Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 211

Paul Seligman, Deputy Assistant

Secretary, Office of Health Studies (EH–

6), U.S. Department of Energy, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290; facsimile: 301–903–3445;

telephone: 301–903–5926.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

policies and procedures governing the

purpose and scope, program areas,

eligibility, application requirements,

evaluation criteria, and selection

procedures for the Office of Health

Studies Financial Assistance Program,

were published in the Federal Register

(60 FR 5838) on January 31, 1995, and

codified at 10 CFR part 602. Proposed

research applications and preapplications must comply with the

requirements set forth in part 602.

The three offices within the Office of

Health Studies (the Office of

International Health Programs, the

Office of Occupational Medicine and

Medical Surveillance, and the Office of

Epidemiologic Studies) promote studies

to identify and assess the health risks

associated with occupational or

environmental exposures to ionizing

radiation or toxic chemicals in the

following populations: employees of

DOE and DOE contractors (particularly

those at high risk for exposure to

ionizing radiation or toxic chemicals),

residents of communities near DOE

facilities, and populations throughout

the world at high risk for exposure to

ionizing radiation or toxic chemicals

resulting from accidental exposures or

proximity to nuclear or other energyrelated facilities. Access to and use of

information for conducting studies

under this notice will comply with the

Privacy Act of 1974 and DOE policies 60

FR 33510 regarding existing systems of

records published June 28, 1995.

For fiscal year 1998, the Office of

Health Studies estimates that

approximately $500,000 will be

available for grants or cooperative

agreements from the Office of

International Health Programs. The

number of awards made will depend on

the number of applications received for

which the results of competitive merit

review are favorable.

The Office of Occupational Medicine

and Medical Surveillance and the Office

of Epidemiologic Studies do not

anticipate having funds available to

support either cooperative agreements

or grants during fiscal year 1998 for

epidemiologic studies of the DOE

workforce or communities near DOE

facilities.

Pursuant to a Memorandum of

Understanding between DOE and the

Department of Health and Human

Services, published March 7, 1991 (56

FR 9701) and extended through fiscal

year 2000, additional funds for

occupational health studies may be

available through the National Institute

for Occupational Safety and Health

(NIOSH) of the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC). See 62

FR 24657, published May 6, 1997, or

contact Mr. Larry Elliott, Chief, HealthRelated Energy Research Branch,

NIOSH, Mail Stop R–44, 4676 Columbia

Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226;

telephone: 513–841–4400; fax: 513–

841–4470; or e-mail: lje1@cdc.gov; or

Dr. Roy M. Fleming, Associate Director

for Grants, CDC, NIOSH, 1600 Clifton

Road, N.E., Building 1, Room 3053, Mail

Stop: D–30, Atlanta, Georgia 30333;

telephone: 404–639–3343; fax: 404–

639–2196; or e-mail: rmf2@cdc.gov.

Information on NIOSH grants is also

available through the Internet. The

NIOSH homepage address is: http://

www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html.

Once on the homepage, take the

following steps to find information on

grant funding opportunities: (1) Scroll

down to, and click on, Funding

Opportunities/Extramural Programs; (2)

click again on Current Funding

Opportunities; (3) click on Research

Grants; (4) scroll down to Past Funding

Opportunities; and (5) click on

Announcement No. 740. This is a

general announcement that is reissued

annually.

The National Center for

Environmental Health of CDC funds

radiation-related research in the

community setting, including dose

reconstruction studies, and anticipates

making available additional funding in

fiscal year 1998 for research grants. For

current information, contact Mr. Paul

Renard, Radiation Studies Branch,

NCEH, 4770 Buford Highway, N.E.,

Atlanta, GA 30341; telephone: 404–488–

7040.

DOE is under no obligation to pay for

any cost associated with the preparation

or submission of any application. DOE

reserves the right to fund, in whole or

in part, any, all, or none of the

applications submitted in response to

this notice. Results of studies carried

out as grants or cooperative agreements

with the Office of Health Studies will be

made available to DOE workers, to the

public, and to managers responsible for

protecting worker health and safety.

Data will be made available through

DOE’s Comprehensive Epidemiologic

Data Resource.

Issued in Washington, DC, on December

22, 1997.

Paul J. Seligman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health Studies.

[FR Doc. 98–107 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Energy Research and Office

of Environmental Management

Energy Research Financial Assistance

Program Notice 98–08; Environmental

Management Science Program:

Research Related to High Level

Radioactive Waste

AGENCY: Office of Energy Research and

Office of Environmental Management.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice inviting grant

applications.

SUMMARY: The Offices of Energy

Research (ER) and Environmental

Management (EM), U.S. Department of

Energy, hereby announce their interest

in receiving grant applications for

performance of innovative, fundamental

research to support specific activities for

high level radioactive waste; which

include, but are not limited to,

characterization and safety, retrieval of

tank waste and tank closure,

pretreatment, and waste immobilization

and disposal.

DATES: Potential applicants are strongly

encouraged to submit a brief

preapplication. All preapplications,

referencing Program Notice 98–08,

should be received by DOE by 4:30 P.M.

E.S.T., January 27, 1998. A response

encouraging or discouraging a formal

application generally will be

communicated to the applicant within

three weeks of receipt. The deadline for

receipt of formal applications is 4:30

P.M., E.D.T., April 16, 1998, in order to

be accepted for merit review and to

permit timely consideration for award

in Fiscal Year 1998.

ADDRESSES: All preapplications,

referencing Program Notice 98–08,

should be sent to Dr. Roland F. Hirsch,

ER–73, Mail Stop F–240, Office of

Biological and Environmental Research,

U.S. Department of Energy, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290.

Preapplications will be accepted if

submitted by U. S. Postal Service,

including Express Mail, commercial

mail delivery service, or hand delivery,

but will not be accepted by fax,

electronic mail, or other means.

After receiving notification from DOE

concerning successful preapplications,
212 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

applicants may prepare and submit

formal applications. Applications must

be sent to: U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Research, Grants and

Contracts Division, ER–64, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD

20874–1290, Attn: Program Notice 98–

08. The above address for formal

applications must also be used when

submitting formal applications by U.S.

Postal Service Express Mail, any

commercial mail delivery service, or

when hand carried by the applicant.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Roland F. Hirsch, ER–73, Mail Stop F–

240, Office of Biological and

Environmental Research, Office of

Energy Research, U.S. Department of

Energy, 19901 Germantown Road,

Germantown, MD 20874–1290,

telephone: (301) 903–5349, fax: (301)

903–0567, E-mail:

roland.hirsch@oer.doe.gov, or Mr. Mark

Gilbertson, Office of Science and Risk

Policy, Office of Science and

Technology, Office of Environmental

Management, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20585,

telephone: (202) 586–7150, E-mail:

mark.gilbertson@em.doe.gov. This

Notice is also available on the World

Wide Web at http://www.er.doe.gov/

production/grants/fr98l08.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

of Environmental Management, in

partnership with the Office of Energy

Research, sponsors the Environmental

Management Science Program (EMSP)

to fulfill DOE’s continuing commitment

to the cleanup of DOE’s environmental

legacy. The program was initiated in

Fiscal Year 1996. We are soliciting ideas

for basic scientific research which

promotes the broad national interest of

a better understanding of the

fundamental characteristics of highly

radioactive chemical wastes and their

effects on the environment.

The DOE Environmental Management

program currently has ongoing applied

research and engineering efforts under

its Technology Development Program.

These efforts must be supplemented

with basic research to address long-term

technical issues crucial to the EM

mission. Basic research can also provide

EM with near-term fundamental data

that may be critical to the advancement

of technologies that are under

development but not yet at full scale nor

implemented. Proposed basic research

under this Notice should contribute to

environmental management activities

that would decrease risk for the public

and workers, provide opportunities for

major cost reductions, reduce time

required to achieve EM’s mission goals,

and, in general, should address

problems that are considered intractable

without new knowledge. This program

is designed to inspire ‘‘breakthroughs’’

in areas critical to the EM mission

through basic research and will be

managed in partnership with ER. ER’s

well-established procedures, as set forth

in the Energy Research Merit Review

System, as published in the Federal

Register, March 11, 1991, Vol. 56, No.

47, pages 10244–10246, will be used for

merit review of applications submitted

in response to this Notice. This

information is also available on the

World Wide Web at http://

www.er.doe.gov/production/grants/

merit.html. Subsequent to the formal

scientific merit review, applications that

are judged to be scientifically

meritorious will be evaluated by DOE

for relevance to the objectives of the

Environmental Management Science

Program. Additional information can be

obtained at http://www.em.doe.gov/

science.

Additional Notices for the

Environmental Management Science

Program may be issued during Fiscal

Year 1998 covering other areas within

the scope of the EM program.

Purpose

The need to build a stronger scientific

basis for the Environmental

Management effort has been established

in a number of recent studies and

reports. The FY 1998 Conference Report

for Appropriations for Energy and Water

Development, Report 105–271, dated

September 26, 1997, on page 92 states

the following:

‘‘The conferees are pleased with the

progress to date in implementing the

environmental science program * * *’’

The Environmental Management

Advisory Board Science Committee

(Resolution on the Environmental

Management Science Program, May 2,

1997) made the following observations:

‘‘EMSP results are likely to be of significant

value to EM’’ * * * ‘‘Early program benefits

include: improved understanding of EM

science needs, linkage with technology

needs, and expansion of the cadre of

scientific personnel working on EM

problems’’ * * * ‘‘Science program has the

potential to lead to significant improvement

in future risk reduction and cost and time

savings.’’

The objectives of the Environmental

Management Science Program are to:

• Provide scientific knowledge that

will revolutionize technologies and

clean-up approaches to significantly

reduce future costs, schedules, and

risks;

• ‘‘Bridge the gap’’ between broad

fundamental research that has wideranging applicability such as that

performed in DOE’s Office of Energy

Research and needs-driven applied

technology development that is

conducted in EM’s Office of Science and

Technology; and

• Focus the Nation’s science

infrastructure on critical DOE

environmental management problems.

Representative Research Areas

Basic research is solicited in areas of

science with the potential for addressing

problems in the cleanup of high level

radioactive waste. Relevant scientific

disciplines include, but are not limited

to, chemistry (including actinide

chemistry, analytical chemistry and

instrumentation, interfacial chemistry,

and separation science), computer and

mathematical sciences, engineering

science (chemical and process

engineering), materials science

(degradation mechanisms, modeling,

corrosion, non-destructive evaluation,

sensing of waste hosts, canisters), and

physics (fluid flow, aqueous-ionic solid

interfacial properties underlying

rheological processes).

Program Funding

Up to a total of $4,000,000 of Fiscal

Year 1998 Federal funds is expected to

be available for new Environmental

Management Science Program awards

resulting from this Notice. Multiple-year

funding of grant awards is anticipated,

contingent upon the availability of

funds. Award sizes are expected to be

on the order of $100,000–$300,000 per

year for total project costs for a typical

three-year grant. Collaborative projects

involving several research groups or

more than one institution may receive

larger awards if merited. The program

will be competitive and offered to

investigators in universities or other

institutions of higher education, other

non-profit or for-profit organizations,

non-Federal agencies or entities, or

unaffiliated individuals. DOE reserves

the right to fund in whole or part any

or none of the applications received in

response to this Notice. DOE is under no

obligation to pay for any costs

associated with the preparation or

submission of applications. A parallel

announcement with a similar potential

total amount of funds will be issued to

DOE Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers (FFRDCs). All

projects will be evaluated using the

same criteria, regardless of the

submitting institution.

Collaboration and Training

Applicants to the EMSP are strongly

encouraged to collaborate with

researchers in other institutions, such as

universities, industry, non-profit
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 213

organizations, federal laboratories and

FFRDCs, including the DOE National

Laboratories, where appropriate, and to

incorporate cost sharing and/or

consortia wherever feasible.

Applicants are also encouraged to

provide training opportunities,

including student involvement, in

applications submitted to the program.

Collaborative research applications

may be submitted in several ways:

(1) When multiple private sector or

academic organizations intend to

propose collaborative or joint research

projects, the lead organization may

submit a single application which

includes another organization as a

lower-tier participant (subaward) who

will be responsible for a smaller portion

of the overall project. If approved for

funding, DOE may provide the total

project funds to the lead organization

who will provide funding to the other

participant via a subcontract

arrangement. The application should

clearly describe the role to be played by

each organization, specify the

managerial arrangements and explain

the advantages of the multiorganizational effort.

(2) Alternatively, multiple private

sector or academic organizations who

intend to propose collaborative or joint

research projects may each prepare a

portion of the application, then combine

each portion into a single, integrated

scientific application. A separate Face

Page and Budget Pages must be

included for each organization

participating in the collaborative

project. The joint application must be

submitted to DOE as one package. If

approved for funding, DOE will award

a separate grant to each collaborating

organization.

(3) Private sector or academic

applicants who wish to form a

collaborative project with a DOE FFRDC

may not include the DOE FFRDC in

their application as a lower-tier

participant (subcontract). Rather, each

collaborator may prepare a portion of

the proposal, then combine each portion

into a single, integrated scientific

proposal. The private sector or academic

organization must include a Face Page

and Budget Pages for its portion of the

project. The FFRDC must include

separate Budget Pages for its portion of

the project. The joint proposal must be

submitted to DOE as one package. If

approved for funding, DOE will award

a grant to the private sector or academic

organization. The FFRDC will be

funded, through existing DOE contracts,

from funds specifically designated for

new FFRDC projects. DOE FFRDCs will

not compete for funding already

designated for private sector or

academic organizations. Other Federal

laboratories who wish to form

collaborative projects may also follow

guidelines outlined in this section.

Preapplications

A brief preapplication may be

submitted. The original and five copies

must be received by January 27, 1998,

to be considered. The preapplication

should identify on the cover sheet the

institution, Principal Investigator name,

address, telephone, fax and E-mail

address, title of the project, and the field

of scientific research (using the list in

the Application Categories section). The

preapplication should consist of up to

three pages of narrative describing the

research objectives and the plan for

accomplishing them, and should also

include a paragraph describing the

research background of the principal

investigator and key collaborators if any.

Preapplications will be evaluated

relative to the scope and research needs

of the DOE’s Environmental

Management Science Program by

qualified DOE program managers from

both ER and EM. Preapplications are

strongly encouraged but not required

prior to submission of a full application.

Please note that notification of a

successful preapplication is not an

indication that an award will be made

in response to the formal application.

Application Format

Applicants are expected to use the

following format in addition to

following instructions in the Office of

Energy Research Application Guide.

Applications must be written in English,

with all budgets in U.S. dollars.

• ER Face Page (DOE F 4650.2 (10–

91))

• Application classification sheet (a

plain sheet of paper with one selection

from the list of scientific fields listed in

the Application Categories Section)

• Table of Contents

• Project Abstract (no more than one

page)

• Budgets for each year and a

summary budget page for the entire

project period (using DOE F 4620.1)

• Budget Explanation

• Budgets and Budget explanation for

each collaborative subproject, if any

• Project Narrative (recommended

length is no more than 20 pages; multiinvestigator collaborative projects may

use more pages if necessary up to a total

of 40 pages):

Goals

Significance of Project to the EMSP

Background

Research Plan

Preliminary Studies (if applicable)

Research Design and Methodologies

• Literature Cited

• Collaborative Arrangements (if

applicable)

• Biographical Sketches (limit 2 pages

per senior investigator)

• Description of Facilities and

Resources

• Current and Pending Support for

each senior investigator

Application Categories

In order to properly classify each

preapplication and application for

evaluation and review, the documents

must indicate the applicant’s preferred

scientific research field, (please use only

the designation on this list and please

select only one field of scientific

research) from the following list of Field

of Scientific Research:

1. Actinide Chemistry

2. Analytical Chemistry and Instrumentation

3. Interfacial Chemistry

4. Separations Science

5. Computer and Mathematical Sciences

6. Engineering Sciences

7. Materials Science

8. Physics

9. Other

Application Evaluation and Selection

Scientific Merit. The program will

support the most scientifically

meritorious and relevant work,

regardless of the institution. Formal

applications will be subjected to

scientific merit review (peer review) and

will be evaluated against the following

evaluation criteria listed in descending

order of importance as codified at 10

CFR 605.10(d):

1. Scientific and/or Technical Merit of the

Project

2. Appropriateness of the Proposed Method

or Approach

3. Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and

Adequacy of Proposed Resources

4. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of

the Proposed Budget.

External peer reviewers are selected

with regard to both their scientific

expertise and the absence of conflict-ofinterest issues. Non-federal reviewers

may be used, and submission of an

application constitutes agreement that

this is acceptable to the investigator(s)

and the submitting institution.

Relevance to Mission. Subsequent to

the formal scientific merit review,

applications which are judged to be

scientifically meritorious will be

evaluated by DOE for relevance to the

objectives of the Environmental

Management Science Program. These

objectives were established in the

Conference Report for the Fiscal Year

1996 Energy and Water Development

Appropriations Act, and are published

in the Congressional Record—House,

October 26, 1995, page H10956.
214 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

DOE shall also consider, as part of the

evaluation, program policy factors such

as an appropriate balance among the

program areas, including research

already in progress. Research funded in

the Environmental Management Science

Program in Fiscal Year 1996 and Fiscal

Year 1997 can be viewed at http://

www.doe.gov/em52/sciencegrants.html.

Application Guide and Forms

Information about the development,

submission of applications, eligibility,

limitations, evaluation, the selection

process, and other policies and

procedures may be found in 10 CFR Part

605, and in the Application Guide for

the Office of Energy Research Financial

Assistance Program. Electronic access to

the Guide and required forms is made

available via the World Wide Web at

http://www.er.doe.gov/production/

grants/grants.html.

Major Environmental Management

Challenges

This research announcement has been

developed for Fiscal Year 1998, along

with a development process for a longterm program within Environmental

Management, with the objective of

providing continuity in scientific

knowledge that will revolutionize

technologies and clean-up approaches

for solving DOE’s most complex

environmental problems. The following

is an overview of the technical

challenge facing the Environmental

Management Program in the area of

High Level Radioactive Waste which is

the focus of this announcement. More

detailed descriptions of the specific

technical needs and areas of emphasis

associated with this problem area can be

found in the Background section of this

Notice.

High-level Radioactive Waste Tanks.

The Department is the guardian of over

300 large storage tanks containing over

90 million gallons of highly radioactive

wastes, which include organic and

inorganic chemical compounds, in

solid, colloidal, slurry, and liquid

phases. The environment within the

tanks is highly radioactive and

chemically harsh. A few of the tanks

have leaked to the environment while

others are corroding.

Specific areas of emphasis in

technology needs and research

challenges related to high level waste

(HLW) tank problems include, but are

not limited to:

• Characterization and Safety

• Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank

Closure

• Pretreatment and Separation

Processes for Tank Waste

• Waste Immobilization and Disposal

Historically, characterization of tank

waste has been very expensive, has

failed to obtain representative data for

many tanks, and has generated safety

concerns from worker exposure to

radioactive waste. Within the

Characterization and Safety area there is

the need to develop systems to identify

chemical and physical characteristics of

the waste in situ, improve data quality

and timeliness, and reduce safety

concerns.

In the Retrieval of Tank Waste and

Tank Closure area, there is the need to

develop cost-efficient methods to

remove saltcake, sludge, and waste

heels and close a high-level waste tank

that may contain a flammable gas

environment. Some sites have numerous

tanks that contain saltcake so that the

potential cost savings of less expensive

saltcake retrieval methods is very large.

Pretreatment and Separation

Processes for Tank Waste will separate

tank wastes into low-and high-level

fractions, thereby significantly reducing

the volumes of high-level waste

requiring disposal. These separations

include not only chemical separations,

but also physical separations.

Low level waste (LLW)

immobilization will reduce waste

volumes and produce waste forms that

are chemically and physically durable.

EM is applying two technologies (grout

and glass) to the same waste stream to

allow an unbiased appraisal of the true

costs and risks associated with

implementing each technology for fullscale tank waste remediation. Both

technologies must be robust enough to

handle the range of constituents found

in the tank wastes.

The aforementioned areas of emphasis

do not preclude, and DOE strongly

encourages, any innovative or creative

ideas contributing to solving EM HLW

challenges mentioned throughout this

Notice.

Background

Environmental Management (EM) is

responsible for the development,

testing, evaluation, and deployment of

remediation technologies within a

system architecture to characterize,

retrieve, treat, concentrate, and dispose

of radioactive waste stored in the

underground storage tanks at DOE

facilities and ultimately stabilize and

close the tanks. The goal is to provide

safe and cost-effective solutions that are

acceptable to both the public and

regulators.

Within the DOE complex, 335

underground storage tanks have been

used to process and store radioactive

and chemical mixed waste generated

from weapon materials production and

manufacturing. Collectively, these tanks

hold over 90 million gallons of highlevel and low-level radioactive liquid

waste in sludge, saltcake, and as

supernate and vapor. Very little has

been treated and/or disposed of in final

form.

Tanks vary in design from carbon or

stainless steel to concrete, and concrete

with carbon steel liners. Two types of

storage tanks are most prevalent: the

single-shell and double-shell concrete

tanks with carbon steel liners.

Capacities vary from 5,000 gallons

(19m3) to 1,300,000 gallons (4920m3).

The tanks are covered with a layer of

soil ranging from a few feet to tens of

feet thick.

Most of the waste is alkaline and

contains a diverse portfolio of chemical

constituents including nitrate and

nitrite salts (approximately half of the

total waste), hydrated metal oxides,

phosphate precipitates, and

ferrocyanides. The 784 MCi of

radionuclides are distributed primarily

among the transuranic (TRU) elements

and fission products, specifically

strontium-90, cesium-137, and their

decay products yttrium-90 and barium137. In-tank atmospheric conditions

vary in severity from near ambient to

temperatures over 93°C. Tank voidspace radiation fields can be as high as

10,000 rad/h.

EM is focusing attention on four DOE

locations:

• Hanford Site near Richland,

Washington.

• Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory near Idaho

Falls, Idaho.

• Oak Ridge Reservation near Oak

Ridge, Tennessee.

• Savannah River Site near Aiken,

South Carolina.

Hanford has 177 tanks that contain

approximately 55 million gallons of

hazardous and radioactive waste. There

are 149 single-shell tanks that have

exceeded their life expectancy. Sixtyseven of these tanks have known or

suspected leaks. Due to several changes

in the production processes since the

early 1940s, some of the tanks contain

incompatible waste components,

generating hydrogen gas and excess heat

that further compromise tank integrity.

The 11 stainless steel tanks at Idaho

store approximately 2 million gallons of

acidic radioactive liquids. Additionally,

approximately 4000 m3 of calcined

waste solids are stored in seven

stainless steel bins enclosed in massive

underground concrete vaults.

Dilute low-level waste (LLW)

supernatants and associated sludge at

Oak Ridge are stored in the inactive
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 215

Gunite and associated tanks, the old

hydrofracture tanks, and other tanks.

The wastes from underground collection

systems are currently being retrieved

and consolidated in the stainless steel

central treatment/storage tanks,

including eight Melton Valley Storage

Tanks.

Tank waste at Savannah River

consists of 33 million gallons of salt, salt

solution, and sludge containing waste

stored in 51 underground storage tanks,

two of which have been closed (emptied

of all waste and filled with grout).

Twenty-three tanks are being retired,

because they do not have full secondary

containment. Nine tanks have leaked

detectable quantities of waste from the

primary tank to secondary containment.

Most of the participant sites share

four problem areas. These areas are:

• Characterization and Safety.

• Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank

Closure.

• Pretreatment and Separation

Processes for Tank Waste.

• Waste Immobilization and Disposal.

Characterization and Safety

DOE, contractors, and stakeholders

have committed to a safe and efficient

remediation of HLW, mixed waste, and

hazardous waste stored in underground

tanks across the DOE complex.

Currently, there are only limited fully

developed or deployed in situ

techniques to characterize tank waste. In

situ characterization can eliminate the

time delay between sample removal and

sample analysis and aid in guiding the

sampling process while decreasing the

cost (approximately $1 million is spent

for one tank core extrusion) of waste

analysis. Most importantly, remote

analysis eliminates sample handling

and safety concerns due to worker

exposure. However, analysis of extruded

tank samples allows a more complete

chemical and physical characterization

of the waste when needed. Knowledge

of the chemical and radioactive

composition and physical parameters of

the waste is essential to safe and

effective tank remediation.

There are three primary drivers for the

development of new chemical analysis

methods to support tank waste

remediation: (1) provide analyses for

which there are currently no reliable

existing methods, (2) replace current

methods that require too much time

and/or are too costly, and (3) provide

methods that evolve into on-line process

analysis tools for use in waste

processing facilities.

Characterization of the elemental and

isotopic chemical constituents in DOE

tank waste is an important function in

support of DOE tank waste operation

and remediation functions. Proper waste

characterization enables: safe operation

of the tank farms; resolution of tank

safety questions; and development of

processes and equipment for retrieval,

pretreatment, and immobilization of

tank waste. All of these operations are

dependent on the chemical analysis of

tank waste.

Moisture is one of the key elements

influencing the safety status of some of

Hanford’s HLW tanks. Ferrocyanides

were added to tank wastes to increase

the available storage space when

production outstripped the ability to

provide adequate storage space.

Organics from some of the extraction

processes used at Hanford ended up in

tanks because of inefficient reagent

recovery processes. Moisture provides a

thermal buffer for the prevention of

ignition and propagation of thermal

reactions in waste containing

ferrocyanides or organics. Insufficient

moisture level raises the possibility of

explosion. The conditions for a thermal

event are reduced by the presence of

water in the wastes. A method is needed

to measure and quantify tank waste

water concentrations in situ.

The need for chemical

characterization of the tank wastes is

driven by both safety and operational

considerations. Safety drivers include

the monitoring of organic chemicals and

oxidizers to address flammability and

energetics, nitrate and nitrite levels to

address corrosion concerns, plutonium

levels to address criticality prevention

considerations, and detection of organic

and inorganic species to identify

chemical incompatibility hazards

associated with ferrocyanides, nitrates,

sulfates, carbonates, phosphates, and

other oxyanions. Operational concerns

include the monitoring of phosphate

levels driven by the potential formation

of sodium phosphate crystals, thereby

increasing the viscosity of the waste by

formation of a gelatinous matrix which

will reduce the ability of pumps to

transfer and retrieve waste.

Current techniques of tank waste

analysis involve the removal of core

samples from tanks, followed by costly

and time consuming wet analytical

laboratory testing. Savings in both cost

and time could be realized in

techniques that involve in situ probes

for direct analysis of tank materials.

Single-shell and double-shell waste

tank construction is common across the

DOE complex. The single-shell tanks

present potential environmental hazards

because only a single barrier contains

the liquids and any breach in the barrier

will cause contaminant spillage. A

sluicing method being considered to

retrieve the waste requires thousands of

gallons of water, raising the possibility

of HLW leakage into the surrounding

environment. In other tanks, water is

added to prevent the waste matrix from

drying and provides a deterrent from

possible ignition due to flammable

gases. There is a need to develop

instrumentation to determine the

location of a leak, the amounts of

materials that were exposed, and the

quantity of the contaminant material.

Assessments of the long-term

performance of waste forms is rare;

performance assessments of

radionuclide containment rely primarily

on the geologic barriers (e.g., long travel

times in hydrologic systems or sorption

on mineral surfaces). The physical and

chemical durability of the waste form,

however, can contribute greatly to the

successful isolation of radionuclides;

thus the effects of radiation on physical

properties and chemical durability of

waste forms are of great importance. The

changes in chemical and physical

properties occur over relatively long

periods of storage, up to a million years,

and at temperatures that range from 100

to 300 degrees Celsius, depending on

waste loading, age of the waste, depth

of burial, and the repository-specific

geothermal agent. Thus, a major

challenge is to effectively simulate highdose radiation effects that will occur

over relatively low-dose rates over long

periods of time at elevated

temperatures. Thus there is a paramount

need for improved understanding and

modeling of the degradation

mechanisms and behavior of primary

radioactive waste hosts and/or their

containment canisters, corrosion

mechanisms and prevention in aqueous

and/or alkali halide containing

environments, and remote sensing and

non-destructive evaluation.

Examples of specific science research

challenges include but are not limited

to: basic measurement science and

sensor development required for remote

detection of low concentrations of

hydrogen inside tanks and in

containers; basic analytical studies

needed to develop new methods for

chemical and physical characterization

of solid and liquids in slurries and for

development of advanced processing

methodologies; basic instrument

development needed to perform in situ

radiological measurements and collect

spatially resolved species and

concentration data; basic materials and

engineering science needed to develop

radiation hardened instrumentation.

Retrieval of Tank Waste and Tank

Closure

Underground tanks throughout the

DOE in Hanford, Savannah River, Oak
216 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

Ridge, and Idaho have stored a diverse

accumulation of wastes during the past

fifty years of weapons and fuel

production. If these tanks were

entrapped in a manner that would

preclude the escape into the

environment for hundreds of years,

there would be no reason to disturb

them. However, a number of the storage

tanks are approaching the end of their

design life. At the four sites, 90 tanks

have either leaked or are assumed to

have leaked waste into the soil and

sediments near the tanks.

Recently, dewatering processes have

removed much of the free liquid from

the alkaline waste tanks. The tanks now

contain wastes ranging in consistency

from remaining supernate and soft

sludge to concrete-like saltcake. Tanks

also contain miscellaneous foreign

objects such as Portland cement,

measuring tapes, samarium balls, and

in-tank hardware such as cooling coils

and piping. Unlimited sluicing, adding

large quantities of water to suspend

solids, is the baseline method for sludge

removal from tanks. This process is not

capable of retrieving all of the material

from tanks. Besides dealing with aging

tanks and difficult wastes, retrieval also

faces the problem of the tank design

itself. Retrieval tools must be able to

enter the tanks, which are under an

average of 10 feet of soil, through small

openings called risers in the tops of the

tanks.

Retrieval of tank waste and tank

closure requires tooling and process

alternative enhancements to mixing and

mobilizing bulk waste as well as

dislodging and conveying heels. Heel

removal is linked to tank closure. The

working tools and removal devices

being developed include suction

devices, rubblizing devices, water and

air jets, waste conditioning devices, grit

blasting devices, transport and

conveyance devices, cutting and

extraction tools, monitoring devices,

and various mechanical devices for

recovery or repair of waste dislodging

and conveyance tools.

The areas directly below the access

risers are often disturbed or contain a

significant amount of discarded debris.

Therefore, evaluation of tank waste

characteristics by measurements taken

at these locations may not be

representative of the properties of the

waste in other areas of the tanks.

To monitor current conditions and

plan for tank remediation, more

information on the tank conditions and

their contents is required. Current

methods used at DOE tank sites are

limited to positioning sensors,

instruments, and devices to locations

directly below access penetrations or

attached to a robotic arm for off-riser

positioning. These systems can only

deploy one type of sensor, requiring

multiple systems to perform more than

one function in the tank.

Currently, decisions regarding

necessary retrieval technologies,

retrieval efficiencies, retrieval durations,

and costs are highly uncertain.

Although tank closure has been

completed on only two HLW tanks (at

Savannah River), the tank contents

proved amenable to waste retrieval

using current technology. DOE has just

begun to address the issue of how clean

a tank must become before it is closed.

Continued demonstration that tank

closure criteria can be developed and

implemented will provide substantial

benefit to DOE.

A related problem that retrieval

process development is examining, is

the current lack of a retrieval decision

support tool for the end users. As

development activities move forward

toward collection of retrieval

performance and cost data, it has

become very evident that the various

sites across the complex need to have a

decision tool to assist end users with

respect to waste retrieval and tank

closure. Tank closure is intimately tied

to retrieval, and the sensitivity of

closure criteria to waste retrieval is

expected to be very large.

All the existing processes and

technologies that could be used as a

baseline for tank remediation have not

yet been identified. Identifying these

processes is one of EM’s major issues in

addressing the tank problems. The

overall purpose of retrieval

enhancements is to continue to lead the

efforts in the basic understanding and

development of retrieval processes in

which waste is mobilized sufficiently to

be transferred out of tanks in a costeffective and safe manner. From that

basic understanding, data are provided

to end users to assist them in the

retrieval decisionmaking process. The

overall purpose of retrieval

enhancements is to identify processes

that can be used to reduce cost, improve

efficiency, and reduce programmatic

risk.

The hermetic sealing and closure of

containment vessels and the long term

resistance to corrosion and stress

corrosion cracking and failure of such

seals and closures warrants attention.

Routine or conventional welding and

joining procedures, while adequate to

form hermetic seals in a non-hostile

environment, may result in local

composition gradients across weld or

join interfaces and heat-affected-zones

that create local electrochemical cells

that are vulnerable to galvanic

degradation and/or corrosion related

cracking. Research is needed to

establish reliable welding or joining

procedures that will not result in either

the establishment of local gradients in

chemical composition or in grainboundary depletion of passivating

chemical elements at welding or joining

closures.

Basic engineering and separation

science studies are needed to support

tank remediation of liquids which

contain high concentrations of solids.

Pretreatment and Separation Processes

for Tank Waste

DOE has about 90 million gallons of

HLW and LLW stored in tanks at four

primary sites within the DOE complex.

It is neither cost-effective nor practical

to treat and dispose of all of the tank

waste to meet the requirements of the

HLW repository program and the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act.

The current baseline technology

systems for waste pretreatment at DOE’s

tank waste sites are expensive.

Technology gaps exist. Large volumes of

HLW will be generated, while there is

limited space in the planned Nuclear

Waste Repository for HLW from DOE.

Even if adequate space were made

available, treatment and disposal of

HLW is still very expensive, estimated

to be about $1 million for each canister

of vitrified HLW.

Only a small fraction of the waste, by

weight, is made up of radionuclides.

The bulk of the waste is chemical

constituents intermingled with, and

sometimes chemically bonded to, the

radionuclides. However, the chemicals

and radionuclides can be separated into

HLW and LLW fractions for easier

treatment and disposal.

Most of the waste stored in tanks was

put there as a result of nuclear fuel

processing for weapons production. In

that process, irradiated fuel and its

cladding were first dissolved, uranium

and plutonium were recovered as

products, and the highly radioactive

fission product wastes were

concentrated and sent to tanks for longterm storage.

Fuel processing at Savannah River did

not change substantially from the

beginning of operations in about 1955 to

the present. While these wastes are

fairly uniform, they still require

pretreatment to separate the LLW from

HLW prior to immobilization. Waste at

Idaho is stored at acidic pH in stainless

steel tanks. Much of it has already been

calcined at high temperature to a dry

powder. Tank wastes at Oak Ridge are

small in volume (less than 1 million

gallons) and radionuclide inventory

(0.16 MCi) compared to other sites (33
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 217

million gallons and 534 MCi at

Savannah River and 55 million gallons

and 198 MCi at Hanford).

At Hanford, several processes were

used over the years (beginning in 1944),

each with a different chemical process.

This resulted in different waste volumes

and compositions. Wastes at Hanford

and Savannah River are stored as highly

alkaline material so as not to corrode the

carbon steel tanks. The process of

converting the waste from acid to

alkaline resulted in the formation of

different physical forms within the

waste.

The primary forms of waste in tanks

are sludge, saltcake, and liquid. The

bulk of the radioactivity is known to be

in the sludge which makes it the largest

source of HLW. Saltcake is

characteristic of the liquid waste with

most of the water removed. Saltcake is

found primarily in older single-shell

tanks at Hanford.

Saltcake and liquid waste contain

mostly sodium nitrate and sodium

hydroxide salts. They also contain

soluble radionuclides such as cesium.

Strontium, technetium, and transuranics

are also present in varying

concentrations. The radionuclides must

be removed, leaving a large portion of

waste to be treated and disposed of as

LLW and a very small portion that is

combined with HLW from sludge for

subsequent treatment and disposition.

Waste in tanks has been blended and

evaporated to conserve space. Although

sludge contains most of the

radionuclides, the amount of HLW glass

produced (vitrification is the preferred

treatment of HLW) could be very high

without pretreatment of the sludge.

Pretreatment of the sludge by washing

with alkaline solution can remove

certain nonradioactive constituents and

reduce the volume of HLW.

Pretreatment can also remove

constituents that could degrade the

stability of HLW glass. If the alkaline

sludge washing is not effective, some

sludge may need to be dissolved in acid

and treated by extraction techniques to

make a suitable feed to HLW

vitrification. This option is currently

outside the sites baseline.

The pretreatment functional area

seeks to address multiple needs across

the DOE complex. The primary

objectives are to reduce the volume of

HLW, reduce hazards associated with

treating LLW, and minimize the

generation of secondary waste.

The concentration of certain chemical

constituents such as phosphorus, sulfur,

and chromium in sludge can greatly

increase the volume of HLW glass

produced upon vitrification of the

sludge. These components have limited

solubility in the molten glass at very

low concentrations. Some sludge has

high concentrations of aluminum

compounds which can also be a

controlling factor in determining the

volume of HLW glass produced.

Aluminum above a threshold

concentration in the glass must be

balanced with proportional amounts of

other glass-forming constituents such as

silica. There are estimated to be 25

different types of sludge at Hanford

distributed among more than 100 tanks.

Samples from 49 tanks would represent

approximately 93 percent sludge in

Hanford tanks. Testing of enhanced

sludge washing, the combination of

caustic leaching and water washing of

sludge, on all of these samples is needed

to determine whether enhanced sludge

washing will result in an acceptable

volume of HLW glass destined for the

repository and will allow processing in

existing carbon steel tanks at Hanford

and Savannah River.

The efficiency of enhanced sludge

washing is not completely understood.

Inadequate removal of key sludge

components could result in production

of an unacceptably large volume of

HLW glass. Improvements are needed to

increase the separation of key sludge

constituents from the HLW.

Enhanced sludge washing is planned

to be performed batchwise in large

double-shell tanks of nominal one

million gallon capacity. This will

generate substantial volumes of waste

solutions which require treatment and

disposal as LLW. Settling times for

suspended solids may be excessive and

the possibility of colloid or gel

formation could prohibit large-scale

processing. Alternatives are needed that

will reduce the amount of chemical

addition required and prevent the

possibility of colloid formation. Sludge

at Savannah River, Hanford, and Oak

Ridge will be washed to remove soluble

components prior to HLW vitrification.

Removing suspended solids from the

wash solutions is inherently inefficient

due to long intervals required for the

solids to settle out. The baseline process

for sludge washing at Savannah River

and Hanford is done batchwise in large,

one-million gallon underground storage

tanks. This requires large volumes of

wash solution, powerful mixing pumps,

and long settling times. Retrieval of

waste using large volumes of dilution

water is planned at Hanford. To

consider the benefits of flocculent

addition and the possibility of using

countercurrent decantation to help

optimize sludge washing, the settling

characteristics of the solids need to be

determined.

Baseline sludge washing processes at

both Hanford and Savannah River call

for large volumes of caustic (sodium

hydroxide) solution. The supernatant

from sludge washing then becomes feed

to LLW treatment. The added caustic

can be recovered after washing and

recycled to subsequent sludge washing

steps. In addition, the HLW sludge at

Hanford and Savannah River contains

large quantities of sodium salts that can,

in principle, be recovered as sodium

hydroxide and also be recycled.

Approximately 1.8 million gallons of

acidic liquid waste are stored in singleshell, stainless steel, underground

storage tanks at Idaho. In 1992 a Notice

of Noncompliance was filed stating that

the tanks did not meet secondary

containment requirements of the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act. Subsequently, an agreement was

reached between DOE, the

Environmental Protection Agency, and

the Idaho Department of Health and

Welfare that commits DOE to remove

the liquid waste from all underground

tanks by the year 2015. Recent

discussions with the state of Idaho have

accelerated this date to 2012.

The baseline treatment for Idaho

liquid wastes produced after 2012 is the

full treatment option, wherein actinides

and fission products will be removed

from the liquid waste and HLW calcine.

The depleted stream will be processed

to Class A LLW standards and the

radionuclides will be immobilized in an

HLW fraction.

The transuranic extraction process for

removal of actinides, or transuranics,

from acidic wastes has been tested on

actual Idaho waste in continuous

countercurrent process equipment. The

strontium extraction process shows

promise for co-extraction of strontium

and technetium and also has been

demonstrated on Idaho waste in

continuous countercurrent operation.

DOE’s underground storage tanks

contain liquid wastes with high

concentrations of radioactive cesium.

The various processes for retrieving and

redissolution of HLW calcine for

pretreatment are not fully demonstrated.

DOE’s underground storage tanks at

Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge,

and Idaho contain liquid wastes with

high concentrations of radioactive

cesium. Cesium is the primary

radioactive constituent found in

alkaline supernatant wastes. Since the

primary chemical components of

alkaline supernatants are sodium nitrate

and sodium hydroxide, the majority of

the waste could be disposed of as LLW

if the radioactivity could be reduced

below Nuclear Regulatory Commission

limits. Processes have been
218 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices

demonstrated that removed cesium from

alkaline supernatants and concentrate it

for eventual treatment and disposal as

HLW.

At Hanford, cesium must be removed

to a very low level (3 Ci/m3) to allow

supernatant waste to be treated as LLW

and disposed of in a near-surface

disposal facility. The revised Hanford

Federal Facility Agreement and Consent

Order, or Tri-Party Agreement (between

DOE, Environmental Protection Agency

and the Washington State Department of

Ecology) also recommends treatment of

LLW in a contact-maintained or

minimally shielded vitrification facility

to speed remediation and reduce costs.

Cesium removal performance data are

needed to estimate dose rates for this

process and provide input to the design

of an LLW pretreatment facility for

Hanford supernatants.

At Savannah River, cesium removal

by ion exchange may be needed as an

alternative to the current in-tank

precipitation process. Cesium ion

exchange may also be needed to

separate cesium from Defense Waste

Processing Facility recycle, or offgas

condensate, to greatly reduce the

amount of cesium that is routed back to

the waste storage tanks.

Technetium (Tc)–99 has a long halflife (210,000 years) and is very mobile

in the environment when in the form of

the pertechnetate ion. Removal of Tc

from alkaline supernatants and sludge

washing liquids is expected to be

required at Hanford to permit treatment

and disposal of these wastes as LLW.

The disposal requirements are being

determined by the long-term

performance assessment of the LLW

waste form in the disposal site

environment. It is also expected that Tc

removal will be required for at least

some wastes to meet Nuclear Regulatory

Commission LLW criteria for

radioactive content. To meet these

expected requirements, there is a need

to develop technology that will separate

this extremely long-lived radionuclide

from the LLW stream and concentrate it

for feed to HLW vitrification.

A number of liquid streams

encountered in tank waste pretreatment

contain fine particulate suspended

solids. These streams may include tank

waste supernatant, waste retrieval

sluicing water, and sludge wash

solutions. Other process streams with

potential for suspended solids include

evaporator products and ion exchange

feed and product streams. Suspended

solids will foul process equipment such

as ion exchangers. Radioactive solids

will carry over into liquid streams

destined for LLW treatment, increasing

waste volume for disposal and

increasing the need for shielding of

process equipment. Streams with solid/

liquid separation needs exist at all of the

DOE tank waste sites.

Some examples of specific science

research challenges include but are not

limited to: fundamental analytical

chemical studies needed for

improvement of separation processes;

materials science of waste forms

germane to their performance;

elucidation of technetium chemistry;

basic engineering and separation

science studies required to support

pretreatment activities and the

development of solid/liquid separations;

fundamental separations chemistry of

precipitating agent and ion exchange

media needed to support the

development of improved methods for

decontamination of HLW; fundamental

physical chemistry studies of sodium

nitrate/nitrite needed for HLW

processing; basic materials science

studies concerned with the dissolution

of mixed oxide materials characteristic

of calcine waste needed to design

improved pretreatment processes; basic

chemistry of sodium when mixed with

rare earth oxides needed for the

development of alternative HLW forms;

fundamental chemical studies

associated with high temperature

(500°C) calcination of nitrate solutions

using agents others than sugar needed

for advanced HLW calcination

processing.

Waste Immobilization and Disposal

Waste immobilization technology

converts radioactive waste into solid

waste forms which will last in natural

environments for thousands of years.

Wastes requiring immobilization at DOE

sites include LLW such as the pretreated

liquid waste from waste tanks and HLW

such as the tank sludge. There are also

a number of secondary wastes requiring

immobilization that result from tank

waste remediation operations, such as

resins from cesium and technetium

removal operations.

The baseline technologies to

immobilize radioactive wastes from

underground storage tanks at DOE sites

include converting LLW to either grout

or glass and converting HLW to

borosilicate glass. Grout is a cementbased waste form that is produced in a

mixer tank and then poured into

canisters or pumped into vaults. Glass

waste forms are created in a ceramiclined metal furnace called a melter.

Tank waste and dry materials used to

form glass are mixed and heated in the

melter to temperatures ranging from

1,800°F to 2,700°F. The molten mixture

is then poured into log-shaped canisters

for storage and disposal. The working

assumption is that the LLW will be

disposed of on site, or at the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant if transuranic

elements are present. The HLW will be

shipped for off-site disposal in a

licensed HLW repository, such as the

one proposed at Yucca Mountain,

Nevada.

Methods are needed to immobilize the

LLW fraction resulting from the

separation of radionuclides from the

liquid and high-level calcine wastes at

Idaho. LLW is to be mixed with grout,

poured into steel drums, and transferred

to an interim storage facility, but

alternatives are being considered. Tests

must be conducted with surrogate and

actual wastes to support selection of a

final waste form. Savannah River has

selected saltstone grout (pumped to

above ground concrete vaults and

solidified) as the final waste form.

Savannah River would like to evaluate

LLW glass as an alternative to saltstone

disposal.

DOE sites at Hanford, Savannah River,

Idaho and Oak Ridge will remove

cesium from the hazardous radioactive

liquid waste in the underground storage

tanks. If cesium is removed, it costs less

to treat the rest of the waste. However,

cesium removal from tank waste, while

cost-effective, creates a significant

volume of solid waste that must be

turned into a final waste form for

ultimate disposal. The plan is to

separate cesium from the liquid waste

using ion exchange or other separations

media, treat the cesium-loaded

separations media to prepare it for

vitrification, and convert the cesium

product into a glass waste form suitable

for final disposal. Personnel exposures

during processing and the amount of

hazardous species in the offgases must

be kept within safe limits at all times.

The effectiveness of advanced

oxidation technology for treating

organic cesium-loaded separations

media prior to vitrification is not

proven. After a suitable melter feed is

obtained, vitrification of the cesiumloaded media must be demonstrated.

Technology development is needed

because: (1) Compounds are in the

separation media that must be destroyed

or they will cause flammability

problems in the melter and decrease the

durability and waste loading of the final

waste form, (2) high beta/gamma dose

rates are associated with handling

cesium-containing waste, and (3)

cesium volatizes in the melter and

becomes a highly radioactive offgas

problem.

Confidence and assurance that longterm immobilization will be successful

in borosilicate glass warrants research

and improved understanding of the
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 2 / Monday, January 5, 1998 / Notices 219

structural and thermodynamic

properties of glass (including the

structure and energetics of stable and

metastable phases), systematic

irradiation studies that will simulate

long-term self-irradiation doses and

spectra (including archived glasses

containing Pu or Cm, and over the

widest range of dose, dose rate and

temperature) and predictive theory and

modeling based on computer

simulations (including ab initio, Monte

Carlo, and other methods).

Some examples of specific science

research challenges include but are not

limited to: fundamental chemical

studies needed to determine species

concentrations above molten glass

solutions containing heavy metals,

cesium, strontium, lanthanides,

actinides, with and without a cold cap

composed of unmelted material;

materials science studies of molten

materials that simulate conditions

anticipated during vitrification and

storage in vitrified form of HLW needed

to develop improved processes and

formulations; fundamental physical

chemistry studies of sodium nitrate/

nitrite mixtures needed for HLW

stabilization.

References for Background Information

Note: World Wide Web locations of these

documents are provided where possible. For

those without access to the World Wide Web,

hard copies of these references may be

obtained by writing Mark A. Gilbertson at the

address listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section.

DOE. 1997. Accelerating Cleanup:

Focus on 2006, Discussion Draft. http:/

/www.em.doe.gov/acc2006

DOE. 1997. Radioactive Tank Waste

Remediation Focus Area Technology

Summary (Rainbow Book). http://

www.em-52.em.doe.gov/ifd/rbbooks/

tanks/tansrb.htm

DOE. 1997. Research Needs Collected

for the EM Science Program—June 1997.

http://www.doe.gov/em52/needs.html

DOE. 1997. U.S. Department of Energy

Strategic Plan. http://www.doe.gov/

policy/doeplan.htm

DOE. 1996. Estimating the Cold War

Mortgage: The 1996 Baseline

Environmental Management Report.

March 1996. U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Environmental Management,

Washington, D.C. http://

www.em.doe.gov/bemr96/index.html

DOE. 1996. Office of Environmental

Restoration EM–40. http://

www.em.doe.gov/er/index.html

DOE. 1996. Office of Nuclear Material

and Facility Stabilization EM–60. http:/

/www.em.doe.gov/menu/?nucmat.html

DOE. 1996. Office of Science and Risk

Policy EM–52 and Environmental

Management Science Program. http://

www.em.doe.gov/science/

DOE. 1996. Office of Science and

Technology EM–50. http://em50.em.doe.gov/

DOE. 1996. Office of Waste

Management EM–30. http://

www.em.doe.gov/menu/?wstmgmt.html

DOE. 1996. Spent Nuclear Fuel. DOEOwned SNF Technology Integration

Plan. U.S. Department of Energy,

Washington, DC. DOE/SNF–PP–002,

May 1996. http://tikal.inel.gov/

tiplint.htm

DOE. 1996. Taking Stock: A Look at

the Opportunities and Challenges Posed

by Inventories from the Cold War Era.

The U.S. Department of Energy, Office

of Environmental Management,

Washington, DC. http://

www.em.doe.gov/takstock/index.html

DOE. 1995. Closing the Circle on the

Splitting of the Atom: The

Environmental Legacy of Nuclear

Weapons Production in the United

States and What the Department of

Energy is Doing About It. The U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of

Environmental Management, Office of

Strategic Planning and Analysis,

Washington, D.C. http://

www.em.doe.gov/circle/index.html

‘‘Radiation Effects in Glasses Used for

Immobilization of High-Level Waste and

Plutonium Disposition’’, W. J. Weber,

R.C. Ewing, C. A. Angell, G. W. Arnold,

A. N. Cormack, J.M. Delaye, D. L.

Griscom, L. W. Hobbs, A. Navrotsky, D.

L. Price, A. M. Stoneham, and M. C.

Weinberg, J. Mater. Res., Vol. 12, No. 8,

August 1997, pp. 1946–1978.

National Research Council. 1997.

Building an Environmental Management

Science Program: Final Assessment.

National Academy Press, Washington,

DC. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/

books/envmanage/

National Research Council. 1995.

Improving the Environment: An

Evaluation of DOE’s Environmental

Management Program. National

Academy Press, Washington, D.C. http:/

/www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/

doeemp/

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board.

Alternative Futures for the Department

of Energy National Laboratories.

February 1995. Task Force on

Alternative Futures for the Department

of Energy National Laboratories,

Washington, D.C. http://www.doe.gov/

html/doe/whatsnew/galvin/tf-rpt.html

U.S. Congress, Office of Technology

Assessment. Complex Cleanup: The

Environmental Legacy of Nuclear

Weapons Production, February 1991.

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C. NTIS Order number:

PB91143743. To order, call the NTIS

sales desk at (703) 487–4650. http://

www.wws.princeton.edu:80∼ota/disk1/

1991/9113ln.html

National Science and Technology

Council. 1996. Assessing Fundamental

Science, Council on Fundamental

Science. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/

ostp/assess/

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Number for this program is

81.049, and the solicitation control number is

ERFAP 10 CFR Part 605.

Issued in Washington, DC, December 24,

1997.

Ralph H. DeLorenzo,

Acting Associate Director for Resource

Management, Office of Energy Research.

[FR Doc. 98–114 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP97–63–007]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company;

Notice of Tariff Compliance Filing

December 29, 1997.

Take notice that on December 22,

1997, Colorado Interstate Gas Company

(CIG), tendered for filing to become part

of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised

Volume No. 1, Substitute Third Revised

Sheet No. 230A to be effective

November 1, 1997.

CIG states that the purpose of this

compliance filing is to comply with the

order issued October 31, 1997 in Docket

No. RP97–63–006, to reflect the

language in GISB Standard 1.3.30

regarding zones.

Any person desiring to protest this

filing should file protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Section

385.211 of the Commission’s

Regulations. All such protests must be

filed as provided in Section 154.210 of

the Commission’s Regulations. Protests

will be considered by the Commission

in determining the appropriate action to

be taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to the proceeding.

Copies of this filing are on file with the

Commission and are available for public

inspection in the Public Reference

Room.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–57 Filed 1–2–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M