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

43160 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 141 / Friday, July 23, 2010 / Notices 

Manufacturing Energy Consumption 

Survey to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for review and a threeyear extension under section 3507(h)(1) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–13) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

DATES: Comments must be filed by 

August 23, 2010. If you anticipate that 

you will be submitting comments but 

find it difficult to do so within that 

period, you should contact the OMB 

Desk Officer for DOE listed below as 

soon as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to OMB 

Desk Officer for DOE, Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget. To 

ensure receipt of the comments by the 

due date, submission by FAX (202–395– 

7285) or e-mail to 

Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov is 

recommended. The mailing address is 

725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20503. The OMB Desk Officer may be 

telephoned at (202) 395–4638. (A copy 

of your comments should also be 

provided to EIA’s Statistics and 

Methods Group at the address below.) 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information 

should be directed to Alethea Jennings. 

To ensure receipt of the comments by 

the due date, submission by FAX (202– 

586–5271) or e-mail 

(alethea.jennings@eia.doe.gov) is also 

recommended. The mailing address is 

Statistics and Methods Group (EI–70), 

Forrestal Building, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0670. Ms. 

Jennings may be contacted by telephone 

at (202) 586–5879. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

section contains the following 

information about the energy 

information collection submitted to 

OMB for review: (1) The collection 

numbers and title; (2) the sponsor (i.e., 

the Department of Energy component); 

(3) the current OMB docket number (if 

applicable); (4) the type of request (i.e., 

new, revision, extension or 

reinstatement); (5) response obligation 

(i.e., mandatory, voluntary, or required 

to obtain or retain benefits); (6) a 

description of the need for and 

proposed use of the information; (7) a 

categorical description of the likely 

respondents; (8) estimated number of 

respondents and (9) an estimate of the 

total annual reporting burden (i.e., the 

estimated number of likely respondents 

times the proposed frequency of 

response per year times the average 

hours per response). 

1. Form EIA–846, ‘‘Manufacturers 

Energy Consumption Survey.’’ 

2. Energy Information Administration. 

3. OMB Number 1905–0169. 

4. Three-year extension to an existing 

approved request. 

5. Mandatory. 

6. Form EIA–846 will be used to 

collect data on energy consumption and 

related subjects for the manufacturing 

sector of the U.S. economy. In addition 

to being used for the National Energy 

Modeling System, the MECS is used to 

augment a database on the 

manufacturing sector. Respondents are 

manufacturing establishments. 

7. Business or other for-profit. 

8. 15,500. 

9. 47,584 (15,500 respondents × 1 

response per year × 9.21 hours per 

response). With a three-year approval, 

the burden is prorated over the threeyear period and averaged from a total of 

142,751 hours. 

Please refer to the supporting 

statement as well as the proposed forms 

and instructions for more information 

about the purpose, who must report, 

when to report, where to submit, the 

elements to be reported, detailed 

instructions, provisions for 

confidentiality, and uses (including 

possible nonstatistical uses) of the 

information. For instructions on 

obtaining materials, see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Statutory Authority: Sec. 13(b) of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, 

Pub. L. 93–275, codified at 15 U.S.C. 772(b). 

Issued in Washington, DC, July 19, 2010. 

Stephanie Brown, 

Director, Statistics and Methods Group, 

Energy Information Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18080 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–9179–3 ] 

Clean Water Act Section 303(d): Final 

Agency Action on One Arkansas Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 

final agency action on one TMDL 

established by EPA Region 6 for waters 

listed in the State of Arkansas, under 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA). This TMDL was completed in 

response to the lawsuit styled Sierra 

Club, et al. v. Clifford, et al., No. LR– 

C–99–114. Documents from the 

administrative record file for the final 

one TMDL, including TMDL 

calculations may be viewed at http://

www.epa.gov/region6/water/npdes/

tmdl/index.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Diane Smith at (214) 665–2145. 

EPA Takes Final Agency Action on One 

TMDL 

By this notice EPA is taking final 

agency action on the following TMDL 

for waters located within the State of 

Arkansas: 

Segment-reach Waterbody name Pollutant 

11070208–901 ........................................................................ Town Branch .......................................................................... Total Phosphorus. 

EPA requested the public to provide 

EPA with any significant data or 

information that might impact the 

TMDL at Federal Register Notice: 

Volume 75, Number 74, pages 20351 

and 20352 (April 19, 2010). Comments 

were received, and the EPA’s response 

to comments and the Final TMDL may 

be found at http://www.epa.gov/region6/ 

water/npdes/tmdl/index.htm. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

Claudia V. Hosch, 

Acting Director, Water Quality Protection 

Division, EPA Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18090 Filed 7–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–8991–6] 

Environmental Impacts Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–1399 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES