4236 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices

have to be addressed during

dismantlement.

The no action alternative would

involve keeping the defueled S3G and

D1G Prototype reactor plants in

protective storage indefinitely. Since

there is some residual radioactivity with

long half-lives, such as nickel-59, in the

defueled reactor plant, this alternative

would leave some radioactivity at the

Kesselring Site indefinitely.

The Naval Reactors Program

distributed the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement on the Disposal of the

S3G and D1G Prototype Reactor Plants

in July 1997. Comments from 14

individuals and agencies were received

in either oral or written statements at a

public hearing or in comment letters.

Approximately one-third of the

commenters expressed a preference for

the Naval Reactors’ preferred

alternative, prompt dismantlement.

Based on U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) review of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement, EPA

rated the proposed project as ‘‘LO’’

(Lack of Objection). All of the comments

and Naval Reactors’ responses are

included in an appendix to the Final

Environmental Impact Statement,

distributed in November 1997.

From an environmental perspective,

no single alternative stands out as

environmentally preferable. The

radiation exposure to the general public

would be small and comparable for all

three alternatives. Occupational

exposure would be higher for the

prompt dismantlement alternative,

however, this expected exposure would

be comparable in magnitude to the

radiation exposure routinely received

during current operation and

maintenance activities of Naval

prototype reactor plants. Nonradiological environmental, health and

safety impacts associated with all of the

alternatives would also be small and

consistent with ongoing Kesselring Site

operations. Based on current conditions,

any of the alternatives could be

accomplished within Federal and State

requirements, in both the short term and

the long term. However, 30 years from

now, changing conditions associated

with the regulatory environment, and

the availability of trained personnel and

waste disposal facilities could result in

unforeseeable complications or delays.

Such future unforeseeable conditions

cause additional uncertainty in the

impacts associated with the deferred

dismantlement and no action

alternatives. Naval Reactors has

identified the prompt dismantlement

alternative as the preferred alternative

since it is consistent with the Naval

Reactors’ record of managing waste

efficiently and minimizing its

generation. Prompt dismantlement

would allow Naval Reactors to utilize an

experienced work force that is presently

located at the Kesselring Site. Prompt

dismantlement can be accomplished

safely, economically, and with a high

degree of certainty that the

environmental impacts would be small.

As discussed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement, the

Naval Reactors Program implements a

large number of conservative

engineering practices in its operations.

These conservative engineering

practices will serve to ensure that

environmental impacts will be very

small. No additional mitigative

measures have been identified which

are needed to further reduce the small

impacts which were described in the

Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Accordingly, all practicable means to

avoid or minimize environmental harm

from the preferred alternative have been

adopted.

Issued at Arlington, VA, this 20th day of

January 1998.

F.L. Bowman,

Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program.

[FR Doc. 98–1946 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision, Shutdown of the

River Water System at the Savannah

River Site, Savannah River Operations

Office, Aiken, South Carolina

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

SUMMARY: The U.S. DOE has decided to

implement the No Action alternative

identified in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for the Shutdown of

the River Water System (RWEIS) at the

Savannah River Site (SRS). Under this

alternative, DOE will continue to

operate and maintain the system and

maintain the water level of L-Lake.

DOE will assess the need for future

environmental remediation alternatives

for L-Lake under existing

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA) commitments.

Characterization activities associated

with CERCLA closure are expected to

begin in the year 2000 and be completed

in several years. This characterization

will inform any required remedial

action. Pending these activities, DOE

will continue to operate the RWS. If

during continued operation of the RWS

a system component fails, DOE will take

appropriate emergency actions. DOE

will then determine if the system is too

costly to repair (by comparing this cost

to estimated shutdown costs and future

possible remediation costs under the

CERCLA). If DOE determines that the

RWS is too costly to repair, it will

reevaluate all relevant commitments

and the information in the RWEIS, to

determine necessary actions to shut

down the RWS. However, the RWS is in

good condition and not expected to fail

over this period of time.

This RWEIS evaluates three

alternatives for the disposition of the

RWS at the SRS. The RWS is a 50-mile

underground concrete piping structure

and pumping system that was built in

the early 1950s to provide cooling water

for the SRS’ five nuclear production

reactors. The RWEIS alternatives cover

the spectrum of reasonable options as

follows:

(1) Continue operation of the RWS

(No Action Alternative);

(2) Shut down and maintain the RWS

for potential restart (Preferred

Alternative); and

(3) Shut down and deactivate the

RWS with no maintenance for potential

restart.

Based on the RWEIS evaluation of the

potential environmental impacts, as

well as the costs, energy consumption,

and regulatory implications of the

alternatives, DOE has selected the No

Action alternative and will continue to

operate the RWS. Other than potential

CERCLA remediation activities, if DOE

continued to operate and maintain the

RWS indefinitely the No-Action

Alternative would require the greatest

commitment of money and energy

resources. The RWS would continue to

supply 5,000 gpm to L-Lake from the

Savannah River. To do so, DOE would

spend approximately $1,084,000

annually to provide RWS surveillance

and maintenance and $494,000 annually

for electrical energy to pump the water

uphill from the river. Finally, DOE

would continue to dredge the RWS

intake canal to keep it clear of debris.

However, there is great uncertainty

regarding the cost of remedial action

under CERCLA. Therefore, until

characterization is completed, it will not

be evident whether shutting down or

continuing to operate and maintain the

RWS is economically the most prudent

course of action.

In its present configuration, the RWS

circulates water from the Savannah

River to a 1000 acre man-made lake

known as L-Lake. L-Lake no longer

serves to mitigate thermal effluents from

L-Reactor because it no longer operates.

RWS flow is necessary to maintain the

full pool water level of L-Lake.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices 4237

1The water-storage basins are also known as 186-

Basins.

2 In the RWEIS, the No-Action Alternative

impacts are assessed against the baseline provided

by operation of the 5,000 gpm pump. DOE reviewed

installation of the 5,000 gpm pump as a categorical

exclusion (EEC–SS–G–96–003) in accordance with

DOE’s NEPA regulations. 10 CFR 1021. During

assessment of the categorical exclusion, DOE

determined that a 5,000 gpm pump would be

sufficient to maintain L-Lake at 190 feet MSL and

to provide the minimum operating needs of K- and

L-Reactor areas without violating any SRS permits.

Accordingly, the categorical exclusion was

approved on June 6, 1996, and the pump installed

thereafter.

Low-levels of radionuclides were

released to Steel Creek before L-Lake

was constructed. As a result,

contaminated sediments are largely

confined to the former Steel Creek

stream bed and floodplain that exists

under L-Lake. The methods for any

needed environmental remediation of

these low-level radionuclide releases to

Steel Creek, as well as those to other

SRS streams, will be determined under

the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA).

This agreement, between DOE, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), and the South Carolina

Department of Health and

Environmental Control (SCDHEC),

provides a commitment and schedule

for the comprehensive remediation of

contamination at the SRS, including

SRS streams and lakes.

In accordance with the present FFA

schedule, DOE will begin

characterization of the L-Lake CERCLA

unit in fiscal year 2000. DOE anticipates

that this process will lead to an Interim

Record of Decision (IROD) in Fiscal

Year 2001. At that time DOE will decide

whether L-Lake should be drawn down

to facilitate characterization of future

risks to human health and the

environment. The characterization

process and risk evaluation will lead to

the selection of a preferred remedial

alternative.

During these future draw down and

characterization activities, DOE expects

to stabilize exposed sediments and

address the ‘‘reasonable and prudent’’

measures for protection of threatened

and endangered species that the U. S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has

recommended as a result of the

Endangered Species Act Section 7

consultation process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

RWEIS information: Andrew R.

Grainger, NEPA Compliance Officer,

U.S. Department of Energy, Savannah

River Operations Office, Building 773–

42A, Rm. 212, Aiken, South Carolina

29802, Telephone: (800) 881–7292,

Attention: RWEIS, E-mail: nepa@srs.gov

For general information on the DOE

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) process: Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, Telephone:

(202) 586–4600, or leave a message at

(800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Located in southwest South Carolina,

the SRS occupies an area of

approximately 300 square miles (800

square kilometers). The Savannah River

forms the SRS’s southwestern boundary

for approximately twenty-seven miles

(forty-three kilometers) on the South

Carolina-Georgia border. The SRS is

approximately twenty-five miles (forty

kilometers) southeast of Augusta,

Georgia and twenty miles (thirty-two

kilometers) south of Aiken, South

Carolina, the nearest major population

centers. The U.S. Atomic Energy

Commission (AEC), a DOE predecessor

agency, established the SRS in the early

1950s for the production of nuclear

materials to support the United States’

national defense, research, and medical

programs.

SRS produced these materials by

irradiating nuclear fuel and targets in

SRS’ five production reactors (C-, K-,

L-, P-, and R-Reactors). In the reactors,

closed pipe loops contained water to

cool the fuel assemblies by passing

water directly across them. The water in

this closed loop was then pumped to

heat exchangers where heat was

transferred from the closed system to a

secondary-cooling system. This

arrangement of closed loops minimized

contamination of the environment.

The water for the secondary-cooling

system was provided by the RWS. The

RWS pumped river water from the

Savannah River using intake canals and

pumps to the heat exchangers in the

reactor areas (C-, K-, L-, P-, and RReactor areas) by way of distribution

piping and water-storage basins.1 The

RWS also pumped water to Par Pond,

which was used to store additional

secondary-cooling water for P- and RReactors.

After passing through the heat

exchangers and absorbing the heat from

the primary closed-loop cooling system,

the heated water in the secondarycooling system was returned to the

Savannah River by way of several

discharge canals and streams. After

1985, when construction of L-Lake was

completed, heated secondary-cooling

water was also returned to the Savannah

River by way of L-Lake which

dissipated the heat from the thermal

effluent (hot water) from L-Reactor.

Thus, in all, the RWS is composed of

river water intake canals, intake pumps,

distribution piping to the reactor areas,

186-Basins, discharge canals, receiving

streams, and lakes (Par Pond and LLake).

At the end of the Cold War in 1992,

SRS’ mission emphasis shifted from the

production of nuclear materials to

cleanup and environmental restoration.

Consequently, SRS’ reactors were shut

down, thereby decreasing the demand

for RWS flow. From 1988 to 1996,

demand for RWS flow and flow

discharged to onsite streams decreased

from 380,000 gallons per minute (gpm)

to 5,000 gpm. Therefore, reflecting

decreased water needs and DOE’s

mandate to reduce operating costs, a

5,000 gpm pump was installed in 1997

to replace a larger, and more costly to

operate, 28,000 gpm pump.2 Further,

because of reduced RWS demand, and

because SRS’ reactors will not operate

again, DOE identified the RWS as excess

infrastructure, costly to operate and

maintain, but with limited application.

Accordingly, DOE prepared the RWEIS

to examine the environmental impacts

of RWS shutdown with the preference

of eliminating the operational costs of

this infrastructure, now only marginally

useful.

NEPA Process

DOE prepared this Record of Decision

pursuant to the regulations of the

Council on Environmental Quality for

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 40

CFR Parts 1500–1508, and DOE’s NEPA

Implementing Procedures, 10 CFR Part

1021. This Record of Decision is based

on DOE’s Final RWEIS for the

Shutdown of the River Water System at

the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South

Carolina (DOE/EIS–0268), for which

DOE published a Notice of Intent to

prepare on June 12, 1996, in the Federal

Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 29744. The notice

announced a public scoping period,

ending on July 12, 1996, and solicited

comments and suggestions on the EIS’

scope. DOE held scoping meetings in

North Augusta, South Carolina on June

27, 1996. Comments received during the

scoping period and DOE’s responses

thereto were used to prepare an action

plan, issued in August 1996, defining

the scope and approach of the RWEIS.

The action plan and reference materials

cited in the RWEIS were made available

for review in the DOE Public Reading

Room, located at the University of South

Carolina-Aiken Campus, GreggGraniteville Library, 2nd Floor,
4238 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices

3This standby condition is also referred to as

‘‘lay-up.’’

4Placing the RWS in lay-up also allows

maintaining portions of the system in a higher state

of readiness in order to restore pumping capability

more rapidly. Maintenance of certain portions of

the RWS in such a condition might be warranted

(1) where those portions are likely to be needed for

future missions; (2) where they might be necessary

to maintain Par Pond water levels in the event of

a severe drought; or (3) where they might be

necessary to refill L-Lake in the event of

determination to do so as a result of the FFA

process.

5As previously noted, the environmental impacts

of the 5,000 gpm pump were evaluated under a

categorical exclusion. On December 30, 1996, EPA

provided comments on the Draft RWEIS and

questioned the appropriateness of this categorical

exclusion. EPA requested DOE to describe more

thoroughly the impacts associated with the 5,000

gpm pump. In response to EPA’s comment, those

impacts were included in the Final RWEIS. A

discussion demonstrating the appropriateness of the

categorical exclusion may be found in the RWEIS

at page E–61.

University Parkway, Aiken, South

Carolina at (803) 641–3320.

DOE completed the draft RWEIS in

November 1996, and on November 15,

1996, EPA published a Notice of

Availability for the document in the

Federal Register, 61 Fed. Reg. 58548.

This notice started the public comment

period for the draft RWEIS, which

extended through December 30, 1996.

DOE received comments by letter,

electronic mail, and statements made

during public hearings held in North

Augusta, South Carolina on December 4,

1996, all of which were considered in

preparing the final RWEIS. DOE

completed distribution of the final

RWEIS in May 1997, and on May 16,

1997, EPA published a Notice of

Availability in the Federal Register, 61

Fed. Reg. 27024. This ROD is the

culmination of and final step in the

NEPA process for action on the RWS

and announces DOE’s selection of an

alternative.

Alternatives Considered in Final

RWEIS

No-Action Alternative

The No-Action Alternative does not

change the current status quo and

involves continued operation of the

RWS using a 5,000 gpm pump. Under

this alternative, L-Lake would maintain

its water level at 190 feet MSL with

makeup water provided by the RWS. Par

Pond water level would continue to

fluctuate naturally between 195 feet and

200 feet MSL. Under severe drought

conditions, and if necessary, the RWS

could be used to maintain Par Pond

water level.

Proposed Action—Shut Down and

Maintain Alternative

The Proposed Action—and Preferred

Alternative, the Shut Down and

Maintain Alternative—provides for

shutdown and maintenance of the RWS

in a standby condition that would allow

restart. RWS shutdown would result in

the L-Lake water level returning to the

original Steel Creek stream bed over a

ten year period. RWS shutdown would

not change the status quo regarding Par

Pond’s water level; it would continue to

fluctuate naturally between 195 feet and

200 feet MSL.

Under the Shut Down and Maintain

Alternative, the RWS operational

capacity would be preserved in a

standby mode to account for unforeseen

events, mission changes, or remedial

action decisions. Maintaining the RWS

in a standby condition 3 requires

draining the system of water and

placing the equipment in a protective

state minimizing degradation.4 Under

this alternative, the RWS operation

could be restored to provide water for

future missions or, if necessary, to

maintain Par Pond water level above

195 feet MSL in the unlikely event of a

severe drought. In addition, the RWS

could be restarted if the final outcome

of the FFA process recommends

refilling L-Lake with water to manage

risk from contaminated sediments in the

Steel Creek stream bed. During the

interim, or in the event none of these

potentialities are realized, shutdown of

the RWS would eliminate operational

costs associated with this system.

Shut Down and Deactivate Alternative

The Shut Down and Deactivate

Alternative provides for the permanent

cessation of RWS operation and does

not preserve system capabilities, even in

the most marginal state, for restart. DOE

would shut down and deactivate the

system in a secure, environmentally

satisfactory condition and isolate all the

intake pipes to prevent river water

intrusion into the RWS. DOE would

conduct no maintenance or surveillance

on the RWS, with the exception of the

L-Lake dam, which would be

maintained until the Lake’s water level

returned to the original Steel Creek

stream bed in approximately 10 years.

Under this alternative, L-Lake water

level would return to the original Steel

Creek stream bed. Par Pond water level

would continue to fluctuate naturally

between 195 feet and 200 feet MSL.

Under severe drought conditions, the

RWS could not be used to maintain Par

Pond water level, even if necessary.

Furthermore, the RWS could not be

restarted if the final outcome of the FFA

process recommended refilling L-Lake

with water to manage risk from

contaminated sediments in the Steel

Creek stream bed.

Environmental Impacts of the

Alternatives

Environmental Impacts of No Action

Alternative

The No Action alternative would

preserve the status quo and continue

current operation of the RWS through a

5,000 gpm pump.5 Under the No Action

Alternative, L-Lake would remain at its

normal water level of 190 feet MSL. Par

Pond water level would continue to

fluctuate naturally between 195 feet and

200 feet MSL.

Environmental Impacts of Shut Down

and Maintain & Shut Down and

Deactivate Alternatives

The environmental impacts of the

Proposed Action—and Preferred

Alternative, the Shut Down and

Maintain Alternative—are the same as

those of the Shut Down and Deactivate

Alternative. Both alternatives call for

DOE to shutdown the RWS. While the

Proposed Action calls for DOE to

preserve the RWS in a standby

condition, the actions necessary to

accomplish that goal do not entail

environmental impacts beyond those

associated with the shutdown action.

Accordingly, the environmental impacts

of either alternative are the same and

DOE considers them together in the

following paragraphs.

L-Lake

Under either the Shut Down and

Maintain Alternative or the Shut Down

and Deactivate Alternative, DOE would

not augment water flow to L-Lake. LLake cannot maintain a water level of

190 feet MSL, its normal full pool water

level, without flow augmentation from

the RWS. Consequently, it would recede

to the original Steel Creek stream bed

conditions over a ten-year period.

As L-Lake recedes to the Steel Creek

stream bed as a consequence of either

shutdown alternative, habitat for

amphibians, reptiles, semi-aquatic

mammals, wading birds, and waterfowl

would be gradually reduced and

eliminated. Consequently, these species

would be more vulnerable to predation.

Eventually, alligators would be

displaced due to the loss of habitat.

Drawdown of L-Lake would result in the

loss of nests, eggs, or hatchlings.

In addition, the reversion of L-Lake

water level to the former Steel Creek

stream bed would uncover lake bed

sediments. As a result, these sediments

could be susceptible to the forces of

erosion, especially during storm events.

In addition, the reversion of L-Lake
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices 4239

6Cesium-137 is an external radiation hazard from

direct exposure to gamma radiation which

penetrates clothing and skin. Measurements taken

under the surface of L-Lake show that cesium in the

Lake sediments is largely concentrated in the

original Steel Creek floodplain, currently beneath

the surface of L-Lake. These measurements also

show that a maximum (24-hour per day) radiation

dose received by a human would be approximately

180 mrem per year above the typical radiation dose

to which Americans are routinely exposed

(approximately 360 mrem per year). The

occupational dose limit for adults is 5,000 mrem

per year, and this additional dose would not exceed

that limit. 10 CFR § 20.1201.

water level to the original Steel Creek

stream bed could expose some

sediments, primarily in the Steel Creek

stream bed, that could contain low

levels of contamination, primarily

cesium-137.6 Animals foraging in the LLake lake bed or Steel Creek stream bed

could be exposed to these sediments via

inhalation, ingestion, direct radiation

exposure, and/or skin contact.

Similarly, an on-site human working in

the L-Lake bed lake could be exposed to

the contaminants in sediments via

inhalation, incidental ingestion, direct

radiation exposure and/or skin contact.

An off-site human could be exposed to

contaminants in sediments through

atmospheric or aqueous pathways via

inhalation or ingestion from sediments

that have been re-suspended in air or

water. The off-site human would not be

exposed to direct radiation.

Exposure to L-Lake lake bed

contaminants is unlikely to pose a

significant risk to SRS workers, the

public, or the environment. The L-Lake

lake bed contaminants would be

unlikely to pose a significant risk to SRS

workers because the concentration of

the contaminants in the sediments is

low and the amount of time that an SRS

worker would be expected to spend in

the lake bed would not yield an annual

dose above DOE administrative limits

(700 mrem). For example, an SRS

worker spending eight hours per days

for 250 days a year over a twenty-five

year period would receive an annual

dose of 41 mrem. The 41 mrem dose is

well below DOE’s 700 mrem

administrative limit.

The L-Lake lake bed contaminants

would be unlikely to pose a significant

risk to the public because the public

would not be exposed to direct

radiation, which is the primary hazard

associated with cesium-137. The

probability of the maximally-exposed

individual, located at the SRS site

boundary, developing a fatal cancer as

a result of 70 years exposure would be

less than one in a million (5.6 X 10E–

7). In DOE’s judgment this risk is

extremely small.

Finally, the L-Lake lake bed

contaminants would be unlikely to pose

a significant risk to the environment

because erosion would be controlled

and contaminated sediments would not

pose a significant risk to foraging

animals. Erosion would be controlled

because, based on DOE’s historic

hydrologic data and models, L-Lake

would probably recede during the

growing season. As the Lake’s water

level slowly receded, wetland plants

growing in the shore zone would recede

down slope with the water. Seed banks

along the shoreline would germinate

and stabilize sediments in portions of

the newly exposed shoreline. In

addition, DOE would artificially seed

the exposed L-Lake lake bed with

appropriate vegetation in order to

further stabilize the sediment. Thus,

exposure to contaminants in the L-Lake

due to erosion or resuspension of lake

bed sediment would be minimized

because the sediments would be

protected from wave or wind agitation.

Furthermore, erosion and transport of

contaminated L-Lake lake bed

sediments would be reduced by the

slow drawdown of the water level in the

Lake, occurring over a ten year period,

and by the resulting growth of

stabilizing vegetation. Because of this

slow drawdown and growth of

stabilizing vegetation, suspension of

sediments in the water column would

be minimized. Further, DOE would

maintain the Steel Creek dam during the

drawdown to impede the transport of

those sediments that became suspended

in the water column. The Steel Creek

dam would minimize the movement of

contaminants suspended in the water

column by creating a stilling basin to

still the water and allow sediments to

settle out of the water column.

Contaminants in L-Lake lake bed

would not pose a significant risk to

foraging animals either from

radiological or non-radiological sources.

As described in the RWEIS, radiological

contaminants were screened against

known background contaminant

concentrations yielding estimated

radiation dose rates, which were then

compared to applicable standards. This

comparison indicated that two

radionuclides exceeded twice the

background level, namely cesium-137

and Co-60. Cs-137 and Co-60 in L-Lake

lake bed sediments would primarily

cause risk from the direct exposure of

penetrating gamma radiation. The

concentrations of these radiological

sources was used to estimate a dose rate

to selected receptor species. The

estimated radiation dose rates to

selected receptor species are well below

the applicable standards.

For non-radiological sources, it was

recognized that L-Lake lake bed

sediments would be exposed and that

the sediments could become surface soil

or facilitate vegetative growth. All

samples detected in sediments were

compared to screening levels for

sediments, surface soils, and terrestrial

plants. No sediment contaminants were

present in average concentrations that

exceeded available screening levels.

Screening levels were not available for

four non-radiological samples found in

L-Lake sediment—beryllium, cobalt,

thallium, and vanadium—which had an

average concentration between two and

three times their background levels. The

potential risk of these contaminants (as

well as all contaminants that were

detected) were assessed by screening

their respective concentrations against

surface soil screening levels.

Assuming the sediments became

surface soils, the average concentrations

of beryllium, thallium, chromium, and

vanadium were between two and three

times their average background levels.

Thallium was detected in five of fortyfour samples and beryllium, chromium,

and vanadium slightly exceeded twice

its background screening level. This

indicated that these contaminants either

are not present in high concentrations or

are not widespread because of the few

occurrences in samples. Accordingly,

they would not represent an

unacceptable risk. The average

concentration of cobalt was below its

associated screening level.

Assuming the detected sediment

concentrations were found in terrestrial

plants, chromium, thallium and

vanadium were between two and three

times their background screening levels.

Again, thallium was detected in five of

44 samples. It should also be noted that

plants absorb chromium, thallium, and

vanadium minimally from soils.

Because of this fact and that L-Lake

currently supports a healthy, diverse

ecological community, it does not

appear that effects to L-Lake plants from

contaminants are occurring or would

occur under the Proposed Action.

The screening process is discussed in

greater detail in Appendix B of the

RWEIS.

Par Pond

Par Pond water level would not be

impacted by any of the alternatives

considered in the RWEIS. Par Pond has

not received makeup water from the

RWS since January 1996, and has been

allowed to fluctuate naturally between

195 feet and 200 feet MSL. Accordingly,

ceasing operation of the RWS could not

effect Par Pond water level because it is

not currently receiving make-up water

from the RWS.
4240 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices

Allowing Par Pond to fluctuate

naturally was the product of prior

analysis and decisions conducted under

authority of NEPA and the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA). In response to safety

concerns presented by a 1992 leak in the

Par Pond dam, DOE prepared a NEPA

document called a Special

Environmental Analysis (SEA) to assess

the environmental impacts of an

emergency drawdown of the Par Pond

water level from 200 feet MSL, its

normal water level, to 181 feet MSL.

The SEA reviewed the anticipated and

observed environmental impacts of

drawing down, repairing, and refilling

Par Pond, including potential health

and ecological impacts resulting from

the possible exposure to radiocesium

contaminated sediment. It concluded

that ‘‘consideration would be given to

begin refilling operations as soon as

possible, perhaps before dam repairs are

completed, to minimize impacts on the

Par Pond ecosystem.’’ DOE, Special

Environmental Analysis for Par Pond at

the Savannah River Site, page 4, (April,

1992). In addition, the SEA summarized

consequences of possible future repair,

remedial, and refilling actions, and

developed a Mitigation Action Plan

(MAP) to reduce the impacts of the

repair activity. Under authority of the

SEA, DOE proceeded with the Par Pond

drawdown and repair project.

Following the repair action, DOE

prepared a Par Pond Interim Record of

Decision (IROD) to provide a CERCLA

remedial action to address the interim

period following the dam repair until a

final remedial action could be studied

and selected. The IROD’s selected

remedy consisted of refilling and

maintaining Par Pond to 200 +/-1 feet

until a NEPA evaluation could be

accomplished to evaluate the

environmental impacts from reduced

flow to Lower Three Runs Creek (the

creek below Par Pond dam), fluctuating

reservoir water level, and discontinuing

of river water pumping to the reservoir.

DOE, Interim Action Record of Decision,

Remedial Alternative Selection, Par

Pond Unit, WSRC–RP–93–1549 (January

26, 1995). EPA and SCDHEC approved

the IROD in February 1995, and Par

Pond was completely refilled by March

15, 1995.

In 1995, DOE prepared a NEPA

Environmental Assessment (EA),

Natural Fluctuation of Water Level in

Par Pond and Reduced Water Flow in

Steel Creek Below L-Lake at the SRS

(DOE/EA–1070). The EA analysis

showed that no significant impacts

would likely result to the Par Pond

ecosystem if the Pond’s water level were

maintained at 195 feet MSL or above.

Hydrological models analyzed in the EA

showed that even without RWS flow

augmentation, the Par Pond water level

is not likely to decrease below 196 feet

MSL, even in drought conditions.

Further, the EA analysis showed that

elimination of RWS water flow and the

accompanying reduction of Savannah

River nutrients flowing through Par

Pond would cause the Pond’s ecosystem

to revert to that typically found in

reservoirs in the southeastern United

States. Based on the analysis in the EA,

DOE issued a Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI) in August 1995 under

which RWS water flow to Par Pond was

eliminated. Under the FONSI, if Par

Pond water level decreases to 195 feet

MSL or below, DOE will resume water

flow augmentation through the RWS.

Since issuance of the FONSI, natural

water flow into Par Pond has

maintained the Pond above 199 feet

MSL.

Under either of the RWEIS shutdown

alternatives, the status quo would not be

changed and RWS water would not

augment natural water flow into Par

Pond. Under the Shut Down and

Maintain Alternative DOE would be

able to restart the RWS and resume

pumping to Par Pond if the water level

drops below 195 feet MSL, as called for

in the FONSI and consistent with the

IROD. However, under the Shut Down

and Deactivate Alternative, DOE would

not have the capability to restart the

RWS to augment water flow to Par Pond

in the event a severe drought demanded

such an action.

Other Impacts

Under either of the shutdown

alternatives, DOE would need to find an

alternate water supply for auxiliary

equipment cooling and for fire

protection water reserves. The alternate

water supply would be approximately

400 gpm and be drawn from

groundwater. This groundwater would

be provided by existing wells at rates

much less than was historically

provided by these same wells during

reactor operations.

RWS shutdown would result in

increased survival of Savannah River

larval fish and fish eggs because they

would no longer be entrained at the

RWS intake structures. In addition,

RWS shutdown would return 225 acres

of original wetlands inundated by the

damming of Steel Creek and creation of

L-Lake. This acreage is approximately

the same amount of wetlands that exists

along the present shoreline of L-Lake

that would be lost as L-Lake water level

recedes to the original Steel Creek

stream bed.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The proposed action in this instance

presents a situation where the

environmentally preferable action is

different based on whether a short-term

or long-term period of reference is used.

Based on the analysis in the RWEIS,

DOE finds that in the short-term, the

environmentally preferable alternative

is the No-Action Alternative to preserve

the status quo and continue current

operation of the RWS through a 5,000

gpm pump. The No-Action Alternative

would preserve L-Lake and prevent the

return of the Lake’s water level to the

original Steel Creek stream bed. The

preservation of the Lake would, in turn,

preserve up to 1000 acres of aquatic

habitat formed by it, and forestall the

transition of this habitat to uplands and

wetlands habitat.

However, in the long-term, the Shut

Down and Maintain Alternative is the

environmentally preferable alternative.

Under this alternative, L-Lake water

level would return to the original Steel

Creek stream bed over a ten year period,

which would allow for the gradual

restoration of a more stable ecosystem,

such as that in existence prior to

construction of L-Lake. The pre-Lake

ecosystem would be more stable

because it is the indigenous ecosystem,

and because it would not be susceptible

to potential imbalances, such as those

introduced by changes in L-Lake water

level associated with repair or

renovation of the Steel Creek dam.

Furthermore, the restored L-Lake

ecosystem would benefit from the

reemergence of 225 acres of wetlands

inundated by the creation of L-Lake, an

amount that approximately equals the

amount of wetland acreage that would

be lost along the shoreline of L-Lake as

it gradually recedes. After these areas

are exposed, they would naturally

reestablish wetland characteristics with

cycles of drying and flooding typical of

other hardwood swamps on the SRS and

in the southeast. As typical wetlands

they would support diverse ecological

communities.

In addition, while a decrease in

aquatic productivity would be expected

as a consequence of the return of L-Lake

water level to the original Steel Creek

stream bed, an increase in terrestrial

productivity would occur

concomitantly. As the L-Lake water

level receded, grasses, forbs, shrubs, and

trees indigenous to the ecosystem would

re-colonize the L-Lake lake bed over

time. In addition to flora, indigenous

fauna would return to the ecosystem,

and a variety of terrestrial and semiaquatic animal species would inhabit
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices 4241

7 These two hypothetical future groups could be

at risk because the risk analysis assumes that they

drink water from SRS streams before it is mixed

with the Savannah River. A down stream receptor

is not at risk because the Savannah River flow rate

is significantly higher than SRS streams and, in

effect, dilutes tritium to concentrations which do

not pose a risk to human health.

the area as L-Lake gradually receded to

the original Steel Creek stream bed.

Other than potential CERCLA

remediation activities, if DOE continued

to operate and maintain the RWS

indefinitely the No-Action Alternative

would require the greatest commitment

of money and energy resources. The

RWS would continue to supply 5,000

gpm to L-Lake from the Savannah River.

To do so, DOE would spend

approximately $1,084,000 annually to

provide RWS surveillance and

maintenance and $494,000 annually for

electrical energy to pump the water

uphill from the river. Finally, DOE

would continue to dredge the RWS

intake canal to keep it clear of debris.

However, there is great uncertainty

regarding the cost of remedial action

under CERCLA. Therefore, until

characterization is completed, it will not

be evident whether shutting down or

continuing to operate and maintain the

RWS is economically the most prudent

course of action.

Associated Actions

DOE considered a number of actions

that affect the selection of an alternative

for the RWS, as well as the timing of

implementing a selected alternative.

The actions are described in the

following paragraphs.

Remedial Action Process for L-Lake

Through the FFA, DOE, EPA, and

SCDHEC established the procedure for

environmental restoration activities at

the SRS. The FFA integrates DOE

responsibilities under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

and CERCLA. In response to EPA and

SCDHEC comments on the Draft RWEIS,

DOE recommends further assessment of

L-Lake under the FFA, possibly

resulting in a Baseline Risk Assessment

(BRA) and a Remedial Investigation/

Feasibility Study (RI/FS).

A BRA will assess the risk associated

with the contaminants identified in the

L-Lake sediment, primarily located in

the original Steel Creek stream bed, and

it will provide a quantified expression

of risk for key receptors, such as

humans or wildlife, which may be

exposed to the contaminants. An RI/FS

will gather data necessary to determine

more exactly the nature and extent of

contamination in L-Lake sediment,

establish criteria for remediating the

Lake, identify the preliminary

alternatives for remedial actions, and

support the technical and cost analyses

of the remedial alternatives.

DOE believes that the analysis and

data collection necessary to prepare a

BRA and RI/FS is more accurately,

easily, and economically obtained once

L-Lake has returned to its original Steel

Creek stream bed. This is because there

are inherent difficulties in taking

sediment samples while L-Lake is filled

if additional samples are needed.

Because shutdown of the RWS will

present no unreasonable risk to human

health or the environment, and because

analysis of L-Lake sediment is more

appropriate after the Lake has returned

to the original Steel Creek stream bed,

DOE anticipates that this process will be

accomplished under an Interim Record

of Decision (IROD). In accordance with

the present FFA schedule, DOE will

begin characterization of the L-Lake

CERCLA unit in fiscal year 2000 and

begin L-Lake draw down in Fiscal Year

2001. The characterization process and

risk evaluation will lead to the selection

of a preferred remedial alternative. It is

DOE’s intention to incorporate National

Environmental Policy Act values in the

IROD and supporting documents.

Remedial Action Process for Onsite

Streams

Steel Creek, Four Mile Branch, Pen

Branch, and Lower Three Runs, are

listed in the FFA as RCRA/CERCLA

units because each stream received

contaminants from past operations. EPA

and SCDHEC expressed concern about

the effect on these units due to the

installation of the 5,000 gpm pump

because the installation of that pump

reduced water flow capacity through the

streams from 28,000 gpm to 5,000 gpm.

The reduction in water flow through the

SRS streams has increased the

concentration of tritium transported to

SRS streams from the seepage basins.

Increased tritium concentrations in

site streams are the consequence of two

factors. First, tritium from the seepage

basins is carried with rainwater to site

streams as it percolates through the soil

at a fairly constant rate. Second, the

RWS flow formerly diluted the tritiumcontaining rainwater as it percolated to

the streams. Installation of the 5,000

gpm pump reduced RWS flow

contribution to the streams and removed

this dilution water. Consequently,

installation of the 5,000 gpm pump had

the effect of increasing tritium

concentrations.

To respond to comments on the draft

RWEIS, the Final RWEIS evaluated the

impacts to workers, ecosystems, and the

public due to the installation of the

5,000 gpm pump from the resulting

increase in tritium concentrations.

Workers and ecological receptors would

be at risk due to increased tritium

exposure through incidental ingestion

and skin contact. The public could be at

risk due to ingestion of increased

concentrations of tritium in drinking

water. However, the RWEIS risk

assessment showed that a hypothetical

future worker’s annual dose would be

below 1 mrem. The RWEIS

environmental risk assessment showed

that the highest annual dose to an

ecological receptor would be 92 mrem.

Both of these dose rates are well below

accepted standards.

Drinking water taken from the

Savannah River would not be impacted

because installation of the 5,000 gpm

did not increase the total amount of

tritium released to the River. Because

the flow rate of water in the Savannah

River is typically over 10,000 cubic feet

per second (compared to the 45 cubic

feet per second reduction of flow from

installation of the 5,000 gpm pump) and

because the nearest domestic water

plant intake is approximately 40 miles

downstream from SRS, the on-site

increased concentrations have an

insignificant health impact to the

public. In summary, the increased

concentrations of tritium in site streams

were determined to be acceptable

because these concentrations did not

pose an unacceptable risk to workers,

the ecosystems or the public.

Steel Creek, Four Mile Branch, Pen

Branch, and Lower Three Runs, as well

as other SRS streams have received lowlevels of radionuclides, including

tritium, from past SRS operations.

Therefore, all of them will be evaluated

in accordance with the FFA and be the

subject of a risk analysis based on

hypothetical future residents and

industrial workers.7 DOE is scheduled

to provide information to EPA and

SCDHEC, which will assist in the

characterization of each stream and the

selection of a remedial alternative.

Water Requirements for Alternatives

Under the No-Action Alternative, the

RWS would continue to supply existing

operational cooling and make-up water

requirements for the reactor areas and

maintain L-Lake at 190 feet MSL. For

either of the shutdown alternatives,

DOE must supply 400 gpm of

groundwater to replace that provided by

the RWS to cool auxiliary equipment

and to provide make-up water for fire

protection reserves.
4242 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices

8 186-Basins are water storage basins which are

not contaminated.

9 904-Retention Basins are 50 million gallon

basins that were designed to receive emergency

cooling water in the event of a reactor accident.

L-Area Sanitary Wastewater Treatment

Plant

The L-Area sanitary wastewater

effluent mixes with RWS flow before

reaching L-Lake. The L-Area Sanitary

Wastewater Treatment Plant wastewater

permit took credit for RWS blending

flow in determining the extent of

treatment necessary before the

wastewater was discharged to L-Lake.

To stop RWS flow, DOE must

implement an alternate compliance

method to manage L-Area sanitary

wastewater.

Reactor 186-Basins Alternative Uses

Study

In 1994, DOE analyzed the feasibility

of using the SRS C-, L-, P-, and RReactor 186-Basins 8 and 904-Retention

Basins 9 for aquacultural purposes. In

March 1995 DOE advertised the

availability of the Reactor 186-Basins for

commercial use. DOE accepted one fish

farming proposal that would have relied

on ground water for make-up water,

although this proposal was later

withdrawn. At the present time, no

future uses of the 186-Basins or the 904-

Retention Basins are planned. DOE

could accept similar proposals in the

future regardless of the RWEIS

alternative selected because the basins

do not rely on the RWS for make-up

water.

Decision

DOE selects the No Action Alternative

of the RWEIS—Continue to Operate the

RWS. Under this alternative, DOE will

continue to operate and maintain the

system as well as maintain the water

level of L-Lake at its full pool water

level of 190 feet MSL.

DOE will assess the need for future

environmental remediation alternatives

for L-Lake under existing CERCLA

commitments. Characterization

activities associated with CERCLA

closure are expected to begin in the year

2000 and be completed in several years.

This characterization will inform any

required remedial action. Pending these

activities, DOE will continue to operate

the RWS. If during continued operation

of the RWS a system component fails,

DOE will take appropriate emergency

actions. DOE will then determine if the

system is too costly to repair (by

comparing this cost to estimated

shutdown costs and future possible

remediation costs under CERCLA). If

DOE determines that the RWS is too

costly to repair, it will reevaluate all

relevant commitments and the

information in the RWEIS, to determine

necessary actions to shut down the

RWS. However, the RWS is in good

condition and not expected to fail over

this period of time.

In accordance with the present FFA

schedule, DOE will begin

characterization of the L-Lake CERCLA

unit in fiscal year 2000. DOE anticipates

that this process will lead to an Interim

Record of Decision (IROD) in Fiscal

Year 2001. At that time DOE will decide

whether L-Lake should be drawn down

to facilitate characterization of future

risks to human health and the

environment. The characterization

process and risk evaluation will lead to

the selection of a preferred remedial

alternative. Not withstanding a major

system failure, DOE has decided to

operate and maintain the RWS until a

preferred remedial alternative is

selected.

DOE made this decision after

considering the most recent operating

and maintenance costs and estimated

shutdown implementation costs. DOE

has concluded the amount and

uncertainty in shutdown

implementation costs suggest the RWS

should continue to be operated while

DOE monitors RWS operating and

maintenance costs to determine when

continued operation becomes too costly.

For example, if a portion of the system

failed, DOE may elect to take an

emergency action in accordance with 40

CFR 1506.11, if appropriate, and then

determine if repair was too costly. If

DOE determines that repair is too costly

it will announce this decision in a

future Record of Decision under the

requirements of NEPA and CERCLA, as

necessary.

Prior to drawdown, DOE will notify

the USFWS to ensure all ‘‘reasonable

and prudent’’ measures, which were

recommended by USFWS during the

Endangered Species Action consultation

process to protection of threatened and

endangered species, are still adequate

and appropriate. DOE will also negotiate

a schedule with USFWS for the review

and completion of these measures.

During any future draw down and

characterization activities DOE expects

to stabilize exposed sediments and

address the ‘‘reasonable and prudent’’

measures, discussed above.

DOE considers continued operation of

the RWS to be environmentally

preferable in the short-term because LLake remain as a lake with its ecology

unaffected.

Comments on Final RWEIS

DOE received two letters commenting

on the Final RWEIS. The first, a letter

from EPA, Region IV, dated June 12,

1997, expressed concern that the RWEIS

does not adequately consider injury or

impacts to endangered species. To

consider injury or impacts to these

species DOE and USFWS entered into a

formal consultation process regarding

endangered species. The USFWS

recommended specific ‘‘reasonable and

prudent’’ measures to protect the bald

eagle and wood stork during the L-Lake

water level return to the original Steel

Creek stream bed. DOE endorsed these

reasonable and prudent measures.

However, these measures will not be

implemented at this time because the

draw down of L-Lake will not occur as

a result of this decision.

The letter from EPA, Region IV also

expressed concern that the RWEIS did

not adequately consider the ecological

risks associated with shutdown of the

RWS. However, as explained in the

Environmental Impacts section, the

RWEIS ecological risk assessment (ERA)

concluded that significant potential

risks to ecological receptors from

contaminants is not likely.

Finally, as a general statement, the

letter from EPA, Region IV stated that,

‘‘This NEPA action should be

coordinated to the fullest extent

possible with FFA activities’’. The

selection of the No Action alternative

has been made, in part, in response to

this statement.

In addition, the RWEIS documented

several measures that were taken to

coordinate the NEPA with the FFA

process, which include the following:

(1) use of FFA criteria as contamination

level screening limits to estimate future

potential remedial action decisions; (2)

movement of the L-Lake unit from

Appendix G to Appendix C of the FFA

in order to avoid the unnecessary

generation of a Site Evaluation Report

and expedite the FFA process; and (3)

preservation of the ability to refill LLake under the RWEIS shut down and

maintain alternative in the event that

such action is determined to be

necessary under the FFA.

The second letter, dated June 11,

1997, from the Office of Environmental

Policy and Compliance within the

Department of the Interior (DOI)

addressed several concerns regarding

the revised ecological risk assessment

(ERA) provided in the RWEIS.

Specifically, DOI commented that

guidance DOE used to develop the

RWEIS ERA ‘‘is inadequate and

inconsistent with the US EPA’s

guidance on ecological risk
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 18 /Wednesday, January 28, 1998 / Notices 4243

10The CERCLA ERA will be used to aid the

determination of a final remedial action at L-Lake.

A final action is typically made only after the lake

bed is characterized in detail using information

such as groundwater hydrogeology, extent of

groundwater contamination, and existing burial

area contamination profiles. Presently, these areas

are under as much as 50 feet of water and cannot

be adequately characterized. As a result, a complete

risk assessment cannot be performed and a final

remedial alternative cannot be selected until L-Lake

returns to the original Steel Creek stream bed.

assessment.’’ To the contrary, DOE

believes the RWEIS ERA was conducted

in accordance with the most current

EPA guidance.

The objective of the RWEIS ERA was

to determine, as accurately as possible

under the existing L-Lake

characteristics, the probable outcome of

a CERCLA ERA.10 The RWEIS ERA is

adequate because it used maximum

contaminant concentrations in its risk

assessments. In fact, all radiological

risks were within dosimetry-based

limits acceptable to the International

Atomic Energy Agency. Where the

maximum concentrations of some nonradiological contaminants showed a risk

potential, either the average

concentration of the contaminant was

compared to background levels or,

alternately, the contaminant

concentration was compared with more

contaminant-specific information

available in accepted scientific

literature. This procedure is part of the

typical process of interpreting the

results and uncertainties of an ERA and

represents the general ERA approach

recommended in the EPA guidance for

Superfund. EPA, Ecological Risk

Assessment for Superfund: Process for

Designing and Conducting Ecological

Risk Assessments, Review Draft, (1996).

DOI also asserted that the

‘‘[c]onclusions of no risk are

inconsistent with actual research

findings.’’ DOI cited specific DOE

studies sent to USFWS during the

formal Endangered Species Act

consultation. The studies DOI cited

assessed DNA changes found in blood

samples of various wildlife species

present on the SRS. In response to this

assertion, DOE notes that, in no case did

any of the studies suggest that an

observable change in a wildlife

population would result from the

exposure to low levels of radionuclides

found in L-Lake. Accordingly, this

supports the RWEIS ERA finding that

significant potential risks to ecological

receptors from contaminants are not

likely.

Finally, DOI commented on various

DOE studies showing the presence of

elevated mercury concentrations in the

SRS environment. However, DOI’s

comment does not reflect the fact that

the presence of mercury in the SRS

environment is not the result of releases

attendant to SRS operations. Indeed,

mercury is elevated throughout areas of

the southeastern United States due to

atmospheric deposition, not due to SRS

operations. Reflecting and restating this

fact, SCDHEC issued a fish consumption

advisory for numerous lakes and rivers

in South Carolina based on mercury

concentrations in fish. Again, the

presence of this mercury was not and

cannot be correlated to any SRS

operations. Accordingly, DOE has no

control over and is not responsible for

the atmospheric deposition of mercury

at SRS, or in other areas of the

southeastern United States.

Consequently, a returning L-Lake water

level to the original Steel Creek stream

bed would not exacerbate this regional

phenomenon or increase ecological risk.

Conclusion

After consideration of all relevant

information and data, DOE selects the

No Action alternative as the most

appropriate action for the future of the

River Water System at the Savannah

River Site at this time. This operational

decision is made in recognition of all

beneficial and adverse environmental

impacts, monetary costs, regulatory

implications and commitments under

the FFA, and dictates of relevant

statutes.

Signed this 23rd day of December, 1997, at

Aiken, South Carolina.

Greg Rudy,

Acting Manager, Savannah River Operations

Office.

[FR Doc. 98–1947 Filed 1–27–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. No. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770, as

amended), notice is hereby given of the

following advisory committee meeting:

Hydrogen Technical Advisory Panel.

Date: Monday, March 2, 1998, 9:00 A.M.–

4:30 P.M., Tuesday, March 3, 1998, 9:00

A.M.–3:30 P.M.

Place: Sheraton Premiere Hotel at Tysons

Corners, 8631 Leesburg Pike, Vienna,

Virginia 22182; Telephone: 800–572–7666.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Russell Eaton, Designated Federal

Official, Department of Energy, Golden

Field Office, 1617 Cole Blvd, Golden,

CO 80401, Telephone: 303–275–4740.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Panel: The Hydrogen

Technical Advisory Panel (HTAP) will advise

the Secretary of Energy who has the overall

management responsibility for carrying out

the programs under the Matsunaga Hydrogen

Research, Development, and Demonstration

Program Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101–566

and the Hydrogen Future Act of 1996, Public

Law No. 104–271. The Panel will review and

make any necessary recommendations to the

Secretary on the following items: (1) The

implementation and conduct of programs

required by the Act, and (2) the economic,

technological, and environmental

consequences of the deployment of hydrogen

production and use systems.

Tentative Schedule

Monday, March 2, 1998

9:00 AM, Introduction and Opening

Comments—A. Lloyd

9:15, Opening Comments and Introduction of

New Panelists—A. Lloyd/A. Hoffman

9:45, DOE Federal Report—R. Eaton

10:00, Report of the President’s Committee of

Advisors on Science and Technology (P–

CAST), 11-Lab Study—S. Gronich

10:30, Break

10:45, Russian-American Fuel Cell

Consortium (RAFCO)—R. Bradshaw

11:15, DOE’s Fuel Cell Coordination

Committee—R. Bradshaw

12:00 PM, Lunch

1:30, Strategic Directions Draft Plan—Bailey/

Kamal/Zalosh

2:30, DOE Fuel Cell Program for

Transportation—P. Patil

3:00, Break

3:15, California Hydrogen Business

Council—D. Moard

3:30, Public Comments—Audience

4:00, HTAP Panel Comments—Panel

4:30, Adjourn

6:00, Reception

Tuesday, March 3, 1998

9:00 AM, HTAP Report to Congress—A.

Lloyd

12:00 PM, Lunch

1:30, HTAP Report to Congress—Discussion

2:45, Public Comments

3:15, HTAP Panel Discussion and Roundup

Panel

3:30, Adjourn

Public Participation: The meeting is open

to the public. Written statements may be filed

with the Committee either before or after the

meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral

statements pertaining to agenda items should

contact Russell Eaton’s office at the address

or telephone number listed above. Requests

must be received 5 days prior to the meeting

and reasonable provision will be made to

include the presentation in the agenda. The

Designated Federal Official is empowered to

conduct the meeting in a fashion that will

facilitate the orderly conduct of business.

Each individual wishing to make public

comment will be provided a maximum of 5

minutes to present their comments.

Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will

be available for public review and copying at

the Freedom of Information Public Reading

Room, 1E–190, Forrestal Building, 1000