Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32797

to provide continuously transmitted

signals to enable appropriately

configured GPS user equipment to

produce accurate position, navigation

and time information.

Janet A. Long,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 01–15200 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–05–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

DOE Response to Recommendation

2001–1 of the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board, High-Level

Waste Management at the Savannah

River Site.

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board Recommendation

2001–1, concerning high-level waste

management at the Savannah River Site,

was published in the Federal Register

on April 3, 2001 (66 FR 17689). In

accordance with section 315(b) of the

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,

42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), the Secretary

transmitted the following response to

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board on May 18, 2001.

DATES: Comments, data, views, or

arguments concerning the Secretary’s

response are due on or before July 18,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data,

views, or arguments concerning the

Secretary’s response to: Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana

Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC

20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Frei, Deputy Assistant Secretary

for Project Completion, Office of

Environmental Management,

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20585.

Issued in Washington, DC on May 18,

2001.

Mark B. Whitaker, Jr.,

Departmental Representative to the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

32798 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32799

Current Status of High Level Waste

System Relative to DNFSB

Recommendation 2001–1

General

The Department shares the Board’s

concern about reliance on older

equipment for long-term operations. The

Department, however, believes that due

attention is being afforded these areas.

Furthermore, the Department believes

that, because an adequate safety margin

is in place, it is more prudent to pursue

activities that result in waste

stabilization than to focus on activities

that may improve short-term storage

conditions while delaying ultimate

stabilization. The Department believes

careful consideration was given to the

technical safety issues and the risks and

benefits were properly balanced prior to

the re-use of old style tanks.

While the Department shares the

Board’s concerns about the decreasing

operational flexibility in the Tank Farms

due to increasing material backlogs as a

result of equipment and process

problems, the Department does not

agree that the margin of safety has been

reduced by recent events and actions.

Authorization Basis and environmental

regulatory requirements have all been

met without using reserve storage space.

Finally, the Department recognizes

and shares the Board’s desire to move

forward expeditiously with efforts

toward long-term solutions. The

Department is committed to ensuring

the best solutions are chosen after

careful identification and consideration

of safety and programmatic risks. As the

Board is aware, the early identification

and resolution of technical issues

significantly reduces project delays,

redesign, and compensatory measures

during the construction and operational

phases of a project. As discussed below

in response to the specific

subrecommendation related to salt

disposition, progress in this area is

being made on schedule, and the time

spent resolving issues is proving

worthwhile.

In summary, the Department is aware

of the loss of operational flexibility

currently being experienced in the Tank

Farms as a result of process and

equipment failures. The Department and

its contractors are committed to

restoring operational flexibility in a safe

and timely manner. In developing this

implementation plan all actions are

assumed to be fully funded.

Specific Recommended Actions

1. Initiate actions to remove transferable

HLW liquid from Tank 6 to a level

below all known leak sites.

The Department accepts this

subrecommendation. An initial transfer

of 40,000 gallons of liquid from Tank 6

into Tank 8 was completed on March

27, 2001. As committed to in our video

conference call with the Board on

March 22, 2001, the Department has

continued to evaluate the Tank 6

condition and the overall HLW system.

Based on our evaluation the Department

has concluded that additional lowering

of the waste in the tank to below the

lowest known leak site is appropriate

and this direction was given to the site

contractor on May 1, 2001.

DOE recognizes that situations

compromising the integrity of the

primary containment are undesirable.

The Department has determined that the

Tank 6 waste can be lowered below the

lowest known leak site without

significantly compromising the primary

mission objective of HLW retrieval and

vitrification. This will allow a reduction

in Tank 6 surveillance activities related

to the status of identified leak sites.

The Department implementation

milestone for this subrecommendation

is:

Commitment 1.1 Pump tank to below

the lowest known leak site.

Lead Responsibility: Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Project Completion.

Due Date: May 31, 2001.

2. Reassess the schedule and priority for

selecting a technology for a salt

processing capability, and vigorously

accelerate the schedule leading to

operation of a salt processing facility.

The Department accepts this

subrecommendation and will assess the

schedule for salt processing once the

preferred technology decision is made

and will accelerate this critical activity

where possible. The Department will

then provide a briefing to the Board.

The selection of a salt processing

technology is a critical priority of the

Department and the process remains on

schedule for a July 2001 decision date.

Radioactive waste test demonstrations

currently in progress are a key element

of the selection process. Acceleration of

this date at this time is not considered

feasible. Since March 2000, the

Department has been working towards

identify a preferred technology in June

in accordance with the Action Plan

defining the Savannah River Site Salt

processing Project Roles and

Responsibilities. Under this Plan, a joint

Headquarters/Savannah River site

Technical Working Group (TWG) was

established to lead the effort for

technology selection. Key activities

selection include the development of

selection criteria and conduct of

extensive research and development

testing that will address high technical

risks for each of the technologies under

consideration. These activities have

been completed or they are on schedule

to identifying a preferred technology in

June. The Salt Processing Alternatives

Draft Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (SEIS) has been issued

for public comment and the final SEIS

is on schedule to support the decisionmaking process. The Department

currently plans to have the Record of

Decision for this SEIS embody the DOE

selection, with issuance by July 2001.

Once this decision is made, the Request

for Proposals (RFP) will be issued to

seek up to two Engineering,

Procurement, and Construction (EPC)

contractors to perform conceptual

design of the full-scale facility.

Planning for the Salt Waste Processing

Facility (SWPF) includes a pilot plant

for the technology selected. A pilot

plant is viewed as critical to further

mitigate technical risks prior to final

design and construction of the SWPF

and will improve confidence in project

execution. To this end, pilot-plant

design, construction, and operation are

being planned to provide meaningful

input to the conceptual and preliminary

design.

Efforts are being made to ensure that

the decision date will be met and that

follow-on design, construction and

startup activities can begin on schedule.

It should be noted that part of the

overall strategy for this effort is one of

continually identifying and

implementing actions to ensure that an

effective salt-processing technology is

selected and constructed on or ahead of

schedule. This project is managed in

accordance with DOE Order 413.3 and

has incorporated ‘‘lessons learned’’ from

other projects.

The Department is committed to

ensuring that the best technology is

chosen after careful identification and

consideration of safety and

programmatic risks. Given the long-term

nature of this program, and consistent

with DOE Order 413.3, the Department

believes that the establishment of

program/project milestones beyond

technology selection is

counterproductive until a firm baseline

is established (35% design completion).

However, DOE commits to continue to

assess the schedule in an effort to

accelerate this critical activity, and

therefore accepts this

subrecommendation.

32800 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices

The Department implementation

milestone for this subrecommendation

is:

Commitment 2.1: Make a preferred

technology selection and issue ROD.

Lead Responsibility: Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Project Completion.

Due Date: July 2001.

Commitment 2.2: Brief the Board on

the preferred salt processing technology

selection, schedule, and opportunities

for acceleration.

Lead Responsibility: Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Project Completion.

Due Date: July 2001.

3. Develop and implement an integrated

plan for HLW tank space management

that emphasizes continued safe

operation of the Tank Farms throughout

its life cycle. This plan should include

enough margin to accommodate

contingencies and reduce overall

programmatic risk. The plan should also

restore operating margin to the Tank

Farms by including action to:

The Department accepts this

subrecommendation and the HLW

system Plan update will be provided to

the Board. The Tank Farm space

management strategy is based on a set

of key assumptions involving canister

production rates, influent stream

volumes, Tank Farm evaporator

performance, and space gain initiative

implementation. Tank space

management is a sub-set of the overall

integrated HLW System Plan and as

such is a life-cycle look at the space

available to accommodate contingencies

and support site missions. The HLW

System Plan is updated annually and

considers the latest data available as

well as the current conditions,

challenges and potential impacts to

Tank Farm operations. The next

revision to the HLW System Plan,

scheduled for issue in May 2001, will

provide enhance coverage of areas not

previously highlighted and will include

management of type I, II, and Type IV

tanks.

Each of the specific actions in the

Board’s Recommendation is addressed

below.

a. Reduce or eliminate the DWPF

recycle stream. Several proposals

already have been made to reduce the

volume of DWPF recycle waste sent to

the Tank Farm. A major reduction effort

was implemented in January 2000 to

isolate the steam atomized scrubber

system from the melter off-gas system.

This resulted in an annual 700,000-

gallon reduction in recycle being sent to

the Tank Farm. Proposals associated

with the frit transfer system and

reductions in sample line flushes

resulted in additional water generation

reductions. It is anticipated that the

annual recycle being sent to the Tank

Farm will be reduced from

approximately 2,200,000 gallons for a

250 can-per-year production rate to

approximately 1,400,000 gallons or less.

Additional DWPF recycle reduction

proposals, such as the installation of a

DWPF acid evaporator, will be

evaluated

b. Recover former ITP tanks for Tank

Farm operations. A schedule has been

implemented to return Tank 49

(previously an ITP salt processing tank)

to waste concentrate storage. A briefing

for the Board on August 2,2000,

provided the Department’s plans

relative to Tank 49. Tank 49 currently

contains approximately 200,000 gallons

of benzene-bearing solution from ITP

demonstration runs that must be

removed prior to its return to waste

storage service. The decomposition of

benzene producing phenylborate

compounds will be performed in two

phases. The first phase was completed

in March 2001 when the material in

Tank 49 has heated to 40 degrees

Celsius. The second phase involves the

introduction of copper catalyst to Tank

49. The first copper addition occurred

in March 2001 and subsequent

additions are scheduled to be completed

by May 2001. Once the decomposition

of the phenylborates is complete, the

material in Tank 49 will be transferred

to Tank 50. Modifications required to tie

Tank 49 into the H-Tank Farm transfer

system already have been completed.

Tank 49 is expected to be available to

receive concentrated waste later this

year.

Tank 50, currently being used as a

receipt tank for Effluent Treatment

Facility (ETF) bottoms, is scheduled for

return to waste concentrate storage in

late 2002. The associated construction/

project work has been initiated to

support this effort. A Baseline Change

Package authorizing the start of this

work was approved April 23, 2001.

Additionally, Tank 48, which already

is addressed in the Recommendation

96–1 Implementation Plan, is an option

and will be considered for future

revisions of the HLW System Plan.

Lessons learned from returning Tank 49

to service will be incorporated into the

future Tank 48 plans and factored into

future revisions of the HLW System

Plan.

c. Assess the desirability of adding an

additional HLW evaporator to support

Tank Farm operations. Construction of

an additional evaporator is not a viable

alternative for the near-term. The

current issues impacting evaporator

operations are not associated with

evaporator capacity. The current issues

are process and equipment related

which, would also exist with a new

evaporator system. These problems are

specifically addressed in paragraph (e)

below. The Department considers that a

more prudent and cost-effective

approach to resolve the problem is by

optimizing existing evaporator

operations by means of resolving waste

compatibility and equipment

degradation problems.

Previous studies have shown that the

three evaporator systems currently

available have sufficient capacity to

handle the expected demands of the

HLW system once the process and

equipment issues associated with the

2H and 3H Evaporator systems are

overcome. These studies also show that

the three evaporator systems operating

at planned capacity will provide margin

to accommodate future system upsets

and allow the option to shutdown the

2F Evaporator system at some point in

the future. The 2F Evaporator system

could potentially be used as a

‘‘contingency’’ when this margin is

achieved.

The Department concludes that a new

evaporator is not a feasible near-term

solution, and it projects that an excess

evaporation capacity will exist in the

long-term.

d. Assess the feasibility of

constructing new HLW tanks. Previous

consideration of this option indicates

that it is a costly approach that has

many regulatory, stakeholder, and

permitting issues. In addition,

constructing and operating new HLW

tanks would add to the ultimate

environmental management and

restoration cleanup mission. This option

is not considered feasible as a shortterm remedy to gain operating safety

margin in the Tank Farms. It has been

estimated that the permitting and

construction period required to have

tanks suitable for storage of HLW would

take from seven to ten years.

The Department concludes that new

HLW storage tanks are not a near-term

solution, but it will evaluate them as a

longer-term solution if salt processing

capability is not achieved as planned.

e. Resolve waste compatibility and

equipment degradation problems to

allow unconstrained operation of the

three existing evaporators.

Improvements made to the 2F

Evaporator system during FY 2000 have

made that system more reliable and

current performance is better than

expected. This system is operational

and a new vessel is currently on hand

should it be necessary to replace the

existing vessel.

The 2H Evaporator experienced

erratic lift rates and was shut down in

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 117 / Monday, June 18, 2001 / Notices 32801

January 2000 when attempts to correct

the lift rate were unsuccessful. Sample

results from solids previously found in

the evaporator pot revealed that the

material consisted of sodium

aluminosilicate and sodium diuranate.

Initial analysis indicated that these

solids form in the presence of high silica

and high aluminum feed. The Savannah

River Technology Center (SRTC)

continues to analyze methods of

preventing the aluminisilicate formation

in the evaporator pot. Until this work is

completed, appropriate controls have

been put in place to limit the amount of

silica content in the feed to the 3H and

2F Evaporators.

Operations are now underway to the

2H Evaporator to remove the solids. The

2H Evaporator cleaning and recovery

efforts are behind schedule but this

system is expected back into operations

in FY 2001.

The 3H Evaporator system is

operating in a limited mode due to

cooling coil problems in Tank 30 (the

3H Evaporator drop tank). A project to

convert Tank 37 to drop tank service, by

installing a drop line from the

evaporator to the tank, has been

initiated and the Baseline Change

Proposal (BCP) authorizing funding was

approved on April 23, 2001. The

schedule to have the 3H system

functioning at full capacity is late 2002.

The revised HLW System Plan

accounts for these difficulties and the

resolutions described above are

underway.

The Department implementation

milestone for this subrecommendation

is:

Commitment 3.1: Issue Revision 12 of

the HLW System Plan.

Lead Responsibility: Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Project Completion.

Due Date: May 2001.

4. Reassess contractor incentives to

ensure that near—term production at

DWPF is not overemphasized at the

expense of safety margin in the Tank

Farms

The DOE accepts this

subrecommendation. The Department

has re-assessed the contractor incentive

package to identify whether additional

incentives are needed to promote near

term improvements in Tank Farm

operations.

The current incentive package is

based upon significant amounts of fee at

risk if the safety and long-term

reliability of the system is allowed to

deteriorate in order to meet short term

DWPF production. In trying to minimize

the potential that the contractor would

pursue short-term gain at the expense of

longer-term system reliability, several

features were incorporated into the final

set of incentives currently being used:

1. The number of canisters produced

in the later years of the contract period

earn larger fees than those produced

earlier. This feature was incorporated to

ensure that work on the preparation of

sludge batch 3 was maintained and that

this batch of feed would be ready to

support the overall canister production

goals.

2. Specific evaporation and tank farm

space goals were allotted separate

incentives to ensure that the tank farm

health at the end of the period was

sufficient to support continued

operations after the contract period.

3. Separate incentives were identified

for specific safety documentation goals.

4. Minimum levels of performance

were established. Failure to attain these

levels could result in application of the

Conditional Payment of Fee clause.

Under this clause significant reductions

in previously earned fees could result

from a failure to meet the minimum

levels of performance specified.

5. Unallocated fee was set aside for

emergent activities/situations that may

warrant incentivization. This is a

continually ongoing process and will be

the basis for the Department’s current

re-assessment.

The Department plans to assess the

appropriateness of these incentives

annually throughout the term of the

existing contract.

Commitment 4.1: The Department

will provide a briefing to the Board on

specific elements of the current

incentive package at Savannah River

Site.

Lead Responsibility: Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Project Completion.

Due Date: July 2001.

[FR Doc. 01–15281 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP99–301–018]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of

Negotiated Rate Filing

June 12, 2001.

Take notice that on June 4, 2001, ANR

Pipeline Company (ANR), tendered for

filing and approval a Service Agreement

between ANR and Reliant Energy

Services, Inc. (Reliant) pursuant to

ANR’s Rate Schedule FSS (the

‘‘Agreement’’).

ANR states that the Agreement

contains a negotiated rate arrangement

between ANR and Reliant to be effective

June 1, 2001 through March 31, 2004

and contains a right to extend the term

for one additional year upon specified

circumstances. ANR is also tendering

for filing Third Revised Sheet No. 14O

which is being provided for future use.

ANR requests that the Commission

accept and approve the Agreement and

tariff sheet, effective June 1, 2001.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest said filing should file a motion

to intervene or a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC

20426, in accordance with Sections

385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such motions

or protests must be filed in accordance

with Section 154.210 of the

Commission’s Regulations. Protests will

be considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceedings.

Any person wishing to become a party

must file a motion to intervene. Copies

of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room. This filing may be viewed on the

web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/

rims.htm (call 202–208–2222 for

assistance). Comments, protests, and

interventions may be filed electronically

via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18

CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the

instructions on the Commission’s web

site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/

doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15239 Filed 6–15–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. PR01–16–000]

Bridegline Holdings, L.P.; Notice of

Application for Rate Approval

June 12, 2001.

Take notice that on June 1, 2001,

Bridgeline Holdings, L.P. (Bridgeline)

filed an application for rate approval,

pursuant to Section 284.123(b)(2) of the

Commission’s regulations, proposing a

system-wide maximum rate for

interruptible transportation of $0.3700

per MMBtu, and a maximum usage rate

for firm transportation of $0.0849 per

MMBtu with a monthly reservation

charge of $8.67 per MMBtu, for service

under Section 311(a)(2) of the Natural

Gas Policy Act (NGPA). Bridgeline also