Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2014 / Notices 7439 

ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION 

Publication of EAC Decision Regarding 

State Requests To Include Additional 

Proof-of-Citizenship Instructions on 

the National Mail Voter Registration 

Form 

AGENCY: U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission (EAC) hereby causes to be 

published in the Federal Register this 

notice in reference to the Memorandum 

Of Decision Concerning State Requests 

To Include Additional Proof-OfCitizenship Instructions On The 

National Mail Voter Registration Form 

(Docket No. Eac 2013 0004). The 

decision, issued January 17, 2014, is 

posted on the EAC Web site at 

www.eac.gov (shortened link: http://

1.usa.gov/1mdWASw), and also on the 

Federal eRulemaking portal, 

www.regulations.gov, at the following 

link: http://www.regulations.gov/

#!documentDetail;D=EAC-2013-0004- 

0429. Arizona, Georgia, and Kansas had 

sought to modify the state-specific 

instructions on the National Mail Voter 

Registration Form (‘‘Federal Form’’) to 

require that, as a precondition to 

registering to vote in Federal elections 

in those states, applicants must provide 

additional proof of their United States 

citizenship beyond that currently 

required by the Federal Form. For the 

reasons set forth in the decision, the 

Commission denied the states’ requests. 

DATES: This notice is effective upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Whitener, Telephone 301–563– 

3919 or 1–866–747–1471 (toll-free). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The EAC’s decision 

followed a Federal court order in a 

lawsuit brought by Kansas and Arizona 

challenging the EAC’s earlier deferral of 

a decision on those states’ requests to 

modify the Federal Form’s state-specific 

instructions. See Kobach v. EAC, No. 

5:13–cv–4095 (D. Kan. Dec. 13, 2013). 

The district court directed the 

Commission to take final action on 

Kansas’s and Arizona’s requests by 

January 17, 2014. Because Georgia’s 

request presented similar issues, the 

EAC also decided to take final action on 

that request. Before issuing its decision, 

the EAC solicited public comment on all 

three states’ requests, see 78 Fed. Reg. 

77666–67 (Dec. 24, 2013), and reviewed 

and considered all comments received. 

Dated: February 4, 2014. 

Alice Miller, 

Chief Operating Officer and Acting Executive 

Director, U.S. Election Assistance 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02691 Filed 2–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–KF–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement for 

Remediation of Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa 

Susana Field Laboratory and Conduct 

Public Scoping Meetings 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Amended notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is amending its 2008 

notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) for cleanup of Area 

IV, including the Energy Technology 

Engineering Center (ETEC), as well as 

the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa 

Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) (DOE/

EIS–0402) in eastern Ventura County, 

California, approximately 29 miles 

north of downtown Los Angeles. (DOE’s 

operations bordered the Northern Buffer 

Zone. DOE is responsible for soil 

cleanup in Area IV and the Northern 

Buffer Zone.) Since DOE’s 2008 NOI, 

extensive studies of the site for 

radiological and chemical 

contamination have been ongoing and 

are nearing completion. DOE is 

proposing a revised scope for the EIS 

due to the 2010 Administrative Order 

on Consent (2010 AOC) that DOE and 

the California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (DTSC) signed for 

soil cleanup, and due to information 

now available from site characterization. 

The scope of the EIS would continue to 

include groundwater remediation 

consistent with requirements in the 

2007 Consent Order for Corrective 

Action (2007 Consent Order) issued by 

DTSC. This Amended NOI describes 

DOE’s proposed action and includes 

cleanup concepts developed by the local 

community for remediation of SSFL 

Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. 

In the EIS, DOE will evaluate reasonable 

alternatives for disposition of 

radiological facilities and support 

buildings, remediation of contaminated 

soil and groundwater, and disposal of 

all resulting waste at permitted 

facilities. 

DOE is initiating a 30-day public 

scoping period, during which public 

scoping meetings are planned for 

Calabasas and Simi Valley, California. 

DOE invites comments from federal and 

state agencies, state and local 

governments, Tribal Nations, natural 

resource trustees, the general public, 

and other interested parties on the scope 

of the EIS. 

DATES: The public scoping period will 

extend from the date of publication of 

this notice in the Federal Register 

through March 10, 2014. DOE plans to 

hold public scoping meetings at the 

following dates, times, and locations. 

• Simi Valley, California: Simi Valley 

City Council Chambers in City Hall, 

2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, 

on February 27, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 

p.m.; and 

• Agoura Hills/Calabasas, California: 

Community Center, 27040 Malibu Hills 

Road, Calabasas, on March 1, from 9:30 

a.m. to 12:30 p.m. 

DOE will consider all comments 

received or postmarked by the end of 

the scoping period. Comments 

submitted after that date will be 

considered to the extent practicable. 

DOE will give equal consideration to 

written comments and oral comments. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of the EIS should be sent to: Ms. 

Stephanie Jennings, NEPA Document 

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 

4100 Guardian Street, Suite 160, Simi 

Valley, CA 93063 or by fax: (855) 658– 

8695. Comments may also be submitted 

by email to SSFL_DOE_EIS@

emcbc.doe.gov (use ‘‘Scoping 

comments’’ for the subject), or on the 

ETEC Web site at http://

www.etec.energy.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To 

request further information about the 

EIS or about the public scoping 

activities, or to be placed on the EIS 

distribution list, use any of the methods 

listed under ADDRESSES. 

For general information concerning 

the DOE NEPA process, contact Carol 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0119, email to: 

AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov, telephone: (202) 

586–4600, leave a message at (800) 472– 

2756, or fax: (202) 586–7031. 

This Amended NOI will be available 

on the internet at: http://energy.gov/

nepa. This Amended NOI and related 

information will also be available on the 

internet at: http://www.etec.energy.gov, 

select the ‘‘Characterization & Cleanup’’ 

link on the toolbar, and then the 

‘‘Environmental Impact Statement’’ link. 

Additional information about the 

SSFL Area IV is available in the 

following public reading rooms: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2014 / Notices 

1Cleanup standards used during that time were 

based on an estimated exposure dose per DOE 

guidelines. 

• Simi Valley, California: Simi Valley 

Library, 2969 Tapo Canyon Road, (805) 

526–1735; 

• Woodland Hills, California: Platt 

Branch Library, 23600 Victory Blvd., 

(818) 340–9386; 

• Northridge, California: California 

State University Northridge Oviatt 

Library, 2nd Floor, Room 265, (818) 

677–2832; and 

• Chatsworth, California: State of 

California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control, Regional Records 

Center, 9211 Oakdale Avenue, (818) 

717–6521 or –6522 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Site History. Located on 2,859 acres in 

the hills between the San Fernando 

Valley and Simi Valley, CA, SSFL was 

established in 1947 by North American 

Aviation (NAA) for the development 

and testing of liquid propellant rocket 

engines, first for the U.S. Air Force and 

subsequently for the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA). In 1955, NAA established the 

subdivision Atomics International for 

the purpose of conducting energy 

research and testing small nuclear 

reactors for the Atomic Energy 

Commission (AEC), a predecessor 

agency to DOE, and commercial clients 

in the western portion of SSFL, also 

known as Area IV. Atomics 

International merged into Rocketdyne in 

1984. In 1996, the Boeing Company 

(Boeing) acquired part of Rocketdyne, 

and with it SSFL. 

SSFL is divided into four 

administrative areas and two contiguous 

buffer zones north and south of the 

administrative areas. Area I consists of 

about 714 acres, including 672 acres 

that are owned and operated by Boeing 

and 42 acres that are owned by the 

Federal Government and administered 

by NASA. Area II consists of about 410 

acres that are owned by the Federal 

Government and administered by 

NASA. Area III consists of about 120 

acres that are owned and operated by 

Boeing. Area IV consists of about 290 

acres that are owned by Boeing in which 

90 acres have been leased by DOE and 

its predecessors for work described 

below. Boeing also owns contiguous 

buffer zone areas of 1,143 acres to the 

south (Southern Buffer Zone) and 182 

acres to the north (Northern Buffer 

Zone). DOE has no responsibilities for 

the Southern Buffer Zone as it adjoins 

SSFL Areas I, II, and III. DOE does have 

responsibility for the cleanup of soils in 

the 290 acres of Area IV and in the 182- 

acre Northern Buffer Zone. DOE shares 

responsibilities for groundwater 

remediation as defined in the 2007 

Consent Order. Not all of the energy 

research conducted in Area IV was 

performed for DOE. Boeing has 

responsibility for the decontamination 

and demolition of the buildings it owns. 

Starting in the mid-1950s, the AEC 

funded nuclear energy research on a 90- 

acre parcel of SSFL Area IV leased from 

Atomics International. ETEC was 

established by the AEC on this parcel in 

the early 1960s as a ‘‘center of 

excellence’’ for liquid metals 

technology. Boeing and its predecessors 

operated ETEC on behalf of DOE. At 

ETEC, DOE also operated 10 small 

nuclear reactors built for various 

research activities. All SSFL reactor 

operations ended in 1980, and nuclear 

research work was completed in 1988. 

Cleanup of ETEC began in the 1960s and 

was undertaken as unnecessary facilities 

were decommissioned. 

Operation of the research facilities 

and reactors resulted in localized 

radiological contamination of soil and 

groundwater, and the concrete 

containment that surrounded the 

reactors became radioactive. Leaks from 

liquid radioactive waste hold-up tanks 

contaminated surrounding soil. Releases 

of hazardous and radioactive wastes 

into leachfields contaminated 

groundwater. DOE has removed all 

nuclear material from Area IV, and all 

but two of its reactor buildings, and has 

performed cleanup of radioactive 

building materials and soil to DOE 

standards established in the 1980s and 

1990s.1

Prior NEPA Review: In March 2003, 

DOE issued an Environmental 

Assessment for Cleanup and Closure of 

the Energy Technology Engineering 

Center (DOE/EA–1345). The purpose 

and need for agency action was based 

on a DOE determination in 1996 that 

ETEC was surplus to DOE’s needs and 

that the site should be closed. Based on 

the results of the environmental 

assessment (EA), DOE determined that 

an EIS was not required and issued a 

finding of no significant impact 

(FONSI). DOE’s FONSI was challenged, 

and the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California’s May 2, 

2007, ruling in the case Natural 

Resources Defense Council v. 

Department of Energy (Slip Op. 2007 

WL 2349288 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2007)) 

held that DOE’s decision to issue a 

FONSI and conduct cleanup and closure 

on the basis of the EA was in violation 

of NEPA. The court enjoined DOE from 

transferring control of any portion of 

SSFL Area IV until DOE completes an 

EIS and issues a Record of Decision 

pursuant to NEPA. 

In accordance with Council on 

Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA 

implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500–1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021, 

respectively), DOE initiated this EIS in 

October 2007 by issuing an Advance 

NOI (72 FR 58834; October 17, 2007). 

Public comments received as a result of 

the publication of the Advance NOI 

aided in the preparation of the 2008 NOI 

announcing DOE’s intent to prepare an 

EIS (73 FR 28437; May 16, 2008). DOE 

held scoping meetings in July 2008. A 

summary of comments received during 

the 2008 scoping period is on the ETEC 

Web site at http://www.etec.energy.gov. 

DOE did not issue a draft EIS following 

issuance of the 2008 NOI. 

The alternatives identified in the 2008 

NOI were: 

• Alternative 1: No Action—Cessation 

of all DOE management activities and 

oversight of SSFL Area IV 

• Alternative 2: No further cleanup or 

disposition of buildings and no 

remediation of contaminated media at 

SSFL Area IV but DOE would continue 

environmental monitoring and maintain 

security of SSFL Area IV 

• Alternative 3: On-site containment 

of buildings, wastes, and radiological 

and chemical contaminants at SSFL 

Area IV 

• Alternative 4: Off-site disposal of 

SSFL Area IV materials 

• Alternative 5: Combination of onsite disposal/off-site disposal for SSFL 

Area IV 

The 2008 Alternatives 1 and 2 were no 

action baseline scenarios. DOE has 

determined that analysis of No Action 

Alternative 1 would not benefit 

decisionmaking and, thus, proposes not 

to analyze it in the EIS. DOE proposes 

that the No Action Alternative in the 

EIS be based on the 2008 No Action 

Alternative 2. For the Action 

Alternatives (Alternatives 3, 4, 5), DOE 

will continue to evaluate components of 

the alternatives, insofar as they are 

consistent with applicable 

requirements, and after consideration of 

scoping comments, will determine how 

they best fit among the range of 

reasonable alternatives to be analyzed in 

the EIS. 

Recent History: DTSC issued the 2007 

Consent Order to DOE, NASA, and 

Boeing (as respondents) pursuant to its 

authority over hazardous waste under 

the California Health and Safety Code 

section 25187. This 2007 Consent Order 

required the respondents to clean up all 

chemically-contaminated soils and 

groundwater at SSFL to risk-based 

levels. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2014 / Notices 7441 

2The soil cleanup standards (action levels) are to 

be listed in a ‘‘Look-up Table’’ as not-to-exceed 

concentrations in the soil. 

3Natural attenuation takes advantage of 

organisms and physical properties in the soil to 

degrade contaminants. 

Also in 2007, DOE received requests 

from DTSC and some members of the 

California congressional delegation to 

suspend the physical demolition and 

removal of the facilities still remaining 

at ETEC, except for those activities 

necessary to maintain the site in a safe 

and stable configuration until 

completion of the EIS. DOE has honored 

these requests and continued 

surveillance, maintenance, 

environmental monitoring, and soil and 

groundwater characterization activities. 

In the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110–161), Congress, 

among other things, mandated that DOE 

use a portion of the funding for ETEC 

to enter into an interagency agreement 

with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to conduct a joint 

comprehensive radioactive site 

characterization of Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone. Additionally, in 

2009, EPA received $38 million in 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act funds from DOE to expand site 

characterization work. DOE slowed 

preparation of the EIS until the site 

characterization could be completed, 

nevertheless gathering information to 

support the EIS such as baseline data on 

traffic and noise. EPA conducted its 

background and on-site radionuclide 

investigation of Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone from the summer 

of 2009 until the fall of 2012. EPA’s 

final data report for the Area IV and 

Northern Buffer Zone radiological study 

was issued in December 2012. EPA’s 

final data report for the radiological 

study is available on the ETEC Web site 

at http://www.etec.energy.gov. 

In December 2010, DOE and DTSC 

signed the 2010 AOC for soil cleanup. 

(http://www.etec.energy.gov/Char_

Cleanup/AOC.html). The 2010 AOC 

supersedes the 2007 Consent Order 

relative to soil cleanup and provides the 

process for DOE to complete soil 

characterization within Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone. The 2010 AOC 

also describes the process for 

establishing soil cleanup standards for 

Area IV. The 2010 AOC stipulates that 

the soils contamination cleanup 

standard will be local background 

concentrations or analytical detection 

limits.2 The AOC provides a preference 

for on-site treatment to minimize 

transportation of soils. The AOC 

specifies that soil cleanup be completed 

in 2017. DOE recently completed the 

AOC-required soil sampling, and its 

final data report for the Area IV/

Northern Buffer Zone chemical study 

will be issued in 2014. The results of the 

EPA soil radiological characterization 

reports and the DOE chemical 

characterization results will be 

incorporated into the EIS environmental 

analyses. 

In December 2012, EPA provided to 

DTSC its cleanup value 

recommendations to be included in the 

Look-Up Table for radionuclides, and 

DTSC released provisional radionuclide 

Look-Up Table values in January 2013. 

DOE expects that the radionuclide 

values will be finalized after a 

laboratory to test soil samples has been 

identified. In June 2013, DTSC provided 

Look-Up Table values for 125 of the 

most frequently observed chemicals at 

the site, out of over 400 chemicals; 

values for those remaining chemicals 

are expected to be forthcoming. 

Preliminary results of DOE’s soil 

chemical investigation conducted under 

the 2010 AOC and the radionuclide 

investigation conducted by EPA 

indicate that soil volumes potentially to 

be remediated could range from 

approximately 1 million to 1.7 million 

cubic yards of chemically contaminated 

soil, including approximately 82,000 

cubic yards of radiologically 

contaminated soil. These estimates are 

based on established engineering 

estimating procedures using available 

Area IV soil sampling data and the site 

Geographic Information System (GIS) to 

estimate rough-order-of-magnitude soil 

volumes based on the Look-up Table 

values. These volume estimates assume 

expansion following excavation. The 

estimates do not include any reductions 

due to limiting the areas of cleanup for 

protection of biological species or 

archaeological resources that are 

described in the 2010 AOC, or any onsite soil treatment (e.g., 

phytoremediation and bioremediation). 

DOE’s ongoing groundwater 

characterization of Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone has identified two 

areas with solvent contamination, one 

area with tritium contamination, and 

one location with strontium-90 

contamination. 

Groundwater investigation and 

cleanup are still governed by the 2007 

Consent Order (the 2010 AOC identifies 

the provisions of the 2007 Order that are 

still applicable and incorporates them 

by reference). The 2007 Consent Order 

and the 2010 AOC provide the option 

for DTSC to require additional work to 

be conducted outside of SSFL Area IV 

to assess air, soil, and water 

contamination, and to require 

remediation should an area of off-site 

contamination be demonstrated to be 

emanating from Area IV. 

At this time, DTSC is preparing a 

program Environmental Impact Report 

(EIR), pursuant to the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), that 

will include cleanup actions for the 

entirety of SSFL, including those to be 

conducted by Boeing, NASA, and DOE. 

DTSC initiated scoping for the CEQA 

EIR in December 2013 and extended the 

public comment period through 

February 10, 2014. Because DOE will be 

preparing its EIS concurrently, DTSC 

and DOE plan to share information in 

the development of both environmental 

documents. 

Purpose and Need for Agency Action 

DOE needs to complete remediation 

of SSFL Area IV and the Northern Buffer 

Zone to comply with applicable 

requirements for radiological and 

hazardous contaminants. These 

requirements include regulations, 

orders, and agreements, including the 

2007 Consent Order, as applicable, and 

the 2010 AOC. To this end, DOE needs 

to remove the remaining DOE structures 

in Area IV of SSFL and clean up the 

affected environment in Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone in a manner that 

is protective of the environment and the 

health and safety of the public and 

workers. 

DOE Proposed Action 

DOE proposes to demolish remaining 

DOE-owned buildings and debris and 

dispose of this waste off site. DOE also 

proposes to clean up Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone. Soil cleanup 

would be performed based on soil 

concentrations listed in Look-Up Tables 

for chemicals and radionuclides. Where 

possible, DOE proposes to use on-site 

treatment of contaminated soils and 

natural attenuation 3 to reduce volumes 

of contaminated soil prior to transport 

and disposal off site of any soils that 

cannot be otherwise treated and remain 

on site. In all remedial actions, steps to 

protect biological and archaeological 

(cultural) resources would be taken. Soil 

that cannot be treated on site would be 

transported off site to permitted 

disposal facilities based on the type of 

waste. Locations where soil excavation 

is performed would be backfilled, 

recontoured, and stabilized with new 

vegetation. In the EIS, DOE will analyze 

alternatives that can mitigate 

transportation impacts to the adjacent 

communities to the extent practicable 

(e.g., new roadway). DOE proposes to 

address groundwater contamination 

through a variety of mechanisms, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

7442 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2014 / Notices 

including pump and treat technology, 

chemically enhanced degradation, and 

natural attenuation. 

Alternatives 

DOE is in the early stages of 

identifying the range of reasonable 

alternatives for analysis in the EIS. 

These alternatives will be developed 

based on current requirements, 

including the 2010 AOC, results from 

site characterization, public input 

received during alternative development 

workshops held by DOE in 2012 and 

public scoping comments. 

Community-Developed Cleanup 

Concepts 

Community members developed the 

cleanup concepts summarized below 

during the 2012 public workshops held 

by DOE. The concepts are similar in 

their focus on cleaning up and restoring 

Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone 

to a level that allows use of the site as 

open space for wildlife or human 

enjoyment. Each concept calls for 

minimizing transportation impacts. 

Preferred use of native plants and 

measures to prevent spread of invasive, 

non-native plants are also common 

components. The approaches to meeting 

these objectives are different among the 

concepts. DOE invites comments during 

this scoping period on these 

community-developed concepts, as well 

as other suggestions for how to proceed 

with cleanup of Area IV and the 

Northern Buffer Zone. Because the 

community-based concepts have 

common elements, they may be 

formulated into one or more action 

alternatives for analysis in the EIS. 

Concept 1: Minimize Environmental 

Disturbance—The focus of this concept 

is cleaning up the environment in such 

a way as to minimize damage to the 

existing ecosystem. Cleanup would be 

approached in a holistic manner, 

looking to an end state such that Area 

IV could be integrated with the entirety 

of SSFL and the surrounding environs 

as potential national or state park and 

habitat linkage. Cleanup actions would 

be intended to minimize the removal of 

soil and disturbance of the local 

environment. Structures, except 

uncontaminated structures that could be 

repurposed, and roads, would be 

removed. Preference would be given to 

in situ and onsite treatment of 

contaminated soils, materials and 

groundwater, and to recycling. Building 

materials would need to be managed off 

site and would be disposed of or 

recycled as close to the site as possible 

to minimize transportation impacts and 

costs. Treated groundwater would be 

discharged on-site. 

Concept 2: Risk-Based Prioritization— 

Under this concept, cleanup would be 

prioritized based on the toxicity of the 

contaminants to humans and biota, and 

the efficacy of cleanup methods. 

Schedule would not be a driver. A costbenefit analysis may be conducted 

under this concept. Excavation would 

be minimized for both soil and 

groundwater, on-site treatment methods 

would be preferred, and cleanup levels 

would correlate to established EPA or 

California toxicity levels. Tritium would 

be monitored and reduced through 

natural attenuation. The existing 

Groundwater Extraction and Treatment 

System would be expanded and 

groundwater would be removed and 

treated to prevent further contaminant 

migration. Transportation impacts 

would be minimized by managing truck 

routes and schedules, and using more 

efficient technologies such as hybrid 

engines and alternative fuels. Protection 

of endangered species and cultural 

resources would be emphasized. 

Backfilling, recontouring, and cleanup 

impacts for the Northern Buffer Zone, in 

particular, would be minimized. At 

transfer, the property would be open 

space. 

Concept 3: Schedule- and 

Background-Driven Cleanup—The focus 

of this cleanup concept is meeting the 

AOC requirements, including the 

schedule. Cleanup would be to 

background levels, with the vision for 

final state as near natural as possible, for 

use as a wildlife corridor. All 

contaminated structures would be 

removed for disposal; uncontaminated 

foundations and pads would be 

removed if necessary to facilitate soil 

sampling after the buildings have been 

removed. On-site storage of demolition 

debris would be limited to 30 days. The 

preferential order of treatment to meet 

the AOC background standard by 2017 

would be in-situ treatment, on-site 

treatment, and excavation. Tritium 

would be monitored and reduced 

through natural attenuation. Metals 

recycling would be prohibited. 

Innovative methods for moving 

materials off the site to minimize truck 

traffic on existing roadways and 

associated impacts, such as using a 

modular conveyor system, or improving 

an existing fire road are emphasized. 

Intermodal transportation using ships, 

rail, and trucks is proposed for 

transportation to off-site disposal 

facilities. 

Concept 4: Green Cleanup—Under 

this concept, which emphasizes the use 

of green cleanup technologies, a pointbased system would be developed to 

prioritize cleanup actions resulting in 

an open space land use end state. 

Various methods, activities, and 

components of each cleanup action 

would be given a point value based on 

factors such as cost, efficacy, degree of 

disturbance, and vendor location 

(specifically, preference for use of 

California-based companies). Preference 

(and therefore more favorable point 

values) would be given to eco-friendly 

technologies and locally based 

capabilities. Off-site disposal would be 

minimized by on-site sorting, reuse, and 

recycling, and special attention would 

be made to avoid contamination or 

recontamination of waste. Activities, 

such as truck movement scheduling, 

would be undertaken to maximize 

public safety during transportation. 

Road infrastructure would be evaluated 

and improved as needed. There are two 

variations under this concept for 

management of existing structures. 

Under the building preservation 

variation, structures with the potential 

for reuse would be retained. Under the 

building demolition variation, all 

manmade structures would be removed 

and disposed of without consideration 

for reuse. 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, 

DOE would undertake no further soil or 

groundwater cleanup or disposition of 

its buildings and structures at SSFL 

Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. 

Removal of buildings and structures not 

owned by DOE, environmental 

monitoring, stormwater controls, and 

security would continue at SSFL Area 

IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. As 

required under NEPA, this alternative is 

to establish the baseline against which 

the environmental impacts from other 

analyzed alternatives can be compared. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

DOE has tentatively identified the 

following preliminary list of impact 

areas for evaluation in the EIS: 

• Health and safety of the general 

population and workers from 

radiological and non-radiological 

releases, and cleanup operations; 

• Transportation of radiological and 

non-radiological wastes to disposal sites 

and clean replacement soil to SSFL; 

• Waste management; 

• Potential accidents; 

• Intentional destructive acts; 

• Air resources, including air quality, 

climate change, and greenhouse gases; 

• Noise; 

• Surface water and groundwater; 

• Geology and soils; 

• Land use and visual resources; 

• Socioeconomics; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 26 / Friday, February 7, 2014 / Notices 7443 

• Biological resources (endangered 

and protected species, floodplain, and 

wetlands); 

• Cultural, historic, and 

paleontological resources; 

• Native American resources; 

• Irretrievable and irreversible 

commitment of resources; 

• Potential disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on low-income and 

minority populations (environmental 

justice); and 

• Cumulative impacts. 

This list is not intended to be all 

inclusive or to imply any 

predetermination of impacts. DOE 

invites interested parties to suggest 

specific issues, including possible 

mitigation measures, within these 

general categories, or other categories 

not included above, to be considered in 

the EIS. 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA) requires 

federal agencies to take into account the 

effects of their undertakings on historic 

properties. DOE is coordinating 

compliance with Section 106 with the 

preparation of this EIS. Also, DOE is 

initiating formal consultations with the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

required under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Public Participation and Scoping 

Process 

DOE is issuing this Amended NOI to 

inform and solicit comments from 

federal and state agencies, state and 

local governments, Tribes, natural 

resource trustees, the general public, 

and other interested parties on the scope 

of the EIS (e.g., environmental issues, 

alternatives to be analyzed, and the 

potential environmental impacts related 

to DOE’s potential activities within Area 

IV and the Northern Buffer Zone). DOE 

invites those agencies with jurisdiction 

by law or special expertise to be 

cooperating agencies. Invitations to be a 

cooperating agency have been sent to 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 

EPA—Region 9, NASA, California 

DTSC, and the Santa Ynez Band of 

Chumash Indians. 

This Amended NOI also announces 

scoping meetings to be held as 

described under ‘‘DATES’’. The scoping 

meetings will offer an opportunity for 

stakeholders to learn more about the 

proposed action from DOE officials and 

to provide comments on the proposed 

scope of the EIS. The first half hour of 

each meeting will consist of an open 

house, allowing members of the public 

to interact with DOE representatives and 

view materials on the scope of the EIS 

and known issues. After the open house, 

a presiding officer, designated by DOE, 

will announce procedures necessary for 

the conduct of the meeting. DOE 

officials will provide a brief 

presentation explaining DOE’s process 

for identifying reasonable alternatives 

and potential environmental impacts to 

be analyzed in the EIS. Following the 

presentation, the public will be given 

the opportunity to provide comments 

orally. A court reporter will be present 

to transcribe comments. The presiding 

officer will establish the order of the 

speakers, and will ensure that everyone 

who wishes to speak has a chance to do 

so. DOE may need to limit speakers to 

three to five minutes initially, but will 

provide additional opportunities if time 

allows. DOE is especially interested in 

learning from the public any issues or 

alternatives that should be considered. 

Comment cards will also be available for 

those who would prefer to submit 

written comments. Persons who wish to 

speak may sign up to speak before each 

meeting at the reception desk. 

Next Steps 

DOE expects to issue the Draft EIS in 

late 2014. DOE will hold a 45-day 

public comment period beginning with 

the publication of the EPA’s Notice of 

Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in 

the Federal Register and will hold at 

least one public hearing. DOE will 

separately announce, in the Federal 

Register and local media, information 

on the public hearing(s) schedule and 

location(s). Comments on the Draft EIS 

will be considered and addressed in the 

Final EIS, which DOE anticipates 

issuing in fall of 2015. DOE will issue 

a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 

days after EPA’s NOA of the Final EIS 

in the Federal Register. 

Issued in Washington, DC on February 3, 

2014. 

David Huizenga, 

Senior Advisor for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2014–02703 Filed 2–6–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings 

Take notice that the Commission has 

received the following Natural Gas 

Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings: 

Filings Instituting Proceedings 

Docket Numbers: RP14–399–000. 

Applicants: Wyoming Interstate 

Company, L.L.C. 

Description: FL&U Effective March 1, 

2014 to be effective 3/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5078. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–400–000. 

Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline 

LLC. 

Description: Neg Rate NC A&R 2014– 

01–29 Encana to be effective 2/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5084. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–401–000. 

Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company. 

Description: Working Gas Storage to 

be effective 3/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5107. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–402–000. 

Applicants: Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP. 

Description: ConocoPhillips Releases 

2–01–2014 to be effective 2/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5147. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14 

Docket Numbers: RP14–403–000. 

Applicants: Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP. 

Description: ConocoPhillips Releases 

4–01–2014 to be effective 4/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5149. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–404–000. 

Applicants: Texas Eastern 

Transmission, LP. 

Description: ConocoPhillips Releases 

4–01–2016 to be effective 4/1/2016. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5154. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–405–000. 

Applicants: Iroquois Gas 

Transmission System, L.P. 

Description: 01/29/14 Negotiated 

Rates—JP Morgan Ventures (RTS) 6025– 

26 to be effective 2/1/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5157. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–406–000. 

Applicants: Iroquois Gas 

Transmission System, L.P. 

Description: 01/29/14 Negotiated 

Rates—Tenaska Gas Storage, LLC (HUB) 

1175–89 to be effective 1/28/2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

Accession Number: 20140129–5168. 

Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/10/14. 

Docket Numbers: RP14–407–000. 

Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC. 

Description: Big Sandy Fuel Filing 

effective 3–1–2014. 

Filed Date: 1/29/14. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES