43158 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 

by clicking on link number 4355. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title and OMB Control Number of the 

information collection when making 

your request. 

Individuals who use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18083 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Amended Record of Decision for the 

Decommissioning of Eight Surplus 

Production Reactors at the Hanford 

Site, Richland, WA 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Amended Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is amending its initial Record of 

Decision (ROD) issued September 16, 

1993 (58 Federal Register (FR) 48509), 

pursuant to the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement on Decommissioning 

of Eight Surplus Production Reactors at 

the Hanford Site, Richland, WA 

(Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS) 

(DOE/EIS–0119F, December 1992). The 

Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS 

evaluated the potential environmental 

impacts, benefits and costs, and 

institutional and programmatic needs 

associated with the decommissioning of 

eight surplus production reactors at the 

Hanford Site. 

These reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE 

and KW), operated between the years 

1944 and 1971 and retired from service, 

have been declared surplus by DOE, and 

are available for decommissioning. The 

1993 ROD documented DOE’s decision 

to select safe storage followed by 

deferred one-piece removal for 

decommissioning of the eight surplus 

production reactors. DOE has been 

implementing the safe storage 

component of this 1993 reactor 

decommissioning ROD consistent with 

the remedial action cleanup schedules 

in the Hanford Federal Facility 

Agreement and Consent Order (Tri-Party 

Agreement, TPA). Through the Tri-Party 

Agreement, DOE continues to evaluate 

this decommissioning action in light of 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 

(RCRA) remediation of the past practice 

units in the 100 Area. 

As explained in this amended ROD, 

DOE has decided to broaden the 

decommissioning approach for these 

eight reactors. DOE is retaining the 

deferred one-piece removal option, as 

selected in the 1993 ROD, and, based on 

a recently prepared Supplement 

Analysis, is adding an option for 

immediate dismantlement. 

ADDRESSES: The 1992 Surplus 

Production Reactors Final EIS, the 1993 

ROD, the Supplement Analysis, and this 

Amended ROD are available 

electronically on the DOE NEPA Web 

site at http://www.nepa.energy.gov/. 

Copies of the documents referenced 

herein are available from the: Center for 

Environmental Management 

Information, P.O. Box 23769, 

Washington, DC 20026–3769. 

Telephone: 1–800–736–3282 (in 

Washington, DC: 202–863–5084). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the Supplement 

Analysis for the Surplus Production 

Reactors EIS, contact: Woody Russell, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Compliance Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of River 

Protection, 2440 Stevens Center, MSIN 

H6–60, Richland, WA 99354, 

Telephone: 509–373–5227. 

For general information on DOE’s 

NEPA process, contact: Ms. Carol 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. Telephone 202– 

586–4600, or leave a message at 1–800– 

472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In March 1989, DOE issued the Draft 

Surplus Production Reactors EIS (DOE/ 

EIS–0119) to analyze alternatives for 

decommissioning eight water-cooled, 

graphite-moderated plutoniumproduction reactors, located along the 

Columbia River in Washington State. 

The eight reactors (B, C, D, DR, F, H, KE 

and KW), operated between the years 

1944 and 1971, have been retired from 

service. The alternatives analyzed in the 

Draft EIS included the no-action, 

immediate one-piece removal, safe 

storage followed by deferred one-piece 

removal, safe storage followed by 

deferred dismantlement, and in situ 

decommissioning alternatives. 

Comments received during the public 

and agency review process of the Draft 

Surplus Production Reactors EIS did not 

require the Department to modify any 

alternatives, to develop and evaluate 

any new alternatives, or to supplement, 

improve, or modify its analyses of the 

decommissioning alternatives. 

Therefore, the Department prepared and 

distributed an Addendum to the Draft 

Surplus Production Reactors EIS in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1503(c). The 

Addendum (December 1992) stated 

DOE’s response to issues raised by 

commenters and minor changes to the 

text. The Draft Surplus Production 

Reactors EIS and the Addendum 

constitute the Final EIS (DOE/EIS– 

0119F) under the provisions of the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR 1503.4(c)). The 

Notice of Availability of the Final EIS 

was published in the Federal Register 

on January 15, 1993 (58 FR 4690). 

As stated in the 1993 ROD, DOE 

regards the safe storage followed by 

deferred dismantlement, safe storage 

followed by one-piece removal, and 

immediate one-piece removal 

alternatives as equally favorable based 

solely on the evaluation of 

environmental impacts. [Note that a 

ninth reactor, N Reactor, was in 

transition regarding its defense 

production mission at the time of the 

Surplus Production Reactor EIS, and 

was not within the scope of the Final 

Surplus Production Reactor EIS or ROD. 

N Reactor has been retired and is 

undergoing deactivation under 

CERCLA.] 

DOE uses the CERCLA process to 

decommission and dismantle reactors 

based on the joint EPA/DOE policy on 

reactor decommissioning signed in 1995 

and incorporated into the TPA. Since 

the NEPA ROD in 1993, documentation 

has been prepared and implemented 

under CERCLA, resulting in placement 

of five of the eight surplus reactors (C, 

D, DR, F, and H) into interim safe 

storage (ISS). [ISS, or ‘‘cocooning,’’ is the 

process of demolishing all but the shield 

walls surrounding the reactor core, 

removing or stabilizing all loose 

contamination within the facility, and 

placing a new roof on the remaining 

structure. A single doorway in the 

structure is installed to provide access 

for surveillance and maintenance work. 

This doorway is welded shut, and all 

other openings in the shield walls are 

sealed to prevent intrusions and the 

release of radioactive materials. The 

facility is inspected every five years and 

remotely monitored at all times for 

changes in moisture and temperature. 

The reactor cores could remain in ISS 

for up to 75 years.] Of the remaining 

three reactors, B Reactor is under 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 43159 

consideration for preservation as a 

national historic site. Although KE and 

KW Reactors have had CERCLA 

documentation issued that identified 

ISS as the preferred alternative, the KE 

and KW reactors are not currently in 

ISS. However, they are the next reactors 

in the queue for completion of ISS. 

II. Decision 

DOE has decided to broaden the 

decommissioning approach for these 

eight surplus reactors. DOE is retaining 

the deferred one-piece removal option, 

as selected in the 1993 ROD, and, based 

on a recently prepared Supplement 

Analysis, is modifying the deferred 

dismantlement option, as expressed in 

the Final EIS, by selecting an option for 

immediate dismantlement. 

Activities to implement this decision 

will be conducted as CERCLA non-time 

critical removal actions. Specific details 

on unit operations of dismantlement 

will be addressed in the CERCLA 

documentation. All practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm 

have been incorporated in this decision. 

III. Basis for the Decision 

In accordance with CEQ NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR 1502.9(c)) and DOE 

NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314(c)), 

DOE prepared a Supplement Analysis to 

determine whether a supplemental EIS 

or a new EIS is required. The 

Supplement Analysis focused on the 

resource areas and considerations most 

likely to be affected by this amended 

ROD; specifically, worker radiological 

impacts (routine operations and 

accident conditions), land use, 

historical/cultural resources, ecological 

resources, and cumulative impacts. 

Preliminary calculations (based on 

near-term dismantlement of the KE 

reactor core and extrapolated to all eight 

surplus production reactors) indicate 

that worker dose under a dismantlement 

scenario for all eight reactors 

(approximately 80 person-rem) would 

be expected to be substantially less than 

that projected in the Final EIS (532 

person-rem) for deferred dismantlement, 

and slightly higher than that for 

deferred one-piece removal (51 personrem in the safe storage/deferred onepiece removal scenario). The actual dose 

rates to which workers would be 

exposed would be controlled by such 

means as remote handling, use of 

robotics, and the use of shielding. 

Worker radiation exposure would be 

controlled to stay within administrative 

and regulatory limits. Regardless, less 

than one latent cancer fatality (LCF) 

would be expected under all of the 

alternatives. No new bounding accident 

scenarios associated with reactor 

decommissioning have been identified; 

less than one LCF would be expected as 

a result of any postulated bounding 

accident. 

No new land use, historical/cultural 

resource, or ecological resources 

impacts were identified in the 

Supplement Analysis relevant to 

decommissioning activities under 

deferred one-piece removal or 

immediate dismantlement. 

Also, as stated in the Supplement 

Analysis, no short-term or long-term 

cumulative impacts (based on the 

analyses presented in DOE/EIS–0391, 

Draft Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact 

Statement) were identified relevant to 

decommissioning activities under onepiece removal or dismantlement. 

In evaluating the viability of 

supporting accelerated 

decommissioning of surplus reactor 

facilities in a safe and environmentally 

effective manner, DOE also considered 

technological advances and additional 

information since the Final EIS and the 

1993 ROD were issued. New 

engineering controls (such as 

development and deployment of 

robotics in an array of field 

applications), data collection and 

validation, worker safety practices, and 

real-time lessons learned from reactor 

demolition activities at Brookhaven 

National Laboratory all could be applied 

to accelerated surplus reactor 

decommissioning at the Hanford Site. 

These controls and information would 

enable accelerated decommissioning 

activities to be conducted safely. 

IV. Determination 

DOE has decided to broaden the 

decommissioning approach for the 

surplus reactors, retaining the deferred 

one-piece removal option and adding an 

option for immediate dismantlement. 

Based on the Supplement Analysis, this 

is not a substantial change in the 

proposed action relevant to 

environmental concerns. Further, there 

are no significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

actions or their impacts described in the 

Surplus Production Reactors Final EIS. 

Therefore, DOE has determined that 

neither a new EIS, nor a supplement to 

the Surplus Production Reactors EIS, is 

required. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 16, 2010. 

Ine ́s R. Triay, 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18079 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Solicitation of Nominations 

for Appointment as a Member of the 

Biomass Research and Development 

Technical Advisory Committee; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of solicitation of 

members; correction. 

SUMMARY: On July 15, 2010, the 

Department of Energy published a 

notice of solicitation of members (75 FR 

41166). This document corrects that 

notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura McCann, Designated Federal 

Official for the Committee, Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–7766; 

e-mail: laura.mccann@ee.doe.gov or 

Christina Fagerholm at (202) 586–2933; 

e-mail: christina.fagerholm@ee.doe.gov. 

In the Federal Register of July 15, 

2010, in FR Doc. 2010–17285, on page 

41167, please make the following 

correction: 

Under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 

first column, the second to the last 

paragraph is corrected to read: 

‘‘Nominations are open to all 

individuals without regard to race, 

color, religion, sex, national origin, age, 

mental or physical handicap, marital 

status, or sexual orientation. Please 

note, however, that registered lobbyists 

and individuals already serving on 

another Federal Advisory Committee are 

ineligible for nomination.’’ 

The deadline for Technical Advisory 

Committee member nominations is July 

30, 2010. 

Issued in Washington, DC on July 20, 2010. 

Rachel Samuel, 

Deputy Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18127 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Energy Information Administration 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Energy Information 

Administration (EIA), Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Agency information collection 

activities: Submission for OMB review; 

comment request. 

SUMMARY: The EIA has submitted the 

Energy Information Administration’s 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES