61350 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Notices 

this date, but, cannot guarantee their 

availability. The conference call will be 

accessible to individuals with 

disabilities. 

Electronic Access to this Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister/index.html. To use PDF you 

must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, 

which is available free at this site. If you 

have questions about using PDF, call the 

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO), 

toll free at 1–866–512–1800; or in the 

Washington, DC area at 202–512–0000. 

Dated: September 28, 2011. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25542 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Paducah 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of open meeting. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces a 

meeting of the Environmental 

Management Site-Specific Advisory 

Board (EM SSAB), Paducah. The 

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. 

L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 

that public notice of this meeting be 

announced in the Federal Register. 

DATES: Thursday, October 20, 2011, 6 

p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Barkley Centre, 111 

Memorial Drive, Paducah, Kentucky 

42001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Reinhard Knerr, Deputy Designated 

Federal Officer, Department of Energy 

Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 

1410, MS–103, Paducah, Kentucky 

42001. Phone (270) 441–6825. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 

the Board is to make recommendations 

to DOE–EM and site management in the 

areas of environmental restoration, 

waste management, and related 

activities. 

Tentative Agenda 

• Call to Order, Introductions, Review 

of Agenda. 

• Deputy Designated Federal Officer’s 

Comments. 

• Federal Coordinator’s Comments. 

• Liaisons’ Comments. 

• Administrative Issues: 

Æ Presentation by Kentucky Research 

Consortium for Energy and Environment 

(KRCEE): Ground Water Model. 

Æ Presentation by Swift & Staley: 

Environmental Information Center. 

• Subcommittee Chairs’ Comments. 

• Public Comments. 

• Final Comments. 

• Adjourn. 

Breaks Taken As Appropriate. 

Public Participation: The EM SSAB, 

Paducah, welcomes the attendance of 

the public at its advisory committee 

meetings and will make every effort to 

accommodate persons with physical 

disabilities or special needs. If you 

require special accommodations due to 

a disability, please contact Reinhard 

Knerr as soon as possible in advance of 

the meeting at the telephone number 

listed above. Written statements may be 

filed with the Board either before or 

after the meeting. Individuals who wish 

to make oral statements pertaining to 

agenda items should contact Reinhard 

Knerr at the telephone number listed 

above. Requests must be received as 

soon as possible prior to the meeting 

and reasonable provision will be made 

to include the presentation in the 

agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal 

Officer is empowered to conduct the 

meeting in a fashion that will facilitate 

the orderly conduct of business. 

Individuals wishing to make public 

comments will be provided a maximum 

of five minutes to present their 

comments. The EM SSAB, Paducah, 

will hear public comments pertaining to 

its scope (clean-up standards and 

environmental restoration; waste 

management and disposition; 

stabilization and disposition of nonstockpile nuclear materials; excess 

facilities; future land use and long-term 

stewardship; risk assessment and 

management; and clean-up science and 

technology activities). Comments 

outside of the scope may be submitted 

via written statement as directed above. 

Minutes: Minutes will be available by 

writing or calling Reinhard Knerr at the 

address and phone number listed above. 

Minutes will also be available at the 

following Web site: http:// 

www.pgdpcab.energy.gov/ 

2011Meetings.html. 

Issued at Washington, DC on September 

28, 2011. 

LaTanya R. Butler, 

Acting Deputy Committee Management 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2011–25559 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DOE Response to Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board’s Request for 

Clarification on Recommendation 

2011–1, Safety Culture at the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2011, the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

(DNFSB) requested clarification on 

DOE’s response to Recommendation 

2011–1, Safety Culture at the Waste 

Treatment and Immobilization Plant. In 

accordance with section 315(b) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 

42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), the following 

represents the Secretary of Energy’s 

clarification response to the DNFSB’s 

request. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, 

views, or arguments concerning the 

Secretary’s response to: Defense Nuclear 

Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana 

Avenue, NW., Suite 700, Washington, 

DC 20004 within thirty (30) days from 

the date of this publication. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

John Vorderbrueggen, Nuclear Engineer, 

Departmental Representative to the 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 

Office of Health, Safety and Security, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on September 

19, 2011. 

Mari-Josette Campagnone, 

Departmental Representative to the Defense 

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, Office of 

Health, Safety and Security. 

September 19, 2011 

The Honorable Peter S. Winokur 

Chairman 

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board 

625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20004–2901 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

This letter responds to your August 

12, 2011 letter, which requested 

clarification on four areas identified in 

our original June 30, 2011, response to 

your Recommendation 2011–1, Safety 

Culture at the Waste Treatment and 

Immobilization Plant (WTP). As you 

know, because this issue is of such great 

importance to the Department of Energy 

(DOE), I have designated Deputy 

Secretary Poneman as the Responsible 

Manager for this Recommendation, and 

he has already begun our efforts to 

address the issues our staffs have 

discussed. The Department appreciates 

the opportunity to provide further 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 4, 2011 / Notices 61351 

clarification and believes that keeping 

avenues of communication open will 

help improve our safety culture. In our 

previous correspondence, the 

Department conveyed its acceptance of 

the Recommendation 2011–1 and now 

offers the following clarification in the 

areas requested: 

1. DOE’s present assessment of the 

safety culture at WTP in light of the 

additional sources of supporting 

information now available to DOE. 

The Department has reviewed the 

incoming public comments and 

additional WTP safety culture-related 

information. On one hand, we are 

pleased that individuals have felt 

encouraged to step forward and express 

their concerns, to the extent that 

indicates that our broad message 

welcoming such input is being heard. 

On the other hand, the content of many 

of these messages shows that we need 

to continue to improve WTP’s safety 

culture. The Department will also 

continue to evaluate the efficacy of 

applicable DOE and contractor policies 

and procedures, including the 

procedures for resolving differing 

professional opinions and other 

employee concerns. 

2. DOE’s current understanding of the 

conclusions of the HSS report. 

The Health, Safety and Security (HSS) 

report, like all reports based on 

interviews, captured a snapshot in time. 

The report reflected the views of the 

interviewees as they perceived the 

existing situation, as interpreted by the 

report’s authors. As your letter implies, 

given our steadfast commitment to 

safety we must continually update data 

and refresh conclusions based on what 

we learn. We have done that by 

reviewing the incoming comments we 

have received during the Deputy 

Secretary’s July visit to Hanford and 

subsequently through other channels; as 

noted above, these have made clear that 

we have more work to do. That is why 

we have asked HSS to conduct a followon safety culture review at WTP as part 

of its broader extent-of-condition review 

across the DOE complex. Those reviews 

are scheduled to begin later this month, 

and we will apply what we learn in 

those reviews to continue our efforts to 

improve the safety culture at Hanford. 

3. DOE’s present understanding and 

response to Sub-recommendation 3. 

DOE understands the distinction 

being made by the Board that there is a 

difference between judging the merits of 

a particular case between opposing 

parties still in dispute, and the effect 

that the perceptions of that 

controversy—regardless of the merits of 

the underlying case—may have on a 

community. We also agree with the 

Board that such perceptions can have a 

material effect on the safety culture at a 

site and in a community. In developing 

our Implementation Plan on 

Recommendation 2011–1, the DOE 

therefore will continue to work to 

establish a strong safety culture that 

takes the power of perceptions fully into 

account. 

4. The independence, public stature, 

and leadership experience of the 

implementation team that will be called 

upon to provide safety culture insights 

and assessments to the Secretary and 

Senior DOE leadership. 

We accept the implicit premise of the 

request, i.e., that the independence, 

stature, and leadership experience of the 

implementation team that will be called 

upon to provide safety culture insights 

and assessments to the Secretary and 

Senior DOE leadership is of crucial 

importance. In this regard, the review 

team members are selected based on 

their technical competence, objectivity, 

experience in safety management, 

executive leadership, and a clear 

understanding of corporate culture. DOE 

recognizes the heightened need to 

include ‘‘knowledgeable others’’ in the 

safety culture review process. The 

Department will therefore engage 

independent industry safety culture 

experts to evaluate the Implementation 

Plan (IP), and also to evaluate the 

quality of major IP deliverables. 

Both DOE and Bechtel National 

Incorporated (BNI) will be performing 

safety culture reviews at WTP. The 

Department welcomes BNI’s initiative in 

engaging qualified industry experts. 

DOE will monitor and cooperate with— 

but not partner in—the BNI review in 

order to gauge the validity of the BNI 

process. DOE will also examine the 

results of the review for relevant 

findings. 

Of course, BNI’s activities are not a 

substitute for DOE-directed reviews, 

which is why we are undertaking our 

own assessment concurrently. The HSS 

review will also help update our 

understanding of the current status of 

nuclear safety culture at WTP. The 

results of the HSS review will, of 

course, be shared with the Board upon 

its completion. 

I hope this clarification is helpful. We 

are enthusiastic about our work toward 

the shared goal of safety excellence 

throughout the DOE complex. Given the 

importance of this issue, I hope you will 

continue to work closely with Deputy 

Secretary Poneman as we strengthen our 

efforts to promote a strong safety culture 

at WTP and across the DOE complex. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Chu 

[FR Doc. 2011–25523 Filed 10–3–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric rate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: ER11–4008–001. 

Applicants: Public Service Company 

of New Mexico. 

Description: Public Service Company 

of New Mexico submits tariff filing per 

35: ANPP HVS Part. Agreement Rate 

Schedule 117 to be effective 9/7/2011. 

Filed Date: 09/23/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110923–5002. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Friday, October 14, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–2224–010. 

Applicants: New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc. 

Description: New York Independent 

System Operator, Inc. submits tariff 

filing per 35: NYISO Compliance Filing 

Regarding ICAP Demand Curves to be 

effective 9/15/2011. 

Filed Date: 09/22/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110922–5121. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Monday, October 3, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–4606–000. 

Applicants: Dragon Energy, LLC. 

Description: Dragon Energy, LLC 

submits tariff filing per 35.1: FERC 

Electric MBR Baseline Tariff Filing to be 

effective 9/22/2011. 

Filed Date: 09/22/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110922–5107. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, October 13, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–4607–000. 

Applicants: Energy Cooperative of 

New York, Inc. 

Description: Energy Cooperative of 

New York, Inc submits tariff filing per 

35.1: ECNY MBR Re-File to be effective 

9/22/2011. 

Filed Date: 09/22/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110922–5113. 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Thursday, October 13, 2011. 

Docket Numbers: ER11–4608–000. 

Applicants: New York Industrial 

Energy Buyers, LLC. 

Description: New York Industrial 

Energy Buyers, LLC submits tariff filing 

per 35.1: NYIEB MBR Re-File to be 

effective 9/22/2011. 

Filed Date: 09/22/2011. 

Accession Number: 20110922–5117. 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES