20582 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 515. 

Burden Hours: 333. 

Abstract: The Evaluation of Response 

to Intervention (RtI) Practices for 

Elementary School Reading will inform 

the National Assessment of IDEA 2004, 

and the choices of districts and schools, 

by studying the implementation and 

impact of practices to identify and 

intervene early with struggling readers 

and, when needed, determine students’ 

eligibility for special education. The 

Department seeks clearance for the site 

recruitment materials. A subsequent 

OMB package will seek approval for 

instruments to collect data for an indepth study of RtI design, 

implementation, and impact in sites 

operating mature RtI programs. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4223. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments ’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9070 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Submission for OMB Review; 

Comment Request 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management invites comments on the 

submission for OMB review as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before May 20, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be addressed to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Education Desk Officer, 

Office of Management and Budget, 725 

17th Street, NW., Room 10222, New 

Executive Office Building, Washington, 

DC 20503, be faxed to (202) 395–5806 or 

e-mailed to 

oira_submission@omb.eop.gov with a 

cc: to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

Dated: April 15, 2010. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and 

Policy Development 

Type of Review: Extension. 

Title: Study of School-Level 

Expenditures. 

Frequency: Once. 

Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal 

Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 13,158. 

Burden Hours: 562,136. 

Abstract: The purpose of this data 

collection is to meet the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

requirement for states and school 

districts to submit a school-by-school 

listing of school-level expenditures from 

state and local funds for the 2008–09 

school year. These data will be used to 

examine the extent to which schoollevel education resources are distributed 

equitably within and across school 

districts. 

Requests for copies of the information 

collection submission for OMB review 

may be accessed from http:// 

edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the 

‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and 

by clicking on link number 4280. When 

you access the information collection, 

click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to 

view. Written requests for information 

should be addressed to U.S. Department 

of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, 

SW., LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to the Internet address 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202– 

401–0920. Please specify the complete 

title of the information collection when 

making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

1–800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9071 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Record of Decision: Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship at the West Valley 

Demonstration Project and Western 

New York Nuclear Service Center 

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is issuing this Record of 

Decision (ROD), based on information 

and analyses contained in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship at the West Valley 

Demonstration Project and Western New 

York Nuclear Service Center 

(Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship EIS) (DOE/EIS–0226) 

issued on January 29, 2010, comments 

received on the Final EIS, and other 

factors including cost and 

environmental stewardship 

considerations. The Decommissioning 

and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS was 

prepared by DOE and the New York 

State Energy Research and Development 

Authority (NYSERDA) to examine the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20583 

potential environmental impacts of the 

range of reasonable alternatives to meet 

DOE’s responsibilities under the West 

Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) 

Act and NYSERDA’s responsibilities for 

management of the Western New York 

Nuclear Services Center (WNYNSC). 

This ROD addresses DOE decisions for 

actions at WNYNSC necessary to 

complete WVDP. NYSERDA will 

publish its decisions regarding actions 

at WNYNSC in a Findings Statement in 

the New York State Environmental 

Notice Bulletin. 

The Proposed Action is the 

completion of WVDP and the 

decommissioning and/or long-term 

management or stewardship of 

WNYNSC. This includes the 

decontamination and decommissioning 

of the waste storage tanks and facilities 

used in the solidification of high-level 

radioactive waste, and any material and 

hardware used in connection with the 

WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, 

if any, material or structures for which 

it is responsible would remain on site, 

and what, if any, institutional controls, 

engineered barriers, or stewardship 

provisions would be needed. NYSERDA 

needs to determine what, if any, 

material or structures for which it is 

responsible would remain on site and 

what, if any, institutional controls, 

engineered barriers, or stewardship 

provisions would be needed. 

DOE and NYSERDA evaluated four 

alternatives in the Final EIS: Sitewide 

Removal, Sitewide Close-In-Place, 

Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred 

Alternative), and No Action. 

DOE has decided to implement the 

Preferred Alternative, Phased 

Decisionmaking. Under this alternative, 

decommissioning will be completed in 

two phases. Phase 1 involves near-term 

decommissioning and removal actions 

for certain facilities and areas and 

undertakes characterization work and 

studies that could facilitate future 

decisionmaking for the remaining 

facilities or areas on the property. 

DOE intends to complete any 

remaining WVDP decommissioning 

decisionmaking with its Phase 2 

decision (to be made within 10 years of 

this ROD) and expects to select either 

removal or in-place closure, or a 

combination of the two for those 

portions of the site for which it has 

decommissioning responsibility. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information regarding WVDP or this 

ROD, or to receive a copy of the 

Decommissioning and/or Long-term 

Stewardship EIS or this ROD, contact: 

Catherine Bohan, EIS Document 

Manager, West Valley Demonstration 

Project, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Ashford Office Complex, 9030 Route 

219, West Valley, NY 14171. Requests 

for information may also be submitted 

via e-mail at http:// 

www.westvalleyeis.com or by faxing tollfree to 866–306–9094. 

The West Valley Web site (http:// 

www.wv.doe.gov) may also be accessed 

for the Decommissioning and/or Longterm Stewardship EIS (DOE/EIS–0226), 

this ROD, and additional information 

related to the West Valley site. 

For general information on DOE’s 

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; e-mail 

AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov; telephone 202– 

586–4600; or leave a message at 800– 

472–2756. Additional information 

regarding DOE NEPA activities and 

access to many DOE NEPA documents, 

including the Decommissioning and/or 

Long-term Stewardship EIS, are 

available through the DOE NEPA Web 

site at: http://www.gc.energy.gov/nepa. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

DOE has prepared this ROD pursuant 

to the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) for 

implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 

CFR parts 1500–1508) and DOE’s NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 

1021). This ROD is based on 

information and analyses contained in 

the Final Decommissioning and/or 

Long-Term Stewardship EIS (DOE/EIS– 

0226) issued on January 29, 2010 (75 FR 

4803); comments received on the Final 

EIS; and other factors, including cost 

and environmental stewardship 

considerations. 

WNYNSC is a 1,351-hectare (3,338- 

acre) site located 48 kilometers (30 

miles) south of Buffalo, New York, and 

owned by NYSERDA. WNYNSC was 

established in 1961 as the site of a 

nuclear center consisting of commercial 

spent nuclear fuel reprocessing and 

waste disposal facilities. Nuclear Fuel 

Services, Incorporated (NFS), a private 

company, built and operated the fuel 

reprocessing plant and burial grounds, 

processing 640 metric tons of spent 

nuclear fuel at WNYNSC from 1966 to 

1972 under an Atomic Energy 

Commission license. Fuel reprocessing 

ended in 1972, when the plant was shut 

down for modifications to increase its 

capacity, reduce occupational radiation 

exposure, and reduce radioactive 

effluents. However, between 1972 and 

1976, there were major changes in 

regulatory requirements, including more 

stringent seismic and tornado siting 

criteria for nuclear facilities and more 

extensive regulations for radioactive 

waste management, radiation 

protection, and nuclear material 

safeguards. 

As a result, NFS announced its 

decision to withdraw from the nuclear 

fuel reprocessing business and to 

exercise its contractual right to yield 

responsibility for WNYNSC to 

NYSERDA, the site owner. NFS 

withdrew from WNYNSC in 1976 

without removing any of the in-process 

nuclear wastes. NYSERDA now holds 

title to and manages WNYNSC. 

In 1980, Congress passed the WVDP 

Act (Pub. L. 96–368, 42 U.S.C. 2021a). 

The WVDP Act requires DOE to 

demonstrate that the liquid high-level 

radioactive waste from reprocessing 

could be safely managed by solidifying 

it at WNYNSC, and transporting it to a 

repository for permanent disposal. 

Specifically, Section 2(a) of the Act 

directs DOE to take the following 

actions: 

1. Solidify high-level radioactive 

waste by vitrification or such other 

technology that the DOE deems 

effective; 

2. Develop containers suitable for the 

permanent disposal of the solidified 

high-level radioactive waste; 

3. Transport the solidified high-level 

radioactive waste to an appropriate 

Federal repository for permanent 

disposal; 

4. Dispose of the low-level radioactive 

waste and transuranic waste produced 

by the high-level radioactive waste 

solidification program; and 

5. Decontaminate and decommission 

the waste storage tanks and facilities 

used to store the high-level radioactive 

waste, the facilities used for 

solidification of the high-level 

radioactive waste, and any material and 

hardware used in connection with the 

project in accordance with such 

requirements as the U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission (NRC) may 

prescribe. 

In 1982, DOE assumed control but not 

ownership of the 68-hectare (167-acre) 

Project Premises portion of WNYNSC to 

conduct the WVDP, as required under 

the aforementioned WVDP Act. 

As part of the WVDP Act, NRC was 

charged with developing 

decommissioning criteria. In the 

‘‘Decommissioning Criteria for the 

WVDP at the West Valley Site; Final 

Policy Statement’’ (NRC Policy 

Statement) (67 FR 5003), NRC prescribes 

the requirements for decommissioning 

WVDP. The decommissioning criteria 

define the conditions that would allow 

WVDP to be used with specified 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
20584 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

restrictions or without restrictions on 

future use. If those conditions cannot be 

met, the NRC Policy Statement also 

defines the circumstances under which 

portions of the site could remain under 

long-term management or stewardship. 

A 1987 Stipulation of Compromise 

between the Coalition on West Valley 

Nuclear Wastes and DOE specified that 

a closure EIS be prepared that also 

addresses the disposal of those Class B 

and C low-level radioactive wastes 

generated as a result of DOE’s activities 

at WVDP. In 1990, DOE and NYSERDA 

entered into a supplemental agreement 

to prepare an EIS to address both the 

completion of WVDP and closure or 

long-term management of WNYNSC. 

EIS Process 

On December 30, 1988, DOE 

published a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the 

Federal Register to prepare an EIS for 

WVDP completion. In 1990, DOE and 

NYSERDA entered into a supplemental 

agreement to prepare a joint EIS to 

address both the completion of WVDP 

and closure or long-term management of 

WNYNSC. A Draft EIS was issued for 

public comment in 1996: the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Completion of the West Valley 

Demonstration Project and Closure or 

Long-Term Management of Facilities at 

the Western New York Nuclear Service 

Center, also referred to as the 1996 

Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS (DOE/ 

EIS–0226D), January 1996. The 1996 

Draft EIS did not identify a preferred 

alternative. 

On March 26, 2001, DOE and 

NYSERDA announced (66 FR 15447) 

their intent to revise their strategy for 

completing the EIS process. On 

November 6, 2001, DOE issued an 

Advance NOI (66 FR 56090) to provide 

an early opportunity for interested 

parties to comment on the proposed 

scope of the EIS, and on March 13, 

2003, DOE and NYSERDA issued an 

NOI (68 FR 12044) for the 

Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship EIS. After considering all 

public scoping comments and based on 

decommissioning criteria for WVDP 

issued by NRC since the publication of 

the 1996 Cleanup and Closure Draft EIS 

and public comments on that EIS, DOE 

and NYSERDA (as co-lead preparers) 

issued the Revised Draft EIS known as 

the Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship EIS for public comment in 

December 2008. The public comment 

period, originally scheduled to end June 

8, 2009, was extended through 

September 8, 2009, in response to 

requests from the public. Following 

consideration of all public comments, 

the Final EIS was issued in January 

2010. The NRC, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), and the New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

participated as cooperating agencies in 

preparing the EIS. The New York State 

Department of Health and NYSDEC are 

involved agencies under the New York 

State Environmental Quality Review Act 

(SEQR). 

The Proposed Action is the 

completion of WVDP and the 

decommissioning and/or long-term 

management or stewardship of 

WNYNSC. This includes the 

decontamination and decommissioning 

of the waste storage tanks and facilities 

used in the solidification of high-level 

radioactive waste, and any material and 

hardware used in connection with the 

WVDP. DOE needs to determine what, 

if any, material or structures for which 

it is responsible would remain on site, 

and what, if any, institutional controls, 

engineered barriers, or stewardship 

provisions would be needed. NYSERDA 

needs to determine what, if any, 

material or structures for which it is 

responsible would remain on site and 

what, if any, institutional controls, 

engineered barriers, or stewardship 

provisions would be needed as a result. 

Alternatives Considered 

The Decommissioning and/or LongTerm Stewardship EIS analyzes the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

range of reasonable alternatives to 

decommission and/or maintain longterm stewardship at WNYNSC. The 

alternatives analyzed in the EIS include 

Sitewide Removal, Sitewide Close-InPlace, Phased Decisionmaking (the 

Preferred Alternative), and No Action. 

Sitewide Removal. Under this 

alternative, site facilities would be 

removed; contaminated soil, sediment, 

and groundwater would be removed to 

meet criteria that would allow 

unrestricted release of WNYNSC; and 

radioactive, hazardous, and mixed 

waste would be characterized, packaged 

as necessary, and eventually shipped off 

site for disposal. Immediate 

implementation of this alternative 

would generate waste for which there is 

currently no offsite disposal location 

(e.g., potential non-defense transuranic 

waste, commercial Class B and C lowlevel radioactive waste, and GreaterThan-Class C waste). Any such ‘‘orphan 

waste’’ would be stored on site until an 

appropriate offsite facility is available. 

Completion of these activities would 

allow unrestricted use of the site (i.e., 

the site could be made available for any 

public or private use). 

Sitewide Close-In-Place. Under this 

alternative, most facilities would be 

closed in place. Major facilities and 

sources of contamination such as the 

Waste Tank Farm, U.S. Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission-Licensed 

Disposal Area (NDA), and StateLicensed Disposal Area (SDA) would be 

managed at their current locations. 

Residual radioactivity in facilities 

with larger inventories of long-lived 

radionuclides would be isolated by 

specially designed closure structures 

and engineered barriers. These 

structures would be designed to meet 

regulatory requirements both to retain 

hazardous and radioactive constituents 

and to ensure they would be resistant to 

long-term degradation. This approach 

would allow large areas of the site to be 

released for unrestricted use. The NRC 

license for remaining portions of 

WNYNSC could be terminated under 

restricted conditions, or could be 

converted to a long-term license. 

Facilities that are closed in place, and 

any buffer areas around them, would 

require long-term stewardship. 

Phased Decisionmaking (the Preferred 

Alternative). Under this alternative, 

decommissioning would be completed 

in two phases. This alternative involves 

substantial removal actions in the first 

phase and also provides for additional 

site characterization and scientific 

studies to facilitate decisionmaking for 

the remaining facilities or areas. 

Phase 1 decommissioning actions 

would include removal of the Main 

Plant Process Building, the Vitrification 

Facility, and the source area for the 

North Plateau Groundwater Plume. In 

addition, the lagoons and all facilities in 

Waste Management Area (WMA) 2 

(except the permeable treatment wall) 

would be removed. The Remote 

Handled Waste Facility and a number of 

facilities in WMAs 5, 6, 9, and 10 would 

also be removed. Foundations, slabs, or 

pads from these facilities, as well as 

those from previously demolished 

facilities would also be removed. During 

Phase 1, several facilities would 

continue under active management. 

These facilities include the Waste Tank 

Farm and its support facilities, the 

Construction and Demolition Debris 

Landfill, the nonsource area of the 

North Plateau Groundwater Plume, the 

NDA, and the SDA. Phase 1 activities 

would make use of proven technologies 

and available waste disposal sites to 

reduce the potential short-term health 

and safety risks from residual 

radioactivity and hazardous 

contaminants at the site. 

Phase 1 activities are expected to take 

8 to 10 years to complete. During this 

time, a number of activities would be 

conducted to evaluate the best technical 

approach to complete decommissioning 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20585 

of the remaining facilities and to 

facilitate interagency decisionmaking. 

These activities would include further 

characterization of site contamination 

and additional scientific studies. These 

additional studies may reduce technical 

uncertainties related to the decision on 

final decommissioning and long-term 

management of the balance of 

WNYNSC. In particular, these studies 

may address uncertainties associated 

with the long-term performance models, 

the viability and cost of exhuming 

buried waste and tanks, the availability 

of waste disposal sites, and technologies 

for in-place containment. While the 

Phase 1 activities are being conducted, 

DOE and NYSERDA would assess the 

results of site specific studies as they 

become available, along with other 

emerging information such as applicable 

technology development. 

In consultation with NYSERDA and 

cooperating and involved agencies on 

this EIS, DOE would determine whether 

new information or circumstances 

would warrant preparation of a 

Supplemental EIS prior to proceeding 

with Phase 2. 

The Phase 2 decision would be made 

within 10 years of this ROD and the 

initial NYSERDA Findings Statement. 

The timeframe associated with this 

decision in the Revised Draft EIS was 30 

years. This timeframe was modified for 

the Final EIS in response to public 

comments. For DOE, WVDP Phase 2 

actions would complete 

decommissioning or long-term 

management decisionmaking for each 

remaining facility according to the 

approach determined most appropriate. 

Phase 2 alternatives that would be 

considered by NYSERDA for the SDA 

include at least: complete exhumation, 

close-in-place, and continued active 

management consistent with SDA 

permit and license requirements. 

No Action. Under the No Action 

Alternative, no actions toward 

decommissioning would be taken. The 

No Action Alternative would involve 

the continued management and 

oversight of all facilities located on 

WNYNSC property. The No Action 

Alternative does not meet the purpose 

and need for agency action, but analysis 

of the No Action Alternative is required 

under NEPA and SEQR as a basis for 

comparison. 

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives 

The Decommissioning and/or LongTerm Stewardship EIS presents the 

potential impacts on land resources, air 

quality, noise, water resources, soils, 

biological resources, cultural resources, 

socioeconomics, and human health for 

the four alternatives, including those 

from potential facility accidents and 

transportation of radioactive materials. 

DOE considered the impacts of activities 

for each alternative, the irreversible or 

irretrievable commitments of resources, 

and the relationship between short-term 

uses of the environment and the 

maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity. Comparisons of the 

alternatives were based on both shortand long-term impacts. Five resource 

areas where meaningful impact 

differences could occur were used to 

compare short term impacts: land use 

(land available for reuse), 

socioeconomics (employment), human 

health and safety, waste management, 

and transportation. For comparative 

analyses of long-term impacts, the 

projected radiation dose to future 

hypothetical individuals and 

populations is identified as a 

meaningful difference among the 

alternatives; that is, long-term risks are 

dominated by radiological rather than 

chemically hazardous constituents. 

The Sitewide Removal Alternative 

would result in the most land available 

for release for unrestricted use (the 

entire WNYNSC); long-term 

stewardship at WNYNSC would not be 

required, although institutional controls 

would be needed for any temporary 

management of orphan waste. This 

alternative would result in the highest 

decommissioning impacts at the site, on 

site workers, and on the public in the 

vicinity of WNYNSC and along the 

transportation routes over a period of 

about 60 years. This alternative would 

incur the highest short-term collective 

radiological dose to the public and 

workers from both onsite and 

transportation activities. These activities 

could result in up to 2 latent cancer 

fatalities among workers. No latent 

cancer fatalities would be expected for 

the public. Nonradiological 

consequences of transporting the waste 

off site for disposal are estimated to be 

as many as 10 to 15 fatalities from truck 

and rail accidents, respectively. 

Potential long-term radiological dose to 

the general population in the vicinity of 

WNYNSC would be negligible. 

The Sitewide Close-In-Place 

Alternative would result in fewer 

decommissioning impacts at the site, 

require the least amount of time to 

accomplish, and generate the least 

amount of waste (other than the No 

Action Alternative) that would need to 

be disposed of elsewhere. This 

alternative would result in less land 

available for release for unrestricted use 

than the Sitewide Removal Alternative. 

No latent cancer fatalities would be 

expected among the public, onsite 

workers, or transportation workers. 

Transporting the waste off site for 

disposal is estimated to result in 1 

fatality from transportation accidents. 

However, implementing this alternative 

would require long-term stewardship at 

WNYNSC, including institutional 

controls. The reasonably foreseeable 

long-term peak annual dose to an 

average Lake Erie water user (assumed 

to be consuming water from the 

Sturgeon Point water intake with 

unmitigated erosion at the West Valley 

site) would be about 0.4 millirem, 

which would be indistinguishable from 

the dose associated with background 

radiation. 

The Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative (Phase 1) would not result 

in more land available for release than 

the No Action Alternative, but would 

have positive long-term impacts because 

contaminated facilities and the source 

area of the North Plateau Groundwater 

Plume would be removed during 

decommissioning activities. No latent 

cancer fatalities would be expected 

among the public, onsite workers, or 

transportation workers as a result of 

Phase 1 activities. Transporting waste 

off site is estimated to result in 1 to 2 

fatalities from nonradiological 

transportation accidents. 

If the Phase 2 decision is removal of 

remaining waste and contamination, 

total impacts from the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative would be 

similar to those for the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative. 

If the Phase 2 decision is in-place 

closure of the remaining waste and 

contamination, total waste generation 

and transportation impacts (including 

nonradiological fatalities from traffic 

accidents) for the alternative would be 

only slightly more than those for Phase 

1 alone because of the limited amount 

of waste that would be generated by inplace closure activities. The total worker 

exposure would be about 50 percent 

higher than that for Phase 1 alone 

because of the additional occupational 

exposure that would occur from inplace closure of the facilities not 

removed during Phase 1. Long-term 

impacts would be less than those for the 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. 

Because of removal actions during 

Phase 1, the time-integrated 

(cumulative) population dose over 1,000 

years would be about 85 percent of the 

4,000 person-rem dose projected for the 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. 

However, because of the long-lived 

radionuclides that would remain in the 

waste disposal areas, the time-integrated 

population dose over 10,000 years 

would be about 97 percent of the 34,000 

person-rem dose projected for the 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
20586 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

If the Phase 2 decision for the SDA is 

continued active management, shortterm Phase 2 impacts for some resource 

areas are expected to be bounded by 

those for the No Action Alternative. 

There would also be less transportation, 

so the associated impacts, including 

nonradiological fatalities from traffic 

accidents, would be lower. The longterm human health impacts for 

continued active management of the 

SDA would be the same as those 

identified for the SDA under the No 

Action Alternative. 

Making the Phase 2 decision at 10 

years instead of 30 years, as was cited 

in the Revised Draft EIS, would result in 

a small reduction in the total impact of 

decommissioning because most of the 

Phase 1 impacts are the result of the 

removal actions that occur in the first 8 

years of Phase 1. The most important 

change in impacts associated with the 

shorter duration of Phase 1 would be the 

reduced socioeconomic impact. A 

shorter Phase 1 would eliminate the 

approximately 20-year period of 

reduced site employment following 

completion of the Phase 1 

decommissioning actions followed by 

an increase in site employment when 

Phase 2 implementation begins. 

The No Action Alternative would not 

involve decommissioning. Waste and 

contamination would not be removed, 

and there would be no change in site 

operations. Long-term impacts would be 

higher than those for the Sitewide 

Close-In-Place Alternative because there 

would be fewer engineered barriers to 

retard the migration of radionuclides 

from their original locations and to act 

as intrusion barriers in the event of loss 

of institutional controls, although the 

associated health risks would be small. 

For example, the long-term peak annual 

dose to an average Lake Erie water user 

(assumed to be consuming water from 

the Sturgeon Point water intake with 

unmitigated erosion at the West Valley 

site) would be about 3 millirem, which 

is unlikely to result in a cancer fatality. 

Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

As required by 40 CFR 1505.2(b), DOE 

has identified the environmentally 

preferable alternative for completion of 

WVDP and decommissioning of 

WNYNSC. DOE has compared the 

impacts of implementing each of the 

four alternatives evaluated in the EIS 

and considers the Sitewide Close-InPlace Alternative to be the 

environmentally preferable alternative. 

DOE considered the short-term impacts 

associated with removing waste and 

contamination from WNYNSC and the 

estimated long-term impacts of leaving 

those materials on site and concluded 

that the long-term benefits of removing 

the waste and contamination do not 

outweigh the short-term impacts of the 

removal activities. DOE considers 

impacts on human health and safety to 

be important aspects of the human 

environment, and in this case, the 

principal discriminator for both shortand long-term impacts. 

In the EIS, five resource areas for 

which meaningful short-term impact 

differences could occur were identified: 

land use (land available for reuse), 

socioeconomics (employment), human 

health and safety, waste management, 

and transportation. In its identification 

of the environmentally preferable 

alternative, however, DOE narrowed its 

consideration (based on the differences 

in impacts between alternatives) to the 

amount of waste generated and the 

human health impacts of its removal 

and transportation for disposal. From an 

environmental stewardship perspective, 

DOE qualitatively considered overall 

land disturbance, resources consumed, 

and the need for long-term stewardship 

at any location that would receive the 

West Valley waste for disposal, not just 

at WNYNSC. 

If only short-term impacts were 

considered, the No Action Alternative, 

would be the environmentally 

preferable alternative because the shortterm adverse impacts would be the least 

of all the alternatives. 

The short-term adverse impacts 

would be greatest for the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative, although the local 

long-term benefits would also be 

greatest. After decommissioning actions 

are completed, the entire WNYNSC 

would be available for release; without 

waste or contamination remaining 

onsite, there would not be any long-term 

human health impacts nor would there 

be a need for long-term stewardship. 

The short-term impacts would result 

primarily from removal of waste and 

contamination which would involve 

construction; waste and contamination 

removal, packaging, and transportation 

to offsite locations; followed by site 

restoration with geologic materials (e.g., 

soil and gravel) from offsite locations. 

These short-term impacts would occur 

in the vicinity of WNYNSC and along 

the transportation corridors, and affect 

both the natural environment and 

human health. The Sitewide Removal 

Alternative would involve the 

disturbance and restoration of 

approximately 20 hectares (50 acres) 

over 60 years, the generation and 

shipment of about 1.6 million cubic 

meters (57 million cubic feet) of waste, 

result in an estimated 10 to 15 

nonradiological fatalities from offsite 

transportation of waste, and result in a 

total radiological exposure to the public 

and workers (including from waste 

transportation) from about 1,300 to 

3,600 person-rem (the lower end of this 

range assumes all waste is transported 

by rail; the upper end, all by truck). The 

lower population dose would result in 

less than 1 latent cancer fatality while 

the higher population dose would result 

in up to 2 latent cancer fatalities. 

The short-term impacts would be less 

for the Sitewide Close-In-Place 

Alternative, as this alternative would 

involve less material movement 

(materials would be needed primarily 

for the construction of waste isolation 

barriers), less worker exposure, and less 

transportation of waste. Under this 

alternative, approximately 12 hectares 

(30 acres) at WNYNSC would be 

disturbed over a 7-year period, and 

26,000 cubic meters (920,000 cubic feet) 

of waste (mostly non-hazardous) would 

be generated. No latent cancer fatalities 

are expected to result from the 

estimated 160 to 220 person-rem total 

radiological exposure to workers and 

the public (the lower end of this range 

assumes all waste is transported by rail; 

the upper end, all by truck), nor would 

any nonradiological fatalities be 

expected to result from transportation 

activities under this alternative. 

However, less land would be available 

for release than under the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative and long-term 

stewardship would be required. 

For comparison of long-term impacts, 

the projected radiation dose to future 

hypothetical populations and 

individuals was identified in the EIS 

and considered in DOE’s identification 

of the environmentally preferable 

alternative as a meaningful difference 

among the alternatives. DOE also 

considered the long-term stability of the 

WNYNSC site. The long-term erosion 

analysis performed to support the EIS 

suggests that the site can be managed in 

a way that prevents erosion of wastecontaining areas for 10,000 years or 

longer. 

Long-term impacts were evaluated for 

offsite water users from the release of 

contaminants (primarily radionuclides) 

into the environment and for intruders 

who were postulated to enter WNYNSC 

in the event that institutional controls 

failed. The greatest impacts to offsite 

water users would occur under the No 

Action Alternative, for which the peak 

annual individual dose is estimated to 

be less than 1 millirem per year if site 

maintenance activities continue and up 

to 34 millirem per year if site 

maintenance activities cease. Under the 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative, the 

peak annual dose to offsite water users 

is estimated to be less than 1 millirem 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20587 

per year if site maintenance activities 

continue and up to 4 millirem per year 

if site maintenance activities cease. For 

both of these alternatives, the timeintegrated population dose to offsite 

water users over thousands of years 

could be many thousands of personrem. These values are composite doses 

that result from small individual doses 

that would be received by hundreds of 

thousands of people over thousands of 

years. The average annual individual 

dose over this time frame is about a 

factor of 10 or more lower than the 

estimated peak annual doses, with no 

latent cancer fatalities expected. 

Potential long-term impacts to 

intruders would occur if institutional 

controls failed and there were human 

intrusion into onsite areas where waste 

or contamination would be present. The 

magnitude of the long-term human 

health impacts is sensitive to the timing 

of human intrusion, the location of the 

intrusion, and the specific nature of 

actions taken by the intruder. The range 

of potential peak annual doses to 

intruders is highest for the No Action 

Alternative (less than 1 millirem, which 

would be indistinguishable from 

background radiation, to 400 rem, a 

potentially fatal dose), less for the 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternative (less 

than 1 millirem to 160 millirem, with no 

cancer fatalities expected), and 

negligible for individuals who might 

occupy WNYNSC under the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative because essentially 

all of the contamination would have 

been removed. 

Environmental stewardship 

considerations include land disturbance 

activities at WNYNSC and other affected 

sites. In addition to the temporary 

disturbance of the natural environment 

at WNYNSC during removal of the 

waste and contamination, offsite 

locations would be permanently 

impacted. These locations would be 

those from which large quantities of fill 

materials would be removed, and others 

at which the wastes from WNYNSC 

would be disposed. At these offsite 

locations, land would be permanently 

altered and possibly removed from 

future beneficial uses in support of 

remediating and releasing land at 

WNYNSC. In addition, moving waste 

from WNYNSC to other locations for 

disposal would transfer the long-term 

risk and the need for long-term 

institutional control (stewardship) to the 

sites receiving materials for disposal. 

On balance, the overall environmental 

impacts of the Sitewide Removal 

Alternative, which include the shortterm impacts in and around WNYNSC 

and along representative transportation 

routes, and the environmental 

stewardship considerations at other 

locations are considered to be greater 

than the corresponding overall impacts 

of the Sitewide Close-In-Place 

Alternative. Short-term impacts from 

implementing Phase 1 of the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative, in which 

certain removal actions would occur, 

are identified in the Decommissioning 

and/or Long-Term Stewardship EIS. 

Phase 2 decommissioning actions have 

not yet been decided, but the impacts 

are expected to range between those 

identified for the Sitewide Removal and 

Sitewide Close-In-Place Alternatives. If 

the Phase 2 decision is removal of the 

remaining waste and contamination, the 

impacts from implementing the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative would be 

expected to be similar to those of the 

Sitewide Removal Alternative. If the 

Phase 2 decision is in-place closure of 

the remaining waste and contamination, 

the short-term impacts would be 

expected to be greater than the Sitewide 

Close-In-Place Alternative because the 

Phased Decisionmaking Alternative 

would include both the Phase 1 removal 

actions and the Phase 2 closure actions. 

The long-term impacts would be only 

slightly less than those for the Sitewide 

Close-In-Place Alternative because only 

the long-lived radionuclides in the 

Process Building and source area for the 

North Plateau Groundwater Plume 

would be removed under this 

alternative (during Phase 1). 

Public Comments on the 

Decommissioning and/or Long-Term 

Stewardship Final EIS 

DOE received seven comment letters 

on the Final EIS. These letters included 

one cosigned by New York’s Senators 

and 15 Congressional Representatives; 

one each from the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Raymond 

C. Vaughan, The Coalition on West 

Valley Nuclear Wastes, and Citizens’ 

Environmental Coalition; as well as two 

cosigned by multiple organizations 

including The Coalition on West Valley 

Nuclear Wastes; Sierra Club; Zoar 

Valley Nature Society; Great Lakes Sport 

Fishing Council; Catholic Care for 

Creation Committee of Buffalo; Center 

for Health, Environment and Justice; 

International Institute of Concern for 

Public Health; WNY Council on 

Occupational Safety & Health; Niagara 

Health-Science Report; Downstream 

Denizens; Citizens Campaign for the 

Environment; Coalition for a Nuclear 

Free Great Lakes; Don’t Waste Michigan; 

Beyond Nuclear; Citizens Awareness 

Network; and Nuclear Information and 

Resource Service. 

These letters raised a number of 

issues ranging from questioning the 

adequacy of the Final EIS, including its 

comment response document, to 

providing opinions on whether certain 

decisions can or should be made. Other 

comments related to activities that 

would be expected to occur after the 

ROD if the Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative is selected including 

identifying the studies that would be 

conducted during Phase 1, public 

participation during decommissioning 

actions and for Phase 2 decisionmaking, 

and the need for future NEPA analysis. 

In addition to addressing the major 

comments in this ROD, DOE will 

prepare individual responses to all 

commentors who submitted letters on 

the Final EIS. Where appropriate, these 

letters will refer commentors to the 

relevant sections of the Final EIS for the 

requested data. 

Adequacy of the EIS 

Several of the comment letters 

expressed the opinion that the Final EIS 

is unscientific, incomplete and 

unacceptable for all options that leave 

waste on site and that the EIS was never 

intended to be a realistic look at various 

cleanup options. These concerns 

identify what the commentors consider 

to be inadequate information, 

inadequate analysis, and inadequate 

response to public comments on the 

Revised Draft EIS. DOE has considered 

these comments, and finds the Final EIS 

to be fully compliant with the 

requirements of NEPA. DOE further 

believes that the document is adequate 

to support DOE decommissioning 

decisionmaking for WNYNSC. The Final 

EIS uses all reasonably available data to 

support its analyses comparing the 

potential environmental consequences 

of all of the alternatives. DOE 

acknowledges in the Final EIS that for 

the long-term performance assessment 

there is some incomplete or unavailable 

information, but the analysis has been 

conducted consistent with the 

requirements of NEPA as identified in 

40 CFR 1502.22. In addition, wherever 

practical, DOE accommodated 

recommendations of the co-lead and 

cooperating agencies and the public. 

Several comments expressed the 

opinion that responses to specific 

comments on the Revised Draft EIS 

provided in the Comment Response 

Document (Volume 3 of the Final EIS) 

are inadequate. DOE has reviewed the 

original comments and the responses in 

the Comment Response Document, and 

finds that it has adequately considered 

and responded to all comments received 

on the Revised Draft EIS. 

One comment cited what were 

thought to be five new references dated 

December 2009, questioned how 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
20588 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 

information received at such a late date 

could have been incorporated into the 

Final EIS, and expressed dismay at not 

having had an opportunity to review the 

referenced documents. These references 

are final versions of Technical Reports 

prepared by the WNYNSC site 

contractor and used throughout the EIS 

process. The Final Technical Reports 

referenced in the Final EIS contain 

minor revisions to the information 

presented in the 2008 versions of these 

reports that were referenced in the 2008 

Revised Draft EIS. There were no 

fundamental changes in the engineering 

approach for the alternatives. The 

Technical Reports are available along 

with all other Final EIS references in the 

reading rooms identified in the Notice 

of Availability (75 FR 4803). 

Several comments are requests for 

additional information about the 

methods or details of specific analyses 

(e.g., erosion model capability, input 

parameters to erosion analysis, injury 

and fatality estimates for specific 

activities, time step for specific longterm performance assessment). 

Support of Sitewide Removal 

Alternative 

The New York Senators and 

Representatives expressed concern 

about delays in site cleanup and strong 

support for the full Sitewide Removal 

alternative. They stated that, regardless 

of the alternative selected, a formal 

NEPA process with meaningful public 

participation is essential in the 

continued decisionmaking process. As 

noted in the decision below, DOE 

acknowledges the importance of public 

participation in the NEPA process and 

will provide robust opportunities to 

involve the public in the Phase 2 

environmental review and 

decisionmaking process. 

Several comment letters stated that 

the Sitewide Removal Alternative is the 

only acceptable decommissioning 

alternative for WNYNSC, or is the only 

decision that could be scientifically 

supported by the EIS. These letters 

identify what the commentors consider 

to be a flawed long-term performance 

analysis and minimal cost differences 

between removal and in-place closure 

alternatives, and cite these issues and a 

potential higher level of public 

protection as the bases for their 

conclusions. DOE acknowledges that 

these commentors prefer the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative. DOE’s 

decisionmaking is based on its 

consideration of all the potential 

environmental impact information 

presented in the EIS: short-term and 

long-term, at the site and along potential 

transportation routes, as well as 

environmental stewardship 

considerations. DOE also notes that 

Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative involves substantial removal 

actions, and does not preclude the 

ability to select removal of the 

remaining waste and contamination as 

the Phase 2 decision. 

Phase 1 Studies 

Regarding commentors’ concerns 

about activities that would be expected 

to occur after the ROD is issued, the 

Final EIS identifies possible types of 

studies that could be conducted during 

Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative. These include studies that 

may address uncertainties associated 

with the long-term performance models, 

the viability and cost of exhuming 

buried waste and tanks, the availability 

of waste disposal sites, and technologies 

for in-place containment. 

The U.S. EPA expressed its concern 

with shortening the maximum duration 

of Phase 1 of the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative from 30 

years to 10 years because of a lack of 

disposal capacity for high-level 

radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, 

and Greater-Than-Class C waste. As a 

result, the U.S. EPA requested that 

Phase 1 studies be designed to assure 

that storage of these wastes is in 

compliance with EPA’s Standards for 

the Storage and Disposal of High-Level 

Radioactive Waste at 40 CFR part 191. 

The 40 CFR part 191, subpart A, dose 

standard applies to the storage of the 

WVDP high-level waste form and 

transuranic waste or spent nuclear fuel 

that may require continued storage at 

the WVDP. Specifically, section 191.03 

defines the annual dose equivalent to 

any member of the public from the 

storage to not exceed 25 mrem whole 

body and 75 mrem to any critical organ. 

DOE Order 5400.5, Radiation Protection 

of the Public and the Environment, 

chapter II.1c, imposes the dose standard 

from 40 CFR part 191 with no changes. 

Compliance with DOE Order 5400.5 

would be required in applicable 

contracts at the WVDP. Therefore, full 

compliance with 40 CFR part 191, 

subpart A, would be met through full 

compliance with DOE Order 5400.5. 

The EPA also requested clarification 

relative to the impact of the Sitewide 

Removal Alternative on the available 

disposal capacity at the Energy 

Solutions disposal facility in Utah 

under the Commercial Disposal Option. 

DOE notes that, if Sitewide Removal 

were selected, the potential volume of 

low-level and low specific activity 

waste generated could require 

approximately 35% of the remaining 

available capacity, or 10% of the total 

licensable capacity of the Energy 

Solutions facility. 

Public Involvement 

The Final EIS explicitly states DOE’s 

commitment to continue public 

involvement as site decommissioning 

progresses. As indicated earlier in this 

ROD, DOE has committed to having 

robust and meaningful opportunities for 

public participation during 

decommissioning. DOE is committed to 

working with NYSERDA to identify and 

initiate appropriate studies as soon as 

practicable and to continued public 

involvement as Phase 1 studies are 

defined and as results become available. 

DOE is further committed to meeting 

with the public on at least a quarterly 

basis to discuss the status of 

decommissioning actions and studies 

and will schedule additional meetings 

as necessary to assure timely 

communication with the public. One 

commentor suggested DOE conduct 

workshops as a potential mechanism for 

transmitting technical information. DOE 

will consider this request as it develops 

its public participation effort. 

Future NEPA Analyses 

DOE’s commitment to the NEPA 

process is also described in the Final 

EIS. During Phase 1, DOE and 

NYSERDA will assess the results of sitespecific studies and other emerging 

information such as applicable 

technology development. In 

consultation with NYSERDA and 

cooperating and involved agencies, DOE 

will determine whether new 

information or circumstances would 

warrant preparation of a Supplemental 

EIS. If it is unclear whether a 

Supplemental EIS is required, DOE will 

prepare a Supplement Analysis in 

accordance with 10 CFR 1021.314(c) 

and make this analysis available to the 

public prior to making a determination. 

Decision 

To continue to meet its obligations 

under the WVDP Act to complete 

WVDP, DOE has decided to implement 

the Phased Decisionmaking Alternative 

as identified in the Final EIS. In 

implementing this alternative, DOE will 

provide robust and meaningful 

opportunities for public participation 

prior to making its Phase 2 decision. 

Basis for Decision 

DOE has determined that the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative provides 

the best path forward for completing its 

obligations under the WVDP Act. 

Phase 1 of the Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative would remove major 

facilities (such as the Main Plant 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 75 / Tuesday, April 20, 2010 / Notices 20589 

Process Building and lagoons), thereby 

reducing or eliminating potential 

human health impacts associated with 

these facilities while introducing 

minimal potential for generation of new 

orphan waste. 

Phase 1 would remove the source area 

for the North Plateau Groundwater 

Plume, thereby reducing a source of 

radionuclides that is a potential 

contributor to human health impacts. 

Phase 1 would allow up to 10 years 

for collection and analysis of data and 

information on major facilities or areas 

(such as the Waste Tank Farm, NDA, 

and SDA), with the goal of reducing 

technical risks associated with 

implementation of the Sitewide 

Removal and Sitewide Close-In-Place 

Alternatives, because one of these 

alternatives, or a combination that could 

include continued active management 

of the SDA by NYSERDA, could be 

selected for Phase 2. 

The anticipated result of Phase 1 

information gathering and analysis is to 

provide additional information that may 

inform decisionmaking for both the 

removal and in-place closure options for 

remaining facilities. It is also 

anticipated that, during Phase 1, 

progress would be made in identifying 

and developing disposal facilities for 

any orphan wastes, thereby facilitating 

removal actions if they are selected as 

part of Phase 2 decisionmaking. 

Establishment of improved close-inplace designs or improved analytical 

methods for long-term performance 

assessment would facilitate close-inplace actions if they are selected as part 

of Phase 2 decisionmaking. 

Mitigation Measures 

DOE will use all practicable means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm 

when implementing the actions 

described in this ROD. These measures 

include employing engineering design 

features to meet regulatory 

requirements, maintaining a rigorous 

health and safety program to protect 

workers from radiological and chemical 

contaminants, monitoring worker 

exposure and environmental releases, 

and continuing efforts to reduce the 

generation of wastes. More detailed 

examples of such practicable measures, 

including those applicable to 

implementation of the Phased 

Decisionmaking Alternative, are 

documented in the text and table of 

Chapter 6 (Potential Mitigation 

Measures) of the EIS. The measures 

applicable to Phase I are integral 

elements of the alternative and, 

therefore, a separate Mitigation Action 

Plan is not required to ensure that the 

measures are implemented effectively. 

The need for a Mitigation Action Plan 

for Phase 2 will be dependent on the 

nature of the Phase 2 decommissioning 

decision. DOE will implement Phase 1 

of the Phased Decisionmaking 

Alternative in compliance with DOE 

orders as well as the comprehensive 

lists of standards and requirements to 

protect workers, the public, and the 

environment specified in Chapter 5 of 

the Final EIS, as appropriate. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 14th day of 

April 2010. 

Ine ́s R. Triay, 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2010–9101 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13687–000; Project No. 13688– 

000] 

City of Oberlin, OH; Free Flow Power 

Missouri 1, LLC; Notice of Competing 

Preliminary Permit Applications 

Accepted for Filing and Soliciting 

Comments, Motions To Intervene, and 

Competing Applications 

April 12, 2010. 

On March 24, 2010, the City of 

Oberlin, Ohio (Oberlin) and Free Flow 

Power Missouri 1, LLC (Free Flow 

Power) filed preliminary permit 

applications, pursuant to section 4(f) of 

the Federal Power Act, proposing to 

study the feasibility of the Pike Island 

Hydroelectric Project, to be located at 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Pike 

Island Locks and Dam (Lock and Dam) 

on the Ohio River in Ohio County, West 

Virginia, and Belmont County, Ohio. 

The Lock and Dam consists of a gated 

dam and two lock chambers. 

Oberlin’s proposed project would 

consist of: (1) A new 155-foot-wide, 71- 

foot-tall water intake structure; (2) a 

new 155-foot-wide, 189-foot-long 

powerhouse containing three turbine 

generating units with a total capacity of 

49.5 megawatts (MW); (3) a new 350- 

foot-long, 160-foot-wide tailrace 

channel; (4) a new 8.5-mile-long, 138 

kilovolt (kV) transmission line; and (5) 

appurtenant facilities. The project 

would have an average annual 

generation of 256 gigawatt-hours (GWh). 

Oberlin Contact: Phillip E. Meier, 

Assistant Vice President, Hydro 

Development, American Municipal 

Power, Inc., 1111 Schrock Road, Suite 

100, Columbus, OH 43229, (614) 540– 

9130. 

Free Flow Power’s proposed project 

would consist of: (1) A new 225-footwide, 50-foot-long water intake 

structure equipped with trashracks, 

sluice gates, and intake gates; (2) a new 

160-foot-wide, 140-foot-long 

powerhouse containing three turbine 

generating units with a total capacity of 

45.0 MW; (3) a new 500-foot-long, 200- 

foot-wide tailrace channel; (4) a new 

1.5-mile-long, 138 kV transmission line; 

and (5) appurtenant facilities. The 

project would have an average annual 

generation of 225 GWh. 

Free Flow Power Contact: Ramya 

Swaminathan, Free Flow Power 

Corporation, 33 Commercial Street, 

Gloucester, MA 01930, (978) 283–2822. 

FERC Contact: John Ramer, (202) 502– 

8969 or john.ramer@ferc.gov. 

Deadline for filing comments, motions 

to intervene, competing applications 

(without notices of intent), or notices of 

intent to file competing applications: 60 

days from the issuance of this notice. 

Competing applications and notices of 

intent must meet the requirements of 18 

CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to 

intervene, notices of intent, and 

competing applications may be filed 

electronically via the Internet. See 18 

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

instructions on the Commission’s Web 

site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

ferconline.asp) under the ‘‘eFiling’’ link. 

For a simpler method of submitting text 

only comments, click on ‘‘Quick 

Comment.’’ For assistance, please 

contact FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov; call tollfree at (866) 208–3676; or, for TTY, 

contact (202) 502–8659. Although the 

Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filing, documents may also be 

paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an 

original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. 

Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

More information about the projects can 

be viewed or printed on the ‘‘eLibrary’’ 

link of the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/

elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number 

(P–13687–000 or P–13688–000) in the 

docket number field to access the 

document. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8997 Filed 4–19–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES