Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices 69649 

Facility Seismic Safety. The Board followed 

up its Recommendation with a letter to the 

Deputy Secretary of Energy on March 15, 

2010, that sought to determine whether 

DOE’s current interpretation of 10 CFR Part 

830 and DOE Standard 3009–94 still supports 

the principles of providing adequate 

protection of the public, workers, and the 

environment from the hazards of operating 

DOE’s defense nuclear facilities. The Board’s 

letter particularly expressed concern 

regarding the appearance that DOE’s present 

interpretation is that nuclear safety 

Evaluation Guidelines established in DOE 

Standard 3009–94 do not have to be met. 

DOE’s June 10, 2010, response to the 

Board’s letter states that DOE’s utilization 

and implementation of DOE Standard 3009– 

94 has not changed since issuance of 10 CFR 

Part 830. DOE’s response observes that DOE 

Standard 3009–94 ‘‘was not written as a 

prescriptive item-by-item requirements 

document; rather it provides an overall 

approach and guidance for preparing a DSA.’’ 

DOE’s response states that the Standard 

describes steps that the contractor may take 

if the postulated accident consequences 

cannot be mitigated below the Evaluation 

Guideline. DOE’s response also cites 

guidance for DOE approval authorities 

contained in DOE Standard 1104–2009, 

Review and Approval of Nuclear Facility 

Safety Basis and Safety Design Basis 

Documents, and notes that the Safety Basis 

Approval Authority may prescribe interim 

controls and planned improvements if the 

Evaluation Guideline is exceeded. DOE’s 

response closes by stating that its managers 

‘‘are expected to carefully evaluate situations 

that fall short of expectations and only 

provide their approval of documented safety 

analyses when they are satisfied that 

operations can be conducted safely..., that 

options to meet DOE expectations have been 

evaluated, and that adequate commitments to 

achieve an appropriate safety posture in a 

timely manner have been made.’’ 

The lack of definitive statements in DOE’s 

June 10, 2010, response illustrates the 

difficulties inherent in applying a guidance 

document as a safe harbor for implementing 

the requirements of a regulation. 

Furthermore, NNSA’s approval of the DSA 

for the Los Alamos National Laboratory’s 

Plutonium Facility in December 2008 

demonstrates that, despite DOE’s stated 

expectations, it is not always true that DOE’s 

managers will ensure safety by imposing 

conditions of approval that address 

inadequacies in the safety basis. This is 

illustrated to a lesser extent at the other 

NNSA facilities—described in follow-up 

correspondence NNSA issued to the Board 

on June 30, 2010—which have not 

implemented controls or compensatory 

measures sufficient to reduce accident 

consequences below the Evaluation 

Guideline. DOE Standard 1104–2009 serves 

as a source of guidance for DOE Safety Basis 

Approval Authorities, but it, too, is a 

guidance document, unequivocally stating, 

‘‘This Standard does not add any new 

requirements for DOE or its contractors.’’ 

DOE’s standards-based regulatory system 

needs a clear and unambiguous set of nuclear 

safety requirements to ensure that adequate 

protection of the public, workers, and the 

environment is provided. Further, it is 

imperative that DOE provide clear direction 

to its Safety Basis Approval Authorities to 

ensure that, if nuclear safety requirements 

cannot be met prior to approval of a DSA, 

DOE imposes clear conditions of approval for 

compensatory measures for the short term 

and facility modifications for the longer term 

to achieve the required safety posture. This 

acceptance of risk and commitment to future 

upgrades must be approved at a level of 

authority within DOE that is high enough to 

control both the resources needed to 

accomplish the upgrades as well as the 

programmatic decision-making involved in 

determining that the risk of continuing 

operations is offset by sufficiently compelling 

programmatic needs. 

Item 4 of the Recommendation below 

deserves a further word of explanation. The 

Board does not recommend lightly a change 

to DOE’s nuclear safety regulations. But as 

explained above, DOE has chosen over the 

past several years to drift away from the 

principles that underlay the rule as originally 

intended. The Board has chosen to 

recommend a rule change because this action 

would tend, in the long run, to prevent future 

shifts in DOE safety policy that would once 

again have to be challenged and argued 

against. For these reasons, the Board 

recommends that the nuclear safety rule, 10 

CFR Part 830, be amended as stated below. 

Recommendation 

Therefore, the Board recommends that 

DOE: 

1. Immediately affirm the previously 

understood requirement that unmitigated, 

bounding-type accident scenarios will be 

used at DOE’s defense nuclear facilities to 

estimate dose consequences at the site 

boundary, and that a sufficient combination 

of structures, systems, or components must 

be designated safety class to prevent 

exposures at the site boundary from 

approaching or exceeding 25 rem TEDE. 

2. For those defense nuclear facilities that 

have not implemented compensatory 

measures sufficient to reduce exposures at 

the site boundary below 25 rem TEDE, direct 

the responsible program secretarial officer to 

develop a plan to meet this requirement 

within a reasonable timeframe. 

3. Revise DOE Standard 3009–94 to 

identify clearly and unambiguously the 

requirements that must be met to 

demonstrate that an adequate level of 

protection for the public and workers is 

provided through a DSA. This should be 

accomplished, at a minimum, by: 

a. Clearly defining methodologies and 

providing acceptability criteria for controls, 

parameters, processes, analytical tools, and 

other data that should be used in preparation 

of a DSA. 

b. Delineating the criteria to be met for 

identification and analyses of an adequate set 

of Design Basis Accidents (for new facilities), 

or Evaluation Basis Accidents (for existing 

facilities). 

c. Providing criteria that must be met by 

the safety-class structures, systems, and 

components to (i) mitigate the consequences 

to a fraction of the Evaluation Guideline, or 

(ii) prevent the events by demonstrating an 

acceptable reliability for the preventive 

features. 

d. Establishing a process and path forward 

to meeting (a) through (c) above through 

compensatory measures and planned 

improvements if the DSA cannot demonstrate 

compliance. 

4. Amend 10 CFR Part 830 by 

incorporating the revised version of DOE 

Standard 3009–94 into the text as a 

requirement, instead of as a safe harbor cited 

in Table 2. 

5. Formally establish the minimum criteria 

and requirements that govern federal 

approval of a DSA, by revision to DOE 

Standard 1104–2009 and other appropriate 

documents. The criteria and requirements 

should include: 

a. The authorities that can be delegated, the 

required training and qualification of the 

approval authority, and the boundaries and 

limitations of the approval authority’s 

responsibilities, 

b. Actions to be taken if conditions are 

beyond the specified boundaries and 

limitations of the approval authority, 

c. The organization or the individual who 

can approve a DSA that is beyond the 

delegated approval authority’s boundaries 

and limitations, 

d. The regulatory process that must be 

followed if condition are beyond the 

specified boundaries and limitations of the 

approval authority, and any compensatory 

actions to be taken, and 

e. The criteria the approval authority must 

use to quantify the acceptance of risk for 

continued operations when offsite dose 

consequences have not been reduced to a 

small fraction of the Evaluation Guideline. 

6. Formally designate the responsible 

organization and identify the processes for 

performing oversight to ensure that the 

responsibilities identified in Item 5 above are 

fully implemented. 

Peter S. Winokur, 

Chairman. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28683 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3670–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Availability for the Draft 

Programmatic Environmental 

Assessment for the Development and 

Operation of Small-Scale Wind Energy 

Projects at United States Marine Corps 

Facilities Throughout the United States 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 

(102)(2)(c) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 United States Code 4321), as 

implemented by the Council on 

Environmental Quality regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions 

of NEPA (40 Code of Federal 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
69650 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2010 / Notices 

Regulations [CFR] parts 1500–1508), 

and Marine Corps NEPA directives 

(Marine Corps Order P5090.2A), the 

Department of the Navy announces the 

availability of, and invites public 

comments on the Draft Programmatic 

Environmental Assessment (Draft PEA) 

for the development and operation of 

small-scale wind energy projects at 

United States Marine Corps (USMC) 

facilities throughout the Continental 

United States (CONUS). A PEA 

evaluates a major action on a broad, 

programmatic basis. Thus, site-specific 

NEPA analysis may be tiered off this 

document as appropriate. 

Dates and Addresses: The public 

comment period begins upon 

publication of a Notice of Availability 

(NOA) for the Draft PEA in the Federal 

Register. The 30-day public comment 

period will end on December 4, 2010. 

The Draft PEA is available for 

electronic viewing at http:// 

marines.mil/unit/marforres/MFRHQ/ 

FACILITIES/FACILITIES.aspx, or by 

sending a request to Alain Flexer, 

USMC Marine Forces Reserves 

(MARFORRES), by telephone 504–678– 

8489, by fax 504–678–6823, by e-mail to 

alain.flexer@usmc.mil or by writing to: 

MARFORRES, Attn: Alain Flexer, 4400 

Dauphine Street, New Orleans, 

Louisiana 70146–5400. 

Comments: All comments, written or 

submitted via the internet, are treated 

equally, become part of the public 

record on the Draft PEA, and will be 

considered in the Final PEA. During the 

30-day comment period, all written 

comments should be mailed to 

MARFORRES, Attn: Alain Flexer, 4400 

Dauphine Street, New Orleans, LA 

70146–5400. Please submit all 

comments by December 4, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

MARFORRES, Attn: Alain Flexer, 

telephone 504–678–8489 or by e-mail 

alain.flexer@usmc.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

MARFORRES (Energy Office) has 

completed a Draft PEA for the 

development and operation of smallscale wind energy projects at USMC 

CONUS facilities. The USMC 

considered ten priority sites at which 

wind is the most readily available and 

economically feasible renewable energy 

source, therefore, this Draft PEA does 

not consider other forms of renewable 

energy. 

The purpose of the proposed action is 

to reduce dependency on fossil fuels 

and increase energy security and 

efficiency through development of 

small-scale wind energy projects at 

USMC CONUS facilities. The proposed 

action would enable MARFORRES to 

achieve specific goals regarding energy 

production and usage set by Executive 

Orders, legislative acts, and Federal 

agencies. 

The Draft PEA evaluates the potential 

environmental impacts of three action 

alternatives and the No Action 

Alternative. Alternative 1 involves site, 

design, construct, and operate one to 

four small wind turbines at USMC 

facilities. Alternative 2 involves site, 

design, construct, and operate one to 

four medium wind turbines at USMC 

facilities. Alternative 3 involves site, 

design, construct, and operate one or 

two large wind turbines at USMC 

facilities. Under the No Action 

Alternative, the USMC would not 

pursue the development and operation 

of small-scale wind energy projects at 

USMC CONUS facilities. 

Environmental resources addressed in 

the Draft PEA include land use; noise; 

geological resources; water resources; 

biological resources; cultural resources; 

visual resources; socioeconomics; air 

quality; utilities; airspace; health and 

safety; hazardous materials; and 

transportation. The Draft PEA also 

analyzes cumulative impacts from other 

past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions. 

Schedule: NOA of the Draft PEA will 

be published in the Federal Register. 

This notice initiates the 30-day public 

comment period for the Draft PEA. If the 

Draft PEA determines a more thorough 

analysis is necessary, then the USMC 

will prepare an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). If additional analysis is 

not necessary, the USMC will issue a 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

(FONSI). The USMC intends to issue the 

Final PEA no later than December 2010, 

at which time a NOA of the FONSI or 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS 

will be published. 

Dated: November 5, 2010. 

D. J. Werner, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

Generals Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28613 Filed 11–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

[Docket ID: USA–2010–0026] 

Privacy Act of 1974; System of 

Records 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice to Delete a System of 

Records. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army 

is deleting a systems of record notice 

from its existing inventory of record 

systems subject to the Privacy Act of 

1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended. 

DATES: This proposed action will be 

effective without further notice on 

December 15, 2010 unless comments are 

received which result in a contrary 

determination. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

and title, by any of the following 

methods: 

* Federal Rulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

* Mail: Federal Docket Management 

System Office, Room 3C843, 1160 

Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 

20301–1160. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

Federal Register document. The general 

policy for comments and other 

submissions from members of the public 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov as they are 

received without change, including any 

personal identifiers or contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Department of the Army, Privacy Office, 

U.S. Army Records Management and 

Declassification Agency, 7701 Telegraph 

Road, Casey Building, Suite 144, 

Alexandria, VA 22325–3905, Mr. Leroy 

Jones at (703) 428–6185. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Department of the Army systems of 

records notices subject to the Privacy 

Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as 

amended, have been published in the 

Federal Register and are available from 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

address above. 

The Department of the Army proposes 

to delete one system of records notice 

from its inventory of record systems 

subject to the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 

U.S.C. 552a), as amended. The proposed 

deletion is not within the purview of 

subsection (r) of the Privacy Act of 1974, 

(5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended, which 

requires the submission of a new or 

altered system report. 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Morgan F. Park, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

Deletion: 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES