[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61472-61474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27132]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 030-30249]


Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
Related to Materials License No. 42-26928-01, Core Laboratories, Inc. 
(dba Protechnics) of Houston, TX, License Amendment Request for 
Approval of an Alternate Disposal Method

I. Introduction

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license 
amendment for a proposal made by Core Laboratories, Inc. (dba 
ProTechnics) of Houston, Texas. Core Laboratories requested an 
amendment to Materials License No. 42-26928-01 to allow an additional 
disposal alternative pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002 to inject well returns 
containing radioactive tracer material into Class II disposal wells 
that have been approved to accept non-hazardous oil and gas waste by 
State agencies. An Environmental Assessment (EA) was performed by the 
NRC staff in support of its review of the license amendment request, in 
accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 51. The conclusion of 
the EA is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

II. Environmental Assessment

    Related to the Core Laboratories, Inc. Request for an Alternate 
Disposal Method to Inject Well-Logging Waste into Class II Disposal 
Wells.
    Summary: The NRC considered a license amendment request for 
approval for an alternate disposal method for well-logging waste 
produced under NRC Byproduct Materials License No. 42-26928-01. Core 
Laboratories, Inc. (dba ProTechnics) requested NRC approval to allow 
fracturing sand well returns containing residual material to be 
injected into Class II disposal wells. These Class II wells would have 
been approved under permits to accept non-hazardous oil and gas waste 
by State agencies. Approval of this license amendment request is based 
upon the NRC's review and evaluation of the merits of the licensee's 
proposal, current alternatives, and waste disposal regulations in 10 
CFR part 20. The NRC staff has evaluated the licensee's proposal and 
has developed an EA in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR part 
51.

1.0 Introduction

    Core Laboratories, Inc., is based in Houston, Texas, and conducts 
well-logging operations with radioactive materials in oil and natural 
gas fields worldwide. Core Laboratories is licensed to conduct tracer 
operations where the NRC has jurisdiction and in Agreement States 
including Louisiana, Texas, Colorado, Utah, California, Oklahoma, and 
New Mexico. Core Laboratories performs over 3,000 well-logging 
fracturing jobs a year in the United States using various radioactive 
tracer materials with half-lives of less than 120 days. In general, 
Core Laboratories injects three radioactive materials during its tracer 
operations: Iridium-192, scandium-46, and antimony-124. The longest 
half-life of these materials is 84 days. Core Laboratories procedures 
require that 1,000 pounds of sand be mixed with every 0.4 millicuries 
of tracer material prior to injection into a well.
    Core Laboratories is authorized to use only well-logging beads 
patented as a Zero-Wash product. Zero-Wash is a well-logging bead that 
is insoluble (i.e., the radioactivity will not migrate or leach into 
groundwater). These waste materials are not classified as hazardous or 
mixed waste by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
regulations. The purpose of the tracer material is to enhance the 
performance of the oil well fracturing procedures. Using the 
information provided by the tracer material, the well operator can 
maximize the production from the well. Approximately 10 percent of the 
fracturing jobs result in the backflow of injected tracer material to 
the surface. This phenomena is called sandout or well-logging returns. 
The amount of the well-logging returns can range from a few gallons (20 
pounds) to a tanker truck load (50,000 pounds). The concentration of 
radioactive material in the well-logging returns is low because the 
tracer material is mixed into fracturing sand prior to being injected 
into the well.
    Currently, Core Laboratories is allowed to hold radioactive 
material with a half-life of less than 120 days for decay-in-storage 
before unrestricted disposal. Under this authorization, the well-
logging returns are transported by truck to a storage facility that is 
distant (sometimes 30 miles or more) from the original tracer injection 
point. Additionally, the sandout waste may be shipped to an approved 
waste site for burial. On December 18, 1995, the NRC approved Core 
Laboratories' generic 10 CFR 20.2002 onsite disposal request for 
burying radioactive wastes from well-logging sandouts, flowbacks, or 
any other form into shallow earthen pits at the well site pursuant to 
10 CFR 20.2002.
    On August 23, 2000, Core Laboratories requested a license amendment 
to allow fracturing sand well returns to be injected in Class II 
disposal wells. All the sandout well-logging returns containing tracer 
radioactive materials would be recovered and contained in Class II 
disposal wells that met the State's and EPA's regulations. Core 
Laboratories proposes to dispose of material into Class II wells with 
radioactivity concentrations that are less than 30 percent of the 
levels in 10 CFR part 20, appendix B, table 2, column 2. These 
radioactive concentrations are not radioactive waste as defined in the 
EPA regulation 40 CFR 144.3. Class II disposal wells are described in 
part in EPA regulations under 40 CFR 144.6 as ``Wells which inject 
fluids which are brought to the surface in connection with natural gas 
storage operations, or conventional oil or natural gas production.'' 
Some of the EPA requirements imposed on Class II disposal well 
operators are found in 40 CFR 144.28 and address compliance with the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, 24-hour reporting of noncompliance, well 
plugging and abandonment planning, financial assurance, well casing and 
cementing, operating and monitoring requirements, records retention, 
and change of ownership and operational control.

2.0 Proposed Action

    The proposed action is to issue a license amendment to Byproduct 
Materials License No. 42-26928-01 for approval of an alternate disposal 
method for well-logging waste produced as a result of fracturing sand 
well-logging operations. The licensee seeks approval to allow 
fracturing sand well returns to be injected into Class II disposal 
wells that have been approved

[[Page 61473]]

under permits to accept non-hazardous oil and gas waste by State 
agencies. These wells have been approved for the disposal of non-
hazardous oil field waste materials including naturally occurring 
radioactive material (NORM). This method of disposal would be used as 
an alternative to existing methods of disposal authorized by the NRC in 
the current license.

3.0 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action

    The purpose of the proposed action is to allow the licensee an 
additional disposal alternative due to the fact that some locations 
where the tracer operations are conducted do not allow shallow pits to 
be used for well waste disposals. This proposed action would allow the 
continued use of tracer materials in those areas and allow the 
efficient production of oil and gas, thereby reducing the cost of 
recovery to the well operators. The NRC is fulfilling its 
responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision for the 
proposed action that ensures protection of the public health and safety 
and the environment.

4.0 Alternative to the Proposed Action

    The only alternative to the proposed action of allowing the 
alternative disposal in Class II disposal wells is no action. The no-
action alternative would be to allow the licensee to maintain waste as 
discussed above as authorized in the current NRC license.

5.0 The Affected Environment and Environmental Impacts

    The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed action and the alternatives 
and examined their impacts.

5.1 Proposed Action

    The proposed action would authorize the use of state approved Class 
II disposal wells already permitted and in operation where materials 
are injected below the water table. The depth of Class II disposal 
wells range from 5,000 to 15,000 feet which is well below usable 
groundwater. Because this disposal method would use existing approved 
structures, there would be no significant impact to historic and 
cultural resources, ecological resources, land use or visual resources. 
In addition, due to the design of the patented Zero-Wash product (no 
wash off of radioactive material), the crush strength of the Zero-Wash 
product (i.e., greater than 10,000 psi), and the design of these Class 
II wells, the waste would not contaminate groundwater and would not 
migrate from the formation where injected. Because the proposed action 
will only use pre-existing Class II disposal wells, there would be no 
increased air emissions or noise, and there would be no significant 
impacts on local or regional business conditions, populations or 
demographics. During the permitting process for Class II disposal 
wells, potential socioeconomic and environmental impacts are 
investigated as part of the National Environmental Policy Act process. 
In general, Class II disposal wells are not located in populated or 
business areas.
    If approved, Core Laboratories' generic 10 CFR 20.2002 waste 
disposal authorization would contain the following provisions: (1) A 
requirement to assure that the radioactive concentration of waste would 
be less than 1,000 picocuries/gram (pCi/g); (2) the half-life of the 
radioactive material being disposed would be less than 120 days and 
include only the following tracers: Sodium-24, chromium-51, rubidium-
86, iodine-131, xenon-133, scandium-46, zirconium-95, antimony-124, and 
iridium-192; and (3) Core Laboratories would maintain a written 
agreement with the Class II disposal well owner or operator to control 
access to the well until the radioactivity has decayed to unrestricted 
release levels.
    Increased radiation exposure to the general public from 
transporting waste containing residual tracer material to the disposal 
site would be negligible. There are two routes of exposure possible, 
external and internal. The internal exposure would be from ingestion of 
the material. The particle size is such that it is not respirable. The 
material is not soluble in the body thereby reducing the resident time 
in the body. At the concentrations expected, an individual would need 
to ingest 200 pounds of the material to receive one-tenth of the 
regulatory annual limit of intake specified in 10 CFR part 20, appendix 
B. The maximum radiation exposure level, at a distance of 1-foot from a 
vehicle transporting this waste, would be on the order of 0.1 mR/hr. 
The radiation level in the cab of the transport vehicle would be on the 
order of 0.004 mR/hr. Using an average transport time of 1-hour and 
assuming the same driver was used for all of the expected disposals (10 
per year), the exposure to the driver of the vehicle would be 0.04 mR. 
Due to its low radiation level and radioactive concentration, an 
accident causing the release of the waste returns from the transport 
vehicle would result in little exposure to workers or members of the 
public during the subsequent cleanup efforts.
    Tracer injection operations at the disposal wells are automated to 
minimize the time required for personnel to be in the immediate area of 
the injected material. Assuming an injection time of 4 hours per 
disposal, and an individual within 1-foot of the radioactive material 
during the injection operation, the total exposure per year would not 
be expected to exceed 4 mR from this operation. The disposal site would 
be surveyed to meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted use in accordance 
with 10 CFR part 20 after the sandout material is injected into a Class 
II disposal well.
    Radioactive material as defined by Department of Transportation 
regulation 49 CFR 173.403 is material that exceeds a concentration of 
2,000 pCi/g. The residual radioactive material concentrations being 
shipped are below this limit. There would be no increase in the number 
of transport vehicles on the highways due to this proposed aspect of 
well-logging operations. The current practice of transporting well-
logging returns to a decay-in-storage facility or shallow disposal pit 
requires that at least one transport vehicle be used. Procedures would 
be in place to handle any emergency situation arising from any incident 
involving the handling or transportation of this material.
    Overall, the environmental impacts resulting from the release of 
this material into Class II disposal wells are expected to be 
insignificant. The NRC staff concluded that the State's and EPA's 
requirements for permitting the operation of Class II disposal wells 
were stringent and thoroughly covered any radiological or non-
radiological environmental concern. There are no additional activities 
which would result in cumulative impacts to the environment.

5.2 Alternative

    When compared to the Class II disposal well proposal, the no-action 
alternative would result in increased risk of exposing occupational 
workers and the members of the public to radioactive material. Core 
Laboratories' use of shallow earthen pits and decay-in-storage 
facilities requires additional handling of the radioactive material and 
increases the potential for individuals to access radioactive material. 
Core Laboratories would continue use of shallow earthen pits, 
transporting the sandout material to the new pits, covering the 
disposal pits with at least 2 feet of soil, and marking the disposal 
sites in order to control access to the public. Additionally, Core 
Laboratories would continue to maintain sandout material in leased 
decay-in-storage facilities. In addition to radiological

[[Page 61474]]

impacts, non-radiological impacts to land use, soils, visual resources, 
transportation, water resources, noise, air quality, cultural 
resources, threatened and endangered species could occur because Core 
Laboratories would continue decay-in-storage before unrestricted 
disposal or burial in shallow earthen pits. Additionally, the cost of 
storage facilities and the cost for burial at an approved disposal site 
are not economical considering the fact that there are no costs 
associated with disposals at Class II wells.

6.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff has prepared this EA with input from the Alaska Oil & 
Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and the Texas Bureau of Radiation 
Control (TBRC) regarding permitting of Class II disposal wells and 
Zero-Wash product.
    Because the proposed action is entirely within existing Class II 
wells, the NRC has concluded that there is no potential to affect 
threatened or endangered species or historic resources. Therefore, 
consultation with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and State Historic 
Preservation Officers is not necessary.
    The NRC staff provided a draft of this EA to the following states 
for review and comment: Alaska (ML031540273), California (ML031540246), 
Colorado (ML031540327), Louisiana (ML031540301), New Mexico 
(ML031540339), Oklahoma (ML031540221), Texas (ML031540332), Utah 
(ML031540352), and Wyoming (ML031540355). This EA has been revised to 
reflect the States' input where appropriate.

7.0 Conclusions

    The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action complies with 10 
CFR part 20 and 10 CFR part 30. Pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, the NRC 
staff has prepared this EA in support of the proposed license amendment 
for approval to allow fracturing sand well returns to be injected in 
Class II disposal wells that have been approved under permits to accept 
non-hazardous oil and gas waste by State agencies. On the basis of this 
EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the 
proposed action would not have any significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment; therefore, an environmental impact statement for 
the proposed action is not warranted.

8.0 List of Preparers

    This EA was prepared by Louis C. Carson II, Senior Health 
Physicist, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region IV, and reviewed by Jack E. Whitten, Chief, 
Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety.

9.0 List of References

    1. NRC, ``Radiological Criteria for License Termination,'' 10 CFR 
part 20, subpart E, 62FR39088, July 21, 1997.
    2. NRC, ``Waste Disposal,'' 10 CFR part 20, subpart K, 56FR23403, 
May 21, 1991.
    3. NRC, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,'' NUREG-1757, 
Volume 1, September 2002.
    4. NRC, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions 
Associated with NMSS Programs,'' NUREG-1748, September 2003.
    5. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) and the letter 
dated January 11, 2002, from the AOGCC to Marathon Oil Company.
    6. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Texas Bureau of 
Radiation Control License No. L03835, Amendment No. 37, expiration date 
August 31, 2005.
    7. Utah Department of Environmental Quality letter to the NRC dated 
June 30, 2003 (ML032660184).
    8. Colorado Department of Health letter to the NRC dated July 1, 
2003 (ML031900577).
    9. Texas Department of Health letter to the NRC dated July 17, 2003 
(ML032060480).

III. Finding of No Significant Impact

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 
and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 51, the Commission has 
determined that there will not be a significant effect on the quality 
of the environment resulting from the approval of Core Laboratories' 
requested amendment for an additional disposal alternative pursuant to 
10 CFR 20.2002 to inject well returns containing radioactive tracer 
material into Class II disposal wells that have been approved to accept 
non-hazardous oil and gas waste by State agencies. Accordingly, the 
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not required for 
the proposed amendment to Materials License No. 42-26928-01, which 
would add the alternative disposal method to the license. This 
determination is based on the foregoing EA performed in accordance with 
the procedures and criteria in 10 CFR part 51.

IV. Further Information

    The licensee's request for the proposed action (ADAMS Accession No: 
ML003758270) and the NRC's complete Environmental Assessment (ADAMS 
Accession No.: ML032680636), and other related documents to this 
proposed action are available for public inspection and copying for a 
fee at NRC's Public Document Room at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. These 
documents, along with most others referenced in the EA, are available 
electronically for public review in the NRC Public Document Room or 
from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document 
system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room).
    Any questions with respect to this action should be referred to 
Louis C. Carson II, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region 
IV, Arlington, Texas 76011-4005. Telephone: (817) 860-8221.

    Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 20th day of October 2003.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack E. Whitten,
Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear 
Materials Safety, Region IV.
[FR Doc. 03-27132 Filed 10-27-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P