Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 75913 

Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 

10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202–4149. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry S. Lineback, Telephone: (703) 

603–7740, Fax: (703) 603–0655, or email 

CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Addition 

On 6/28/2013 (78 FR 38952–38953), 

the Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled published notice of proposed 

addition to the Procurement List. 

After consideration of the material 

presented to it concerning capability of 

qualified nonprofit agency to provide 

the service and impact of the addition 

on the current or most recent 

contractors, the Committee has 

determined that the service listed below 

is suitable for procurement by the 

Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 

8501–8506 and 41 CFR 51–2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in any 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities other than the small 

organization that will provide the 

service to the Government. 

2. The action will result in 

authorizing small entities to provide the 

service to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in 

connection with the service proposed 

for addition to the Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following service is 

added to the Procurement List: 

Service 

Service Type/Location: Custodial and 

Landscaping Service, GSA, PBS, 

Region 7, Tornillo-Guadalupe Land 

Port of Entry, 1400 Lower Island 

Road, Tornillo, TX 

NPA: Training, Rehabilitation, & 

Development Institute, Inc., San 

Antonio, TX 

Contracting Activity: General Services 

Administration, Fort Worth, TX 

Deletion 

On 11/1/2013 (78 FR 65618), the 

Committee for Purchase From People 

Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled 

published notice of proposed deletion 

from the Procurement List. 

After consideration of the relevant 

matter presented, the Committee has 

determined that the product listed 

below is no longer suitable for 

procurement by the Federal Government 

under 41 U.S.C. 8501–8506 and 41 CFR 

51–2.4. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

I certify that the following action will 

not have a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The major factors considered for this 

certification were: 

1. The action will not result in 

additional reporting, recordkeeping or 

other compliance requirements for small 

entities. 

2. The action may result in 

authorizing small entities to furnish the 

product to the Government. 

3. There are no known regulatory 

alternatives which would accomplish 

the objectives of the Javits-WagnerO’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501–8506) in 

connection with the product deleted 

from the Procurement List. 

End of Certification 

Accordingly, the following product is 

deleted from the Procurement List: 

Product 

NSN: 7930–01–367–0989—Cleaner, 

Water Soluble 

NPA: Association for the Blind and 

Visually Impaired—Goodwill 

Industries of Greater Rochester, 

Rochester, NY 

Contracting Activity: General Services 

Administration, Fort Worth, TX 

Barry S. Lineback, 

Director, Business Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29751 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Final Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: This is the first in a series of 

Records of Decision (RODs) to be issued 

by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 

pursuant to the Final Tank Closure and 

Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, 

Richland, Washington (TC&WM EIS, 

DOE/EIS–0391, December 2012). In this 

EIS, DOE considered alternatives for 

proposed actions in three major areas: 

(1) Storing, retrieving, and treating 

radioactive waste from 177 underground 

storage tanks (149 Single-Shell Tanks 

[SSTs] and 28 Double Shell Tanks 

[DSTs]) at Hanford, and closure of the 

149 SSTs; (2) decommissioning of the 

Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) and its 

auxiliary facilities; and (3) continued 

and expanded waste management 

operations on site, including the 

disposal of Hanford’s low-level 

radioactive waste (LLW) and mixed lowlevel radioactive waste (MLLW), and 

limited volumes of LLW and MLLW 

from other DOE sites. The Final 

TC&WM EIS includes No Action 

alternatives to the proposed actions in 

each of the three major areas, as 

required under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

DOE’s decisions described herein 

pertain to all three major areas. DOE 

intends to issue subsequent RODs as 

identified under SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. 

ADDRESSES: For copies of this ROD, the 

Final TC&WM EIS, or any related NEPA 

documents, please contact: 

Ms. Mary Beth Burandt, NEPA 

Document Manager, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of River Protection, 

P.O. Box 1178, Richland, Washington 

99352, 1–509–372–8828, mary_e_

burandt@orp.doe.gov. 

This ROD and the Final TC&WM EIS 

are available on the DOE NEPA Web site 

at: www.energy.gov/nepa and on the 

Hanford Web site at: http://

www.hanford.gov/

index.cfm?page=1117&. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information about the Final 

TC&WM EIS and ROD, contact Ms. 

Burandt as listed above. 

For general information on DOE’s 

NEPA process, contact: 

Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office 

of NEPA Policy and Compliance, GC– 

54, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Washington, DC 20585–0103, 

Telephone: (202) 586–4600, or leave a 

message at 1–800–472–2756, or email 

askNEPA@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Hanford site, located in 

southeastern Washington State along the 

Columbia River, is approximately 586 

square miles in size. Hanford’s mission 

from the early 1940s to approximately 

1989 included defense-related nuclear 

research, development, and weapons 

production activities. These activities 

created a wide variety of chemical and 

radioactive wastes. Hanford’s mission 

now is focused on the cleanup and 

remediation of those wastes and 

ultimate closure of the site. An 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75914 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 

1 DOE/EIS–0189–SA1 ‘‘Supplement Analysis for 

the Proposed Upgrades to the Tank Farm 

Ventilation, Instrumentation, and Electrical 

Systems under Project W–314 in Support of Tank 

Farm Restoration and Safe Operations’’ May 1997 

DOE/EIS–0189–SA2 ‘‘Supplement Analysis for the 

Tank Waste Remediation System’’ May 1998 DOE/ 

EIS–0189–SA3 ‘‘Supplement Analysis for the Tank 

Waste Remediation System’’ March 2001 

2Under Tank Closure Alternatives 2 through 6 

and the sub-alternatives within them, the contents 

of the cesium (Cs) and strontium (Sr) capsules 

currently stored on site would be treated in the 

WTP. 

3For Tank Closure Alternatives 3 through 5, the 

TC&WM EIS evaluated treatment of the tank waste 

important part of the mission includes 

the retrieval and treatment of waste 

from 177 underground radioactive waste 

storage tanks, including 149 SSTs and 

28 DSTs, and closure of the SSTs. 

Hanford’s mission also includes 

radioactive waste management on the 

site and decommissioning and closure 

of the FFTF, a nuclear test reactor that 

has been designated for closure (66 FR 

7877, January 26, 2001). 

The Final EIS implements the January 

6, 2006, Settlement Agreement (as 

amended on June 5, 2008) signed by 

DOE, the Washington State Department 

of Ecology (Ecology), the Washington 

State Attorney General’s Office, and the 

U.S. Department of Justice. That 

agreement settles NEPA claims made in 

the case State of Washington v. Bodman 

(Civil No. 2:03–cv–05018–AAM), which 

addressed the Final Hanford Site Solid 

(Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste 

Program Environmental Impact 

Statement, Richland, Washington (HSW 

EIS, DOE/EIS–0286, February 13, 2004). 

The agreement also stipulates that the 

TC&WM EIS and its RODs supersede the 

HSW EIS and its ROD (69 FR 39449, 

June 30, 2004). 

In addition, this TC&WM EIS ROD 

amends the 1997 Tank Waste 

Remediation System ROD (TWRS ROD, 

62 FR 8693, February 26, 1997). 

Information on the 1997 TWRS ROD 

and three subsequent TWRS EIS 

Supplement Analyses 1 can be found in 

the Final TC&WM EIS (Chapter 1, 

Section 1.2.3). In the third TWRS 

Supplement Analysis, DOE determined 

that Phase I of the TWRS project, the 

initial demonstration facility, was not 

substantially different from the facilities 

identified in the Phased Implementation 

Alternative selected in the TWRS EIS 

ROD. The TWRS ROD is hereby 

amended, and the Phase II facility will 

not be constructed. The TC&WM EIS 

analysis of supplemental treatment 

capacity for low-activity waste (LAW) 

from chemical separation of the tank 

waste is consistent with the Phase I 

concept as stated in the TWRS ROD. 

To support its decision making for the 

needed actions described below, DOE 

prepared the TC&WM EIS pursuant to 

NEPA and in accordance with the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) and DOE NEPA implementing 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508; 10 

CFR Part 1021). The Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and Ecology 

were cooperating agencies on the 

TC&WM EIS. DOE held a public 

comment period on the Draft TC&WM 

EIS, extending from October 30, 2009, 

through May 3, 2010, with public 

hearings in Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho. DOE considered all public 

comments received in preparing the 

Final TC&WM EIS, which was issued in 

December 2012 and includes DOE’s 

responses to those comments. 

In September 2013, DOE issued a 

Draft Hanford Tank Waste Retrieval, 

Treatment, and Disposition Framework 

(Framework). The Framework is not a 

proposal or a decision document. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

DOE needs to accomplish the 

following objectives: 

• Safely retrieve and treat radioactive, 

hazardous, and mixed tank waste; close 

the SST system; and store and/or 

dispose of the waste generated from 

these activities. Further, DOE needs to 

treat the waste and close the SST system 

in a manner that complies with 

applicable Federal and Washington 

State laws and DOE directives to protect 

human health and the environment. 

Long-term actions are required to 

permanently reduce the risk to human 

health and the environment posed by 

waste in the 149 SSTs and 28 DSTs. 

• Decommission FFTF and its 

support facilities at Hanford, manage 

waste associated with decommissioning 

the facilities, and manage disposition of 

the radioactively contaminated bulk 

sodium inventory at Hanford. These 

actions are necessary to facilitate 

cleanup at Hanford in compliance with 

Federal, state, and local laws and 

regulations. 

• Expand or upgrade existing waste 

storage, treatment, and disposal capacity 

at Hanford to support ongoing and 

planned waste management activities 

for LLW and MLLW generated at 

Hanford and from other DOE sites; some 

tank waste; and FFTF decommissioning 

waste. 

Alternatives Considered 

Tank Closure 

Under the Tank Closure Alternatives, 

DOE evaluated each of the primary tank 

closure components, specifically, 

storage, retrieval, treatment, and 

disposal of tank waste and closure of the 

SST system. 

• Alternative 1: No Action. 

Alternative 1 is based on the No Action 

Alternative presented in the TWRS EIS, 

updated to reflect actions taken (interim 

stabilization of the SSTs) and new 

information developed since the TWRS 

EIS was issued, including additional 

consideration of the past leak inventory 

associated with the Hanford 200-East 

and 200-West Area tank farms. 

• Alternative 2: Implement the TWRS 

EIS ROD with Modifications. Alternative 

2 considers all vitrification treatment 

with retrieval of 99 percent of the waste 

from SSTs in accordance with the 

TWRS EIS ROD and the three 

supplement analyses completed through 

2001. Two sub-alternatives were 

separately evaluated. Under Alternative 

2A, waste would be treated using the 

existing Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) 

configuration, but the SST system 

would not be closed. Under Alternative 

2B, WTP current configuration capacity 

for producing vitrified, i.e., 

immobilized, LAW glass (referred to 

herein as ILAW) from WTP would be 

expanded; technetium-99 would be 

removed from the WTP LAW stream 

during the pretreatment process 2 and 

the SST system would be closed as 

landfill closure under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

and covered with an engineered, 

modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier, a 

multi-layer barrier designed to provide 

500-year protection. 

• Alternative 3: Existing WTP 

Vitrification with Supplemental 

Treatment Technology; Landfill Closure. 

Alternative 3 includes retrieval of 99 

percent of the waste from SSTs. Under 

Alternative 3A, the waste would be 

treated using the existing WTP 

configuration supplemented with 

thermal treatment capacity (bulk 

vitrification). Under Tank Closure 

Alternative 3B, the waste would be 

treated using the existing WTP 

configuration supplemented with 

nonthermal treatment capacity (cast 

stone). Under Alternative 3B, 

technetium-99 would be removed from 

the LAW stream during pretreatment 

and incorporated into the high-level 

radioactive waste (HLW) stream for 

immobilization and off-site disposal. 

Under Alternative 3C, the waste would 

be treated using the existing WTP 

configuration supplemented with 

thermal treatment capacity (steam 

reforming). The SST system would be 

closed as a landfill and covered with an 

engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C 

barrier. There would be separate 

treatment of candidate tank mixed 

transuranic (TRU) waste 3 under all 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 75915 

stream associated with the candidate TRU waste as 

both TRU waste and HLW. 

4Clean closure means the removal or remediation 

of all hazardous waste from a given RCRA-regulated 

unit so that further regulatory control under RCRA 

Subtitle C is not necessary to protect human health 

and the environment. 

5 ‘‘Non-CERCLA’’ waste refers to remediation 

waste not regulated under the Comprehensive 

Environmental Restoration, Compensation and 

Liability Act. CERCLA waste is disposed of in the 

existing Environmental Restoration Disposal 

Facility on site. 

three sub-alternatives, as described in 

the TC&WM EIS. 

• Alternative 4: Existing WTP 

Vitrification with Supplemental 

Treatment Technologies; Selective 

Clean Closure/Landfill Closure. 

Alternative 4 includes retrieval of 99.9 

percent of the waste from SSTs. Waste 

would be treated using the existing WTP 

configuration supplemented with 

thermal treatment capacity (bulk 

vitrification) and nonthermal treatment 

capacity (cast stone). There would be 

separate treatment of the candidate tank 

mixed TRU waste, as described in the 

TC&WM EIS. Under this alternative, 

technetium-99 removal would not occur 

as part of WTP pretreatment. Tank farms 

BX and SX would be clean closed, 

which means the tanks, ancillary 

equipment, and contaminated soil 

would be removed, and the remaining 

tank farms would be closed as landfills 

and covered with an engineered 

modified RCRA Subtitle C barrier. 

• Alternative 5: Expanded WTP 

Vitrification with Supplemental 

Treatment Technologies; Landfill 

Closure. Alternative 5 includes retrieval 

of 90 percent of the waste from SSTs. 

WTP current configuration capacity for 

producing ILAW glass would be 

expanded and supplemented with 

thermal treatment capacity (bulk 

vitrification) and nonthermal treatment 

capacity (cast stone). Under this 

alternative, no technetium-99 removal 

would occur as part of WTP 

pretreatment; however, a sulfate 

removal process would allow higher 

waste loading in the ILAW glass. There 

would be separate treatment of the 

candidate tank mixed TRU waste as 

described in the TC&WM EIS. The SST 

system would be closed as a landfill and 

covered with an engineered Hanford 

barrier, a multi-layer barrier designed to 

provide 1,000-year protection. 

• Alternative 6: All Waste as Vitrified 

HLW. Under Alternative 6, all vitrified 

waste produced in the WTP would be 

managed as immobilized HLW (IHLW). 

Alternative 6A includes retrieval of 99.9 

percent of the waste from SSTs and 

vitrification in the WTP using an 

expanded IHLW production capacity. 

The SST system would be clean closed.4

Alternative 6B includes retrieval of 99.9 

percent of the waste from SSTs, 

pretreatment in the WTP, separation 

into HLW and LAW streams, and 

vitrification into IHLW and ILAW glass. 

Both vitrified waste streams would be 

managed as HLW. The SST system 

would be clean closed. Alternative 6C 

includes retrieval of 99 percent of the 

waste from the SSTs. Like Alternative 

6B, this waste would be pretreated in 

the WTP, and vitrified into IHLW and 

ILAW glass. Both vitrified waste streams 

would be managed as HLW. The SST 

system would be closed as a landfill and 

covered with an engineered modified 

RCRA Subtitle C barrier. Under all Tank 

Closure Alternative 6 sub-alternatives 

listed above (6A, 6B, and 6C), the 

resulting IHLW and ILAW glass would 

be stored in IHLW Interim Storage 

Modules and managed as IHLW pending 

ultimate disposition. 

Fast Flux Test Facility Decommissioning 

• FFTF Alternative 1: No Action. 

Under Alternative 1, the FFTF Reactor 

Containment Building (RCB), along with 

the rest of the buildings within the 400 

Area Property Protected Area, would be 

maintained under 100 years of 

administrative controls (site security 

and management). Activities under the 

Environmental Assessment, Sodium 

Residuals Reaction/Removal and Other 

Deactivation Work Activities (DOE/EA– 

1547, March 2006) would be completed. 

The reactor vessel, piping systems, and 

tanks would be left in place under an 

inert gas blanket and Remote Handled 

Special Components (RH–SCs) would be 

stored. Spent nuclear fuel would be 

removed, and systems not associated 

with maintaining safety-related 

functions would be deactivated or deenergized and isolated according to the 

deactivation plans. 

• FFTF Alternative 2: Entombment. 

Under Alternative 2, all above-grade 

structures around the main FFTF RCB 

and two adjacent support facilities 

would be dismantled. Demolition waste 

would be consolidated in below-grade 

spaces and stabilized with grout. 

RH–SCs would be removed and treated 

at either Hanford or the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL), and then be disposed 

of at Hanford in an Integrated Disposal 

Facility (IDF) or at the Nevada National 

Security Site, depending on the 

treatment option selected. An 

engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C 

barrier would be constructed over the 

filled area. For both FFTF Alternative 2 

and 3 Hanford’s bulk sodium inventory 

would be converted to a caustic sodium 

hydroxide solution for reuse at Hanford. 

• FFTF Alternative 3: Removal. 

Under Alternative 3, all above-grade 

structures around the main RCB and the 

two adjacent support facilities would be 

dismantled. The RCB would be 

demolished to grade and the support 

facilities to below grade. Contaminated 

demolition waste would be disposed of 

at Hanford in an IDF. The reactor vessel, 

its internal piping and equipment, and 

its attached depleted-uranium shielding 

would be filled with grout, removed, 

packed, and disposed of in an IDF. All 

other radioactively contaminated 

equipment and hazardous materials also 

would be removed for disposal. 

Waste Management 

• Alternative 1: No Action. 

Alternative 1 evaluates continued 

storage of LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste 

at the Central Waste Complex (CWC), 

Waste Receiving and Processing Facility 

(WRAP), and T Plant in the 200-West 

Area, with no expanded storage capacity 

required. At the CWC, the LLW and 

MLLW would be processed for disposal 

in Low-Level Radioactive Waste Burial 

Grounds (LLBGs) Trenches 31 and 34. 

These trenches are the only lined 

trenches in the LLBGs and would 

receive on-site ‘‘non-CERCLA,’’ 5 nontank LLW and MLLW until this waste 

stream is no longer generated. TRU 

waste would be shipped to and 

disposed of in the Waste Isolation Pilot 

Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New 

Mexico. 

• Alternative 2: Disposal in IDF, 200- 

East Area Only. Alternative 2 evaluates 

continued storage and processing of 

LLW, MLLW, and TRU waste using 

existing and expanded capabilities at 

the CWC, WRAP, and T Plant. In Waste 

Management Alternative 2, disposal of 

LLW and MLLW in LLBGs Trenches 31 

and 34 would continue until they are 

filled. Routine shipments of TRU waste 

for disposal at WIPP would continue. 

Also under Alternative 2, DOE analyzed 

the construction and operation of an IDF 

in 200-East, and the proposed River 

Protection Project Disposal Facility 

(RPPDF) would be constructed and 

operated in the 200 Area. The IDF-East 

would accept waste from tank treatment 

operations, onsite non-CERCLA sources, 

FFTF decommissioning, waste 

management, and MLLW and LLW from 

other DOE sites. Waste from tank farm 

cleanup operations would be disposed 

of in the proposed RPPDF. After closure, 

these disposal facilities would be 

covered with engineered modified 

RCRA Subtitle C barriers. 

• Waste Management Alternative 3: 

Disposal in IDF, 200-East and 200-West 

Areas. Alternative 3 is similar to 

Alternative 2 for Waste Management, 

except in Alternative 3, an IDF would 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75916 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 

also be constructed and operated in the 

200-West Area. IDF-East would be used 

for disposal of tank waste only; IDFWest would be used for disposal of onsite waste not generated from 

remediation activities and off-site LLW 

and MLLW, as well as FFTF 

decommissioning and waste 

management wastes. After closure, these 

disposal facilities would be covered 

with engineered modified RCRA 

Subtitle C barriers. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternatives 

Tank Closure 

SST Closure—Clean closure is the 

environmentally preferred alternative 

when considering only long-term 

groundwater impacts, e.g., impacts that 

may be incurred during the period after 

closure of a facility. In terms of land 

resources, clean closure may allow 

future use of the tank system area, but, 

unlike all other Tank Closure 

alternatives, would require significant 

new, permanent land disturbance for 

new facilities to treat, store, and dispose 

of waste. The Tank Closure No Action 

alternative is the environmentally 

preferred alternative when considering 

only short-term impacts, e.g., those that 

may be incurred during the operational 

period through facility closure. Such 

impacts include worker dose, land 

disturbance, and electrical use. Clean 

closure of the SST system compared 

with landfill closure would have the 

following potentially adverse short-term 

impacts: total land commitments would 

increase twofold, electrical use would 

increase by one order of magnitude, 

geologic resource requirements would 

increase as much as fivefold, sagebrush 

habitat affected would increase by as 

much as two orders of magnitude, 

radiation worker population dose from 

normal operations would increase over 

twofold, LLW and MLLW generation 

volumes would increase threefold, and 

total Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration recordable cases would 

increase as much as fivefold. 

FFTF 

FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment and 

Alternative 3 Removal are both 

environmentally preferred. The longterm analysis shows that the inventory 

remaining for the two alternatives is 

relatively small. Results for both 

alternatives show the groundwater 

impacts for the constituents of concern 

to be below the maximum contaminant 

levels under the Safe Drinking Water 

Act at the fence line of the FFTF facility. 

Short-term impacts for the land, water, 

transportation and socioeconomic 

analysis areas would be slightly smaller 

for FFTF Alternative 2 Entombment. 

However, the air analysis and 

construction impacts would be slightly 

larger for the FFTF Alternative 2 

Entombment. 

Waste Management 

Waste Management Alternatives 2 and 

3 are both environmentally preferred. 

Short-term environmental impacts are 

projected to be very similar for these 

two waste management alternatives 

with no differences between impact 

areas. Long-term impacts analysis 

indicates that IDF-West may not 

perform as well as IDF-East, even when 

the infiltration rate is assumed to be 

equal for both facilities. 

Preferred Alternatives 

In accordance with CEQ guidance, the 

preferred alternative is the alternative 

that the agency believes would fulfill its 

statutory mission while giving 

consideration to environmental, 

economic, technical, and other factors. 

DOE identified its preferred alternative 

for each of the three major sets of 

actions evaluated in the Final TC&WM 

EIS. The preferred alternatives are 

identified in the Final TC&WM EIS 

Summary, Section S.7, Preferred 

Alternative, TC&WM EIS Chapter 2, 

Section 2.12, and a Federal Register 

notice referenced below, and 

summarized in the following 

paragraphs. 

As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for 

the actions related to tank waste 

retrieval, treatment and closure, DOE 

prefers Tank Closure Alternative 2B, 

without removing technetium in the 

Pretreatment Facility. Tank Closure 

Alternative 2B includes 99 percent 

retrieval of waste by volume from the 

SSTs; leak detection monitoring and 

routine maintenance; new and existing 

storage facilities; operations and 

necessary maintenance, waste transfers 

and associated operations, and upgrades 

to existing tanks or construction of 

waste receipt facilities. Tank waste 

treatment includes pretreatment of all 

tank waste, with separation into LAW 

and HLW. New evaporation capacity, 

upgrades to the Effluent Treatment 

Facility (ETF), new transfer lines and 

processing of both vitrified LAW and 

secondary waste for disposal are part of 

tank waste treatment. Disposal activities 

include disposal of LAW on site and 

construction of IHLW Interim Storage 

Modules. SST closure operations 

include filling the tanks and ancillary 

equipment with grout to immobilize the 

residual waste. Disposal of 

contaminated equipment and soil would 

occur on site. Decisions on the extent of 

soil removal or treatment,, would be 

made on a tank farm or waste 

management area basis through the 

RCRA closure permitting process. The 

tanks would be stabilized, and an 

engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C 

barrier put in place followed by postclosure care. 

DOE does not have a preferred 

alternative regarding supplemental 

treatment for LAW; DOE believes it is 

beneficial to study further the potential 

cost, safety, and environmental 

performance of supplemental treatment 

technologies. When DOE is ready to 

identify its preferred alternative 

regarding supplemental treatment for 

LAW, it will provide a notice of its 

preferred alternative in the Federal 

Register. 

DOE identified its preference to 

consider options for retrieving, treating, 

and disposing of the candidate TRU 

waste evaluated in the TC&WM EIS and 

further clarified this preference in a 

Federal Register notice issued March 

11, 2013 (78 FR 15358). As stated in that 

notice, DOE prefers to retrieve, treat, 

package, characterize and certify the 

wastes that are properly and legally 

classified as mixed TRU waste for 

disposal at WIPP. Initiating retrieval of 

tank waste for disposition as mixed TRU 

waste would be contingent on, among 

other things, DOE’s obtaining the 

applicable and necessary permits, 

ensuring that the WIPP Waste 

Acceptance Criteria and all other 

applicable regulatory requirements are 

met, and making a determination that 

the waste is properly classified as mixed 

TRU waste. DOE is not deciding to 

implement its preferred or any other 

alternative associated with this matter 

in this ROD. 

As stated in the Final TC&WM EIS, for 

FFTF Decommissioning, DOE’s 

preference is for Alternative 2 

Entombment, which would remove all 

above-grade structures, including the 

reactor building. Below-grade structures 

would remain in place and be filled 

with grout to immobilize the remaining 

radioactive and hazardous constituents, 

then covered with an RCRA-compliant 

barrier. The RH–SCs would be 

processed at INL and returned to 

Hanford, while bulk sodium inventories 

would be processed at Hanford for use 

in the WTP. 

For waste management, DOE’s 

preference is for a single IDF in 200- 

East; the RPPDF is also included, as are 

upgrades to several waste management 

facilities as described above. The 

disposal facilities would be closed with 

RCRA-compliant barriers. As stated in 

the Final TC&WM EIS, DOE would 

continue to defer the importation of offsite waste at Hanford, at least until the 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 75917 

WTP is operational. Any future decision 

to import off-site waste will be subject 

to appropriate NEPA review. The 

limitations and exemptions defined in 

DOE’s January 6, 2006, Settlement 

Agreement with the State of Washington 

(as amended on June 5, 2008) in the case 

of State of Washington v. Bodman (Civil 

No. 2:03–cv–05018–AAM), will remain 

in place. 

Public Comments on the Final TC&WM 

EIS 

DOE received six letters regarding the 

Final TC&WM EIS, which were 

considered in developing this ROD. 

These letters were from the following 

organizations: Confederated Tribes and 

Bands of the Yakama Nation; the Nez 

Perce Tribe; the Oregon Department of 

Energy; the Hanford Advisory Board; 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 10; and a joint letter signed by 

the Natural Resource Defense Council, 

Hanford Challenge and Southwest 

Research and Information Center. Many 

of these comments are similar to those 

previously provided on the Draft 

TC&WM EIS and were discussed in the 

Comment Response Document of the 

Final TC&WM EIS. 

The Confederated Tribes and Bands of 

the Yakama Nation disagreed with 

DOE’s position on: Open and unclaimed 

lands at Hanford; the reliance on 

barriers and institutional controls to 

reduce risk; closure of the tank farms; 

DOE’s application and consideration of 

the Tribal Scenarios; and groundwater 

modeling. DOE recognizes the concerns 

with long-term site use and restrictions 

which may be required to protect longterm human health and the 

environment. DOE reviewed several 

closure configurations in the TC&WM 

EIS and made its decision based on a 

thorough evaluation of both short-and 

long-term risks, technical practicability 

and cost. DOE evaluated three different 

tribal exposure scenarios in the Final 

TC&WM EIS. One represented an 

exposure scenario agreed to between 

DOE and the three Tribes (the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, 

and the Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR)) in 

January 2005, which was evaluated in 

the Draft TC&WM EIS. In response to 

public comment from the Tribes, DOE 

revisited two other Tribal scenarios, the 

Yakama Nation Exposure Scenario for 

Hanford Site Risk Assessment, 

September 2007; and the Exposure 

Scenario for the CTUIR Traditional 

Subsistence Lifeways, September 2004. 

With respect to Tribal concerns about 

groundwater modeling, such as 

unproductive portions of the aquifer 

and uncertainty in selected actions, 

DOE carefully considered the comments 

and, as a result, made appropriate 

changes to inventory and data reporting 

and presentation as described in the 

Supplement Analysis of the ‘‘Draft Tank 

Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Hanford Site, Richland, Washington’’ 

(DOE/EIS–0391–SA–01, February 2012). 

The Yakama Nation expressed concern 

over unaccounted and unexplained 

revenue needs for supplemental 

technologies and future funding 

constraints. DOE has provided cost 

estimates of the alternatives evaluated 

in the TC&WM EIS (Section 2.11) to 

inform and support funding requests in 

the future. The Yakama Nation also 

expressed concern that there was no 

preferred alternative for the WTP 

secondary waste stream. DOE did 

include secondary waste streams in the 

Final EIS preferred alternative. 

The Oregon Department of Energy 

expressed dissatisfaction with many of 

DOE’s responses in the Final TC&WM 

EIS to their comments during the public 

comment period on the Draft TC&WM 

EIS and stated that DOE had 

misrepresented the comments. The 

dissatisfaction largely appears to be 

related to DOE’s rejection of Oregon’s 

proposal to analyze a new tank waste 

alternative. In considering Oregon’s 

comments, DOE concluded, as 

acknowledged in Oregon’s letter, that 

Oregon’s proposal merely contained a 

different combination of very similar 

actions to those DOE was already 

analyzing in other alternatives. That is, 

DOE concluded that the alternatives 

evaluated in the TC&WM EIS included 

all of the elements in the Oregon 

proposal except in cases such as soil 

remediation beneath the tanks, 

remediation of cribs and trenches, and 

use of iron phosphate glass and 

fractional crystallization to remove 

hazardous constituents. DOE notes that 

remediation actions such as those for 

contaminated groundwater at Hanford 

are ongoing in accordance with 

CERCLA. DOE included its assumptions 

about the efficacy of such remediation 

actions in Chapter 7 and Appendix U of 

the Final TC&WM EIS for the purposes 

of analysis only in order to better inform 

specific tank-related decisions. In the 

Final TC&WM EIS, DOE explained in its 

response to Oregon’s comment 

regarding iron phosphate and fractional 

crystallization that these technologies 

were not sufficiently mature for 

practical consideration in the 

evaluations. On the other hand, DOE 

added a number of features of the 

Oregon proposal to the Final TC&WM 

EIS: additional tank waste storage 

capacity, dry storage of cesium and 

strontium capsules, on-site interim 

storage of IHLW and the concept of riskbased decisions on tank farm closures. 

The letter from Oregon also included 

comments on Ecology’s views on a 

number of issues, and DOE will work 

with Oregon and Ecology to consider 

Oregon’s perspectives in developing 

tank-related strategies that are 

appropriately protective of health and 

the environment at Hanford. 

EPA’s comments on the Final 

TC&WM EIS included support for many 

aspects of DOE’s preferred alternative 

for tank closure, accompanied by 

concern regarding treatment of 

contamination in the vadose zone and 

potential impacts to groundwater. EPA 

recommended that DOE consider 

including opportunities for public 

comment in developing a Mitigation 

Action Plan. EPA also expressed a need 

for additional NEPA analyses for a 

future decision on supplemental 

treatment of LAW. In the Final TC&WM 

EIS, DOE included changes as a result 

of comments received during the 185- 

day public comment period, including 

mitigation actions which could be 

taken. Mitigation actions, such as 

potential soil remediation for SST 

closure identified in the Final TC&WM 

EIS preferred alternative that are subject 

to RCRA permitting, will involve a 

public comment process. When DOE is 

ready to identify its preferred alternative 

regarding supplemental treatment for 

LAW, DOE intends to follow established 

NEPA regulations and guidance and 

conduct the appropriate NEPA review. 

The Nez Perce Tribe expressed 

concerns regarding the NEPA process in 

relation to DOE policies associated with 

consultation and communication with 

the Tribes. The Nez Perce Tribe 

acknowledged its involvement in the 

EIS development process and that the 

Tribe offered many perspectives on the 

document. The Nez Perce expressed 

concerns that DOE did not effectively 

utilize DOE’s policies to consult with 

the Tribe, asked how DOE Order 144.1, 

Department of Energy American Indian 

Tribal Government Interactions and 

Policy, was implemented in the EIS 

process and expressed concern that DOE 

was ‘‘checking the box’’ during the EIS 

process. DOE recognizes there may be 

differing perspectives among the parties 

on the level of consultation needed for 

various activities. In preparing the Final 

TC&WM EIS, DOE focused on the 

Tribal-specific meetings and specific 

Tribal concerns. Information on 

communication and consultation with 

the Nez Perce Tribe can be found in 

Appendix C of the Final TC&WM EIS, 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
75918 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 

while Appendix Q and Appendix W 

contain information on the Tribal 

Scenarios analyzed. DOE agrees with 

the Nez Perce that the Hanford Advisory 

Board (HAB) was not a direct Tribal 

forum, but DOE believes the Board 

provided opportunities for discussion of 

the EIS on a broad range of topics, and 

DOE considered Tribal participation 

and membership on the Board to be an 

important element of DOE’s dialogue 

with stakeholders. 

The HAB requested that DOE not 

issue a ROD for 90 days to allow it time 

to review the final EIS. Other comments 

included support for a decision to build 

a second LAW plant and discontinue 

funding for bulk vitrification, cast stone 

and steam reforming technologies. The 

HAB expressed its view that 

supplemental waste treatment is needed 

to protect the groundwater and meet 

environmental regulations. In its tank 

closure preferred alternative, DOE has 

identified the process it will follow 

when it is ready to make a supplemental 

treatment decision. See the ‘‘Preferred 

Alternative’’ section. DOE agrees with 

the HAB’s goals for protecting health 

and the environment at Hanford and 

will continue to work with the HAB in 

achieving these goals. 

The Natural Resource Defense 

Council, Hanford Challenge and 

Southwest Research and Information 

Center submitted a joint letter regarding 

DOE’s March 11 Federal Register notice 

of its preferred alternative related to 

candidate TRU tank waste. DOE will 

address the letter at the appropriate 

time, i.e., should DOE be ready to issue 

a ROD addressing these wastes. 

Decision 

This is the first in a series of RODs 

that DOE intends to issue pursuant to 

the Final TC&WM EIS. Decisions 

announced in this ROD pertain to each 

of the three main areas analyzed in the 

EIS, i.e. tank closure, FFTF, and waste 

management, as follows. 

Tank Closure 

This TC&WM EIS ROD amends the 

1997 TWRS EIS ROD concerning the 

decision to construct the WTP. Under 

this TC&WM EIS ROD, DOE will not 

construct the Phase II plant described in 

the 1997 TWRS ROD due to technical 

and financial impracticability as 

analyzed in the 2001 TWRS Supplement 

Analysis. 

DOE has decided to implement Tank 

Closure Alternative 2B, ‘‘Expanded 

WTP Vitrification and Landfill 

Closure,’’ without supplemental 

treatment at WTP and without 

technetium-99 removal in the WTP 

Pretreatment facility. Additionally, DOE 

is not deciding on treatment of the 

cesium and strontium capsules in this 

ROD; when DOE is ready to make a 

decision, it will conduct an appropriate 

NEPA review and notify the public. 

This ROD includes decisions 

involving the following major activities 

from Tank Closure Alternative 2B: 

Retrieval of 99 percent of the tank waste 

by volume; use of liquid-based retrieval 

systems; leak detection monitoring and 

routine maintenance; new waste 

receiver facilities, as needed; additional 

storage facilities for canisters; 

operations and necessary maintenance, 

waste transfers and associated 

operations such as use of the ‘‘hose in 

hose’’ transfer lines or installation of 

new transfer lines, where needed; and 

upgrades to existing DST and SST 

systems, which includes piping and 

other ancillary equipment as needs are 

identified. Tank waste treatment 

includes pretreatment of all tank waste, 

with separation into LAW and HLW. 

New evaporation capacity, upgrades to 

the ETF, new transfer lines and 

processing of both vitrified LAW and 

secondary waste for disposal are 

included in this decision. Disposal 

activities include disposal of LAW 

onsite and construction of enough IHLW 

Interim Storage Modules to store all the 

IHLW generated by WTP treatment prior 

to disposal. SST closure operations 

include filling the tanks and ancillary 

equipment with grout to immobilize the 

residual waste. Disposal of 

contaminated equipment and soil will 

occur on site. The tanks will be grouted 

and contaminated soil may be removed. 

The SSTs will be landfill-closed, which 

means they will be stabilized, and an 

engineered modified RCRA Subtitle C 

barrier put in place followed by postclosure care. 

FFTF 

DOE has decided to implement FFTF 

Alternative 2 Entombment. The RH–SCs 

will have the sodium residuals removed 

by treatment at INL and returned to 

Hanford for disposal in the IDF. Bulk 

sodium inventories located at Hanford 

will be converted to caustic sodium 

hydroxide in a Sodium Reaction Facility 

at Hanford, and then stored for ultimate 

use in the WTP. 

Waste Management 

DOE has decided to implement Waste 

Management Alternative 2, which 

includes disposal of LLW and MLLW at 

IDF-East from tank treatment operations, 

waste generated from WTP and ETF 

operations, on-site non-CERCLA 

sources, FFTF decommissioning waste 

and on-site waste management waste. 

DOE will construct and operate the 

RPPDF for disposal of tank closure 

waste, as needed. Waste management 

activities will include continued 

operations at existing facilities as well 

as expansion of treatment capabilities at 

CWC, WRAP, and T plant. DOE will 

defer a decision on importing waste 

from other DOE sites (with limited 

exceptions as described in the 

Settlement Agreement with Ecology) for 

disposal at Hanford at least until the 

WTP is operational. 

Basis for the Decision 

Consistent with the TWRS EIS ROD, 

DOE has determined that it is necessary 

to retrieve the 53 million gallons of 

waste from the tanks to meet regulatory 

requirements, avoid future long-term 

releases to the groundwater, and reduce 

health impacts to potential inadvertent 

intruders into the waste if 

administrative control were lost. DOE 

has determined, consistent with the 

current design and permit that the 

construction of WTP and treatment of 

the tank waste should proceed without 

technetium-99 removal in the WTP 

Pretreatment Facility. DOE has also 

determined that the tradeoffs regarding 

short-term impacts and resources, 

including worker exposure, and 

technical uncertainties outweigh the 

potential groundwater benefits that may 

be obtained by clean closure of the SST 

system. Therefore, DOE has determined 

landfill closure of the SST system, 

which would include corrective/

mitigation actions that may require soil 

removal or treatment of the vadose zone, 

is a more appropriate approach for SST 

system closure than clean closure. 

DOE will implement FFTF 

Alternative 2, Entombment, because this 

alternative fulfills the programmatic 

objectives for closure of the FFTF 

facilities, it is the more cost effective of 

the two alternatives, and it is also the 

environmentally preferred alternative. 

Implementation of FFTF Alternative 2 

would result in very low impacts to 

human health and the environment. 

In order to treat the tank waste in 

WTP and implement FFTF Alternative 2 

disposal, capacity is needed for waste 

generated during those activities. For 

economic and operational efficiencies, 

DOE has decided to operate one IDF 

located in the 200-East Area, instead of 

two separate IDFs in 200-East and 200- 

West. In order to process waste 

generated during cleanup, upgrades to 

site infrastructure such as CWC, WRAP, 

and T plant will be implemented as 

cleanup progresses and needs for these 

upgrades are identified. The IDF 

disposal capacity is needed to dispose 

of waste from tank waste treatment and 

FFTF disposition activities. 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 240 / Friday, December 13, 2013 / Notices 75919 

Mitigation Measures 

In the Final Hanford Comprehensive 

Land-Use Plan Environmental Impact 

Statement (Hanford Comprehensive 

Land-Use Plan EIS (DOE/EIS–0222, 

September 1, 1999) DOE identified 

specific mitigation measures, policies, 

and management controls that direct 

land use at Hanford. DOE committed to 

these mitigation measures, as 

documented in the Hanford 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS ROD 

(64 FR 61615 November 12, 1999), 

which were reaffirmed in the 

Supplement Analysis, Hanford 

Comprehensive Land-Use Plan EIS 

(EIS–0222–SA–02, June 2, 2008) and in 

the amended ROD (73 FR 55824, 

September 26, 2008). These mitigation 

measures will continue to be 

implemented, as applicable, for the tank 

waste retrieval and treatment activities 

discussed in the TC&WM EIS. The 

TC&WM EIS did not identify any 

mitigation measures for the short-term 

resource areas that are needed in 

addition to those in the Supplement 

Analysis, Hanford Comprehensive Land 

Use Plan EIS and its amended ROD. 

DOE has continued to evaluate 

potential mitigation measures for the 

contaminated soil at Hanford for several 

years. Most recently, DOE published the 

Long-Range Deep Vadose Zone Program 

Plan in October 2010. This program 

plan summarizes the current state of 

knowledge regarding deep vadose zone 

remediation challenges beneath the 

Central Plateau at Hanford and DOE’s 

approach to solving these challenges. 

The challenges to implementing deep 

vadose zone remediation are the result 

of contaminant depth and spread; the 

presence of multiple contaminants and 

comingled waste chemistries; physical, 

chemical, and biological fate and 

transport mechanisms; uncertain 

contaminant behavior; limited 

availability and effectiveness of cleanup 

remedies; and the unknown efficacy of 

remediation performance over the 

periods and spatial scales needed for 

making decisions. 

Nevertheless, all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm 

for the decisions identified have been 

adopted. DOE will prepare and 

implement a Mitigation Action Plan to 

address long-term impact areas. Longterm mitigation measures related to SST 

closure will be refined and presented in 

the TC&WM EIS Mitigation Action Plan, 

which will be posted on the Hanford 

and DOE NEPA Web sites identified in 

ADDRESSES. DOE will periodically 

revisit and update the Mitigation Action 

Plan as appropriate prior to initiating 

actions pursuant to this ROD. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 

2013. 

David Huizenga, 

Senior Advisor for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29734 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[ER–FRL–9012–5] 

Environmental Impact Statements; 

Notice of Availability 

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal 

Activities, General Information (202) 

564–7146 or http://www.epa.gov/

compliance/nepa/. 

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact 

Statements filed 12/02/2013 through 

12/06/2013 pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.9. 

Notice 

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires that EPA make public its 

comments on EISs issued by other 

Federal agencies. EPA’s comment letters 

on EISs are available at: http://

www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

eisdata.html. 

EIS No. 20130356, Final EIS, FRA, MS, 

Tupelo Railroad Relocation Planning 

and Environmental Study, Review 

Period Ends: 01/13/2014, Contact: 

John Winkle 202–493–6067 

EIS No. 20130357, Final EIS, FHWA, 

VA, Interstate 66 Corridor Tier 1 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement and 

Tier 1 Record of Decision, Contact: 

John Simkins 804–775–3347. Under 

MAP–21 section 1319, FHWA has 

issued a single FEIS and ROD. 

Therefore, the 30-day wait/review 

period under NEPA does not apply to 

this action 

EIS No. 20130358, Final EIS, FHWA, 

VA, Interstate 64 Peninsula, from 

Interstate 95 in the City of Richmond 

to Interstate 664, Review Period Ends: 

01/27/2014, Contact: John Simkins 

804–775–3320 

EIS No. 20130359, Final EIS, AFS, CA, 

Kelsey Peak Timber Sale and 

Fuelbreak Project, Review Period 

Ends: 01/27/2014, Contact: Jeff Jones 

707–441–3553 

EIS No. 20130360, Final EIS, USFS, AZ, 

Rosemont Copper Project, Proposed 

Mining Operation, Review Period 

Ends: 01/29/2014, Contact: Mindy 

Vogel 520–388–8300 

EIS No. 20130361, Draft Supplement, 

USACE, MN, NorthMet Mining 

Project and Land Exchange, Comment 

Period Ends: 03/13/2014, Contact: 

Douglas Bruner 651–290–5378. The 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 

Forest Service are joint lead agencies 

for the above project. 

EIS No. 20130362, Final EIS, USFS, MT, 

Montana Snowbowl Expansion, 

Review Period Ends: 01/21/2014, 

Contact: Tami Paulsen 406–329–3731 

EIS No. 20130363, Draft EIS, DOI, 00, 

PROGRAMMATIC—Deepwater 

Horizon Oil Spill Natural Resources 

Damage Assessment, Phase III Early 

Restoration Plan, Comment Period 

Ends: 02/04/2014, Contact: Nanciann 

Regalado 678–296–6805 

EIS No. 20130364, Final EIS, USFS, OR, 

Tollgate Fuels Reduction, Review 

Period Ends: 01/13/2014, Contact: 

Kimpton Cooper 509–522–6009 

EIS No. 20130365, Draft EIS, NMFS, CA, 

Bay Delta Conservation Plan, 

Comment Period Ends: 04/14/2014, 

Contact: Ryan Wulff 916–930–3733 

The U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and 

Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s National Marine Fisheries 

Service are joint lead agencies for the 

above project. 

EIS No. 20130366, Draft EIS, USACE, 

LA, PROGRAMMATIC—Southwest 

Coastal Louisiana Project, Comment 

Period Ends: 01/27/2014, Contact: 

Nathan Dayan 504–862–2530 

Dated: December 10, 2013. 

Cliff Rader, 

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office 

of Federal Activities. 

[FR Doc. 2013–29770 Filed 12–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

Pursuant to the provisions of the 

‘‘Government in the Sunshine Act’’ (5 

U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given that 

the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation’s Board of Directors met in 

open session at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, 

December 10, 2013, to consider the 

following matters: 

Discussion Agenda: Memorandum 

and resolution re: The Resolution of 

Systemically Important Financial 

Institutions: The Single Point of Entry 

Strategy. 

In calling the meeting, the Board 

determined, on motion of Vice 

Chairman Thomas M. Hoenig, seconded 

by Director Jeremiah O. Norton 

(Appointive), concurred in by Director 

Thomas J. Curry (Comptroller of the 

Currency), Director Richard Cordray 


ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES