energy projects and provides 

direct loans to eligible manufacturers of 

advanced technology vehicles and 

components. 

DOE is undertaking development of a 

DOE–Quadrennial Technology Review 

(QTR), a component of a governmentwide Quadrennial Energy Review as 

recommended by the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science & 

Technology. This Administration’s 

national energy goals are to: 

• Reduce energy-related greenhouse 

gas emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% 

by 2050, from a 2005 baseline; 

• Supply 80% of America’s electricity 

from clean energy sources by 2035; and 

• Support deployment of 1 million 

electric vehicles (EVs) on the road by 

2015. 

This notice requests public comment 

on the following questions related to the 

DOE–QTR and the framing document. 

A. DOE Energy Technology Mission. Is 

the mission statement, ‘‘[t]o facilitate the 

invention, refinement, and early 

deployment of meaningful technologies 

that enable options for scaling by the 

private sector toward national energy 

goals,’’ appropriate for energy 

technology development and 

deployment programs of the 

Department? By facilitate, we mean that 

we convene and fund various entities– 

the national laboratories, academia, the 

private sector—as well as perform the 

basic research that underpins invention 

and refinement. By invention and 

refinement, we mean that we work on 

both revolutionary and evolutionary 

technologies. By early deployment, we 

mean that we support some activities 

beyond first commercial demonstration. 

By meaningful technologies, we mean 

that we pursue technologies that could 

have a material impact when deployed. 

Accordingly, scale, economics, and 

timeliness are important criteria. By 

enable options, we mean that we do not 

pick winners and losers; the markets 

make those choices. By scaling by the 

private sector, we mean that we support 

commercialization as an essential part 

of what we do. With reference to 

national energy goals, we mean that we 

would not pursue all technologies; only 

those that enhance energy and national 

security, reduce environmental impacts, 

and increase U.S. competitiveness. 

B. U.S. Energy Framework. DOE has 

identified six strategies to address our 

National energy goals. These strategies 

divide into two trios: One for transport, 

and one for stationary energy (heat and 

power). The transport strategies are: [1] 

Increase vehicle efficiency, [2] promote 

progressive electrification of the vehicle 

fleet, and [3] develop alternative fuels. 

The stationary strategies are: [4] Increase 

building and industrial efficiency, [5] 

modernize the grid, and [6] drive 

adoption and deployment of a clean 

electricity supply. Have we correctly 

identified and structured these six 

strategies? 

C. Clean Energy Leadership. How can 

DOE activities best support leadership 

in clean energy innovation? In clean 

energy manufacturing? In clean energy 

deployment? How do we balance 

international competitiveness against 

international cooperation? 

D. Program Definition and 

Management. What principles should 

the Department follow for allocating 

resources among technologies of 

disparate maturity and potential time to 

impact? How many technology options 

should the Department provide for the 

private sector, and how should the 

value of that diversity be weighed 

against timeliness, scale, and costmstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES