Federal Register, Volume 68 Issue 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2003)

[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