Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices 4235

owned by Basin Electric Power

Cooperative, Bonneville Power

Administration, Citizens Utilities,

Detroit Edison Company, Eastern Maine

Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of

the Highgate Project, Maine Electric

Power Company, Maine Public Service

Company, Minnesota Power and Light

Company, Minnkota Power Cooperative,

New York Power Authority, Niagara

Mohawk Power Corporation, Northern

States Power, and Vermont Electric

Transmission Company. Each of these

transmission facilities, as more fully

described in the application, has

previously been authorized by a

Presidential permit issued pursuant to

Executive Order 10485, as amended.

Procedural Matters

Any persons desiring to become a

party to this proceeding or to be heard

by filing comments or protests to this

application should file a petition to

intervene, comment or protest at the

address provided above in accordance

with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the

FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures

(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen

copies of such petitions, comments and

protests should be filed with the DOE

on or before the date listed above.

Additional copies are to be filed directly

with Stephen C. Smith, President, The

Power Company of America, Two

Greenwich Plaza, Greenwich, CT 06830

and Lynn H. Hargis, Robert F. Shapiro,

Chadbourne & Parke LLP, 1200 New

Hampshire Ave., N.W., Suite 300,

Washington, DC 20036.

A final decision will be made on this

application after the environmental

impacts have been evaluated pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, and a determination is

made by the DOE that the proposed

action will not adversely impact on the

reliability of the U.S. electric power

supply system.

Copies of this application will be

made available, upon request, for public

inspection and copying at the address

provided above.

Issued in Washington, DC on January 23,

1998.

Anthony J. Como,

Manager, Electric Power Regulation, Office

of Coal and Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal and

Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 98–2046 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision on the Disposal of

the S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor

Plants

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

SUMMARY: This Record of Decision has

been prepared on the Disposal of the

S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor Plants,

located at the Knolls Atomic Power

Laboratory Kesselring Site (Kesselring

Site) near West Milton, New York,

pursuant to Section 102(2) of the

National Environmental Policy Act of

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),

and in accordance with the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations

implementing NEPA procedures (40

CFR parts 1500–1508), and Department

of Energy (DOE) regulations

implementing NEPA procedures (10

CFR part 1021). The DOE Office of

Naval Reactors (Naval Reactors

Program) has decided to promptly

dismantle the defueled S3G and D1G

Prototype reactor plants. The project

will be completed as soon as practicable

subject to available appropriated

funding. To the extent practical, the

resulting low-level radioactive materials

will be recycled at existing commercial

facilities. The remaining low-level

radioactive wastes will be disposed of at

the DOE Savannah River Site in South

Carolina. All non-radiological waste

would be recycled or disposed of off-site

at permitted facilities using licensed

haulers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for further information should

be directed to Mr. Andrew S. Baitinger,

Chief, West Milton Field Office, Office

of Naval Reactors, Department of

Energy, PO Box 1069, Schenectady, NY

12301–1069, telephone (518) 884–1234.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The S3G

and D1G Prototype reactor plants are

located on the 65-acre Kesselring Site

near West Milton, New York,

approximately 17 miles north of

Schenectady. The S3G and D1G

Prototype reactor plants first started

operation in 1958 and 1962,

respectively, and served for more than

30 years as facilities for testing reactor

plant components and equipment and

for training of U.S. Navy personnel. As

a result of the end of the Cold War and

the downsizing of the Navy, the S3G

and D1G Prototype reactor plants were

shutdown in May 1991 and March 1996,

respectively. Removal of the spent

nuclear fuel from the S3G and D1G

Prototype reactors and shipments of the

spent nuclear fuel to the Expended Core

Facility at the DOE’s Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory were completed in July 1994

and February 1997, respectively. After

defueling, the S3G and D1G Prototype

reactor plants were placed in a safe and

stable protective storage condition. The

Kesselring Site will not be released for

other uses in the foreseeable future

since two active prototype reactor plants

continue to operate to perform training

of U.S. Navy personnel and testing of

naval nuclear propulsion plant

equipment.

The alternatives analyzed in detail in

the Final Environmental Impact

Statement were the preferred alternative

of prompt dismantlement, a deferred

dismantlement alternative, and a no

action alternative of keeping the

defueled S3G and D1G Prototype reactor

plants in protective storage indefinitely.

DOE has selected prompt

dismantlement of the S3G and D1G

Prototype reactor plants. All S3G and

D1G Prototype reactor plant systems,

components and structures will be

removed from the Kesselring Site. To

the extent practicable, the resulting lowlevel radioactive metals will be recycled

at existing commercial facilities. The

remaining low-level radioactive waste

will be disposed of at the DOE

Savannah River Site in South Carolina.

There will be an estimated total of 60

radioactive material shipments from the

Kesselring Site to either the Savannah

River Site or to commercial recycling

facilities. Two or three of the shipments

will be by rail and the remainder will

be by truck. The Savannah River Site

currently receives low-level radioactive

waste from Naval Reactors’ sites in the

eastern United States. Both the volume

and radioactive content of the S3G and

D1G Prototype reactor plant low-level

waste fall within the projections of

Naval Reactors’ waste provided to the

Savannah River Site, which are

included and analyzed in the Savannah

River Site Waste Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement, dated

July 1995. All nonradiological

shipments would be by truck, and

would be recycled or disposed of off-site

at permitted facilities using licensed

haulers.

The deferred dismantlement

alternative would involve keeping the

defueled S3G and D1G Prototype reactor

plants in protective storage for 30 years

before dismantlement. Deferring

dismantlement for 30 years would allow

nearly all of the cobalt-60 radioactivity

to decay. Nearly all of the gamma

radiation within the reactor plant comes

from cobalt-60. The very small amount

of longer-lived radioisotopes, such as

nickel-59, would remain and would
4236 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices

have to be addressed during

dismantlement.

The no action alternative would

involve keeping the defueled S3G and

D1G Prototype reactor plants in

protective storage indefinitely. Since

there is some residual radioactivity with

long half-lives, such as nickel-59, in the

defueled reactor plant, this alternative

would leave some radioactivity at the

Kesselring Site indefinitely.

The Naval Reactors Program

distributed the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement on the Disposal of the

S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor Plants

in July 1997. Comments from 14

individuals and agencies were received

in either oral or written statements at a

public hearing or in comment letters.

Approximately one-third of the

commenters expressed a preference for

the Naval Reactors’ preferred

alternative, prompt dismantlement.

Based on U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) review of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, EPA

rated the proposed project as ‘‘LO’’

(Lack of Objection). All of the comments

and Naval Reactors’ responses are

included in an appendix to the Final

Environmental Impact Statement,

distributed in November 1997.

From an environmental perspective,

no single alternative stands out as

environmentally preferable. The

radiation exposure to the general public

would be small and comparable for all

three alternatives. Occupational

exposure would be higher for the

prompt dismantlement alternative,

however, this expected exposure would

be comparable in magnitude to the

radiation exposure routinely received

during current operation and

maintenance activities of Naval

prototype reactor plants. Nonradiological environmental, health and

safety impacts associated with all of the

alternatives would also be small and

consistent with ongoing Kesselring Site

operations. Based on current conditions,

any of the alternatives could be

accomplished within Federal and State

requirements, in both the short term and

the long term. However, 30 years from

now, changing conditions associated

with the regulatory environment, and

the availability of trained personnel and

waste disposal facilities could result in

unforeseeable complications or delays.

Such future unforeseeable conditions

cause additional uncertainty in the

impacts associated with the deferred

dismantlement and no action

alternatives. Naval Reactors has

identified the prompt dismantlement

alternative as the preferred alternative

since it is consistent with the Naval

Reactors’ record of managing waste

efficiently and minimizing its

generation. Prompt dismantlement

would allow Naval Reactors to utilize an

experienced work force that is presently

located at the Kesselring Site. Prompt

dismantlement can be accomplished

safely, economically, and with a high

degree of certainty that the

environmental impacts would be small.

As discussed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement, the

Naval Reactors Program implements a

large number of conservative

engineering practices in its operations.

These conservative engineering

practices will serve to ensure that

environmental impacts will be very

small. No additional mitigative

measures have been identified which

are needed to further reduce the small

impacts which were described in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Accordingly, all practicable means to

avoid or minimize environmental harm

from the preferred alternative have been

adopted.

Issued at Arlington, VA, this 20th day of

January 1998.

F.L. Bowman,

Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program.

[FR Doc. 98–1946 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision, Shutdown of the

River Water System at the Savannah

River Site, Savannah River Operations

Office, Aiken, South Carolina

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: The U.S. DOE has decided to

implement the No Action alternative

identified in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Shutdown of

the River Water System (RWEIS) at the

Savannah River Site (SRS). Under this

alternative, DOE will continue to

operate and maintain the system and

maintain the water level of L-Lake.

DOE will assess the need for future

environmental remediation alternatives

for L-Lake under existing

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) commitments.

Characterization activities associated

with CERCLA closure are expected to

begin in the year 2000 and be completed

in several years. This characterization

will inform any required remedial

action. Pending these activities, DOE

will continue to operate the RWS. If

during continued operation of the RWS

a system component fails, DOE will take

appropriate emergency actions. DOE

will then determine if the system is too

costly to repair (by comparing this cost

to estimated shutdown costs and future

possible remediation costs under the

CERCLA). If DOE determines that the

RWS is too costly to repair, it will

reevaluate all relevant commitments

and the information in the RWEIS, to

determine necessary actions to shut

down the RWS. However, the RWS is in

good condition and not expected to fail

over this period of time.

This RWEIS evaluates three

alternatives for the disposition of the

RWS at the SRS. The RWS is a 50-mile

underground concrete piping structure

and pumping system that was built in

the early 1950s to provide cooling water

for the SRS’ five nuclear production

reactors. The RWEIS alternatives cover

the spectrum of reasonable options as

follows:

(1) Continue operation of the RWS

(No Action Alternative);

(2) Shut down and maintain the RWS

for potential restart (Preferred

Alternative); and

(3) Shut down and deactivate the

RWS with no maintenance for potential

restart.

Based on the RWEIS evaluation of the

potential environmental impacts, as

well as the costs, energy consumption,

and regulatory implications of the

alternatives, DOE has selected the No

Action alternative and will continue to

operate the RWS. Other than potential

CERCLA remediation activities, if DOE

continued to operate and maintain the

RWS indefinitely the No-Action

Alternative would require the greatest

commitment of money and energy

resources. The RWS would continue to

supply 5,000 gpm to L-Lake from the

Savannah River. To do so, DOE would

spend approximately $1,084,000

annually to provide RWS surveillance

and maintenance and $494,000 annually

for electrical energy to pump the water

uphill from the river. Finally, DOE

would continue to dredge the RWS

intake canal to keep it clear of debris.

However, there is great uncertainty

regarding the cost of remedial action

under CERCLA. Therefore, until

characterization is completed, it will not

be evident whether shutting down or

continuing to operate and maintain the

RWS is economically the most prudent

course of action.

In its present configuration, the RWS

circulates water from the Savannah

River to a 1000 acre man-made lake

known as L-Lake. L-Lake no longer

serves to mitigate thermal effluents from

L-Reactor because it no longer operates.

RWS flow is necessary to maintain the

full pool water level of L-Lake.