Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Notices 137 

1Pursuant to a phased decision strategy described 

in the initial ROD, DOE has issued an amended 

ROD on November 28, 2006 (71 FR 68811). This 

new amended ROD supplements the decisions in 

the two previous RODs. 

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

Full name, Social Security Number 

(SSN), gender, race, date of birth, 

citizenship with country documents, 

mailing address, home and work 

telephone, home e-mail address, 

occupation, pay grade, rank, assigned 

unit identification code (UIC), service 

affiliation, government agency, course 

work, grades, academic program, and 

emergency contact information. 

AUTHORITY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM: 

10 U.S.C. 8013, Secretary of the Air 

Force: powers and duties; Air Force 

Instruction 36–2201, Air Force Training 

Program; Air Force Instruction 36–2301, 

Professional Military Education and 

E.O. 9397 (SSN), as amended. 

PURPOSE(S): 

This system integrates all aspects of 

student information management. It 

provides core functions required for 

resident student graduate education, 

management of students in civilian 

institution programs, and course 

management for civil engineering 

education programs. Also, provides 

support for registration, academic 

programs, course offerings, grades, 

education planning, candidate packages, 

resource scheduling, degree auditing, 

financial reimbursements/forecasting, 

and official transcript generation. 

ROUTINE USES OF RECORDS MAINTAINED IN THE

SYSTEM, INCLUDING CATEGORIES OF USERS AND

THE PURPOSES OF SUCH USES: 

In addition to those disclosures 

generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(b) of the Privacy Act of 1974, these 

records contained therein may 

specifically be disclosed outside the 

DoD as a routine use pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows: 

The DoD ‘‘Blanket Routine Uses’’ 

published at the beginning of the Air 

Force’s compilation of record system 

notices apply to this system. 

POLICIES AND PRACTICES FOR STORING, 

RETRIEVING, ACCESSING, RETAINING, AND

DISPOSING OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM: 

STORAGE: 

Paper records and on electronic 

storage media. 

RETRIEVABILITY: 

Name and/or Social Security Number 

(SSN). 

SAFEGUARDS: 

Records are accessed by custodian of 

the record system and by person(s) 

responsible for servicing the record 

system in performance of their official 

duties and who are properly screened 

and cleared for need-to-know. 

Additionally, records access is 

controlled by user profiles that will 

ensure only the data that should be 

accessible to that individual will appear 

on the screen. Access to the system is 

by user account and password or by the 

Common Access Card (CAC). 

Permission levels have been established 

on a need-to-know basis. 

RETENTION AND DISPOSAL: 

Destroy 30 years after individual 

completes or discontinues a training 

course. Computer records are destroyed 

by erasing, deleting or overwriting. 

Paper records are destroyed by 

shredding. 

SYSTEM MANAGER(S) AND ADDRESS: 

Director, Communications and 

Information Directorate, Air Force 

Institute of Technology, 2950 Hobson 

Way, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio 45433–7765. 

NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE: 

Individuals seeking to determine 

whether this system of records contains 

information on themselves should 

address written inquiries to or visit the 

Communications and Information 

Directorate, Air Force Institute of 

Technology, 2950 Hobson Way, WrightPatterson Air Force Base, Ohio 45433– 

7765. 

Request should include full name, 

Social Security Number (SSN) and any 

details that will assist in locating the 

record. 

RECORD ACCESS PROCEDURES: 

Individuals seeking access to 

information about themselves contained 

in this system should address written 

inquiries to or visit the Communications 

and Information Directorate, Air Force 

Institute of Technology, 2950 Hobson 

Way, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 

Ohio 45433–7765. 

Request should include full name, 

Social Security Number (SSN) and any 

details that will assist in locating the 

record. 

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES: 

The Air Force rules for accessing 

records, and for contesting contents and 

appealing initial agency determinations 

are published in Air Force Instruction 

37–132; 32 CFR part 806b; or may be 

obtained from the system manager. 

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES: 

Information comes from source 

documents such as written 

examinations and grade sheets; from 

reports by instructors and students; and 

from the individual. 

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM: 

None. 

[FR Doc. E9–31157 Filed 12–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Amended Record of Decision: Idaho 

High-Level Waste and Facilities 

Disposition Final Environmental 

Impact Statement Revised by State 

12/21/09 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Amended Record of Decision. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is amending its initial 

Record of Decision (ROD) published 

December 19, 2005 (70 Federal Register 

[FR] 75165) (2005 ROD), pursuant to the 

Idaho High-Level Waste and Facilities 

Disposition Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (DOE/EIS–0287), issued in 

October 2002 1 (2002 EIS). The State of 

Idaho was a cooperating agency in the 

preparation of the EIS. The DOE 

analyzed two sets of alternatives for 

accomplishing its proposed actions 

regarding the Idaho Nuclear Technology 

and Engineering Center (lNTEC) at the 

Idaho National Laboratory (INL, 

formerly known as the Idaho National 

Environmental and Engineering 

Laboratory): (1) Waste processing 

alternatives for high-level waste (HLW) 

calcine and liquid sodium-bearing waste 

(SBW); and (2) Waste management 

facility disposition alternatives. Some of 

the alternatives contained subalternatives referred to as ‘‘options’’ in 

the EIS. 

DOE has decided to select hot 

isostatic pressing (HIP) as the 

technology to treat calcine to provide a 

volume reduced monolithic waste form 

that is suitable for transport outside 

Idaho, with completion of treatment by 

a target date of December 31, 2035. 

DOE has consulted with the State of 

Idaho on the decision described herein. 

DOE will continue to consult with the 

State on the decisions yet to be made on 

closure of calcine-related facilities. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of this Amended 

ROD will be available on DOE’s 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Web site at: http:// 

www.gc.energy.gov/nepa under DOE 

NEPA Documents. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this Amended 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
138 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Notices 

ROD and the Idaho Cleanup Project, 

contact Nolan R. Jensen, Federal Project 

Director, U.S. DOE, Idaho Operations 

Office, 1955 Fremont Avenue, MS 1222, 

Idaho Falls, ID 83415, telephone: (208) 

526–5793. 

For general information on DOE’s 

NEPA process, please contact: Carol M. 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

DOE, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0103, 

Telephone: (202) 586–4600 or leave a 

message at (800) 472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

From 1952 to 1991, DOE and its 

predecessor agencies reprocessed spent 

nuclear fuel (SNF) at INTEC, known 

prior to 1998 as the Idaho Chemical 

Processing Plant, on the INL Site. 

Reprocessing operations used solvent 

extraction systems to remove mostly 

uranium-235 from SNF. The waste 

product from the first extraction cycle of 

the reprocessing operation was liquid 

HLW mixed with hazardous materials. 

Subsequent extraction cycles, treatment 

processes, and follow-on 

decontamination activities generated 

additional liquid HLW that was 

combined to form SBW, which is 

generally much less radioactive than 

HLW generated from the first extraction 

cycle. These liquid wastes were stored 

in eleven 300,000-gallon below-grade 

storage tanks. The last campaign of SNF 

reprocessing at INTEC was in 1991, and 

HLW was no longer generated at INTEC 

after that time. From 1963 to 1998, DOE 

processed HLW and SBW through a 

calcination process that converted the 

liquid waste into a dry powder referred 

to as calcine. Some SBW was processed 

by calcination from 1998 to 2000, when 

a decision to shut down the New Waste 

Calcining Facility was made. 

At present, approximately 4,400 cubic 

meters of HLW calcine remain stored in 

six bin sets (a series of reinforced 

concrete vaults, each containing three to 

twelve stainless steel storage bins). The 

stainless steel in the storage bins is 

highly corrosion resistant, and the bins 

are designed to be secure for at least 500 

years. Based on the analyses 

summarized in the EIS, DOE has 

concluded that the calcine stored in the 

bins poses no significant present hazard 

to public health or the environment. 

As a result of litigation, DOE and the 

State of Idaho reached an agreement in 

1995 referred to as the Idaho Settlement 

Agreement/Consent Order (Settlement 

Agreement) that, among other things, 

requires DOE to ‘‘treat all HLW 

currently at INEL so that it is ready to 

be moved outside of Idaho for disposal 

by a target date of 2035.’’ It further 

requires that a ROD be issued no later 

than December 31, 2009 establishing a 

date for completion of the treatment of 

all calcined waste located at the INL 

Site by a contemplated target date of 

December 31, 2035. The Settlement 

Agreement also requires that DOE 

submit an application for a RCRA (or 

statutory equivalent) Part B Permit to 

the State by December 1, 2012. 

DOE issued the Idaho High-Level 

Waste and Facilities Disposition Final 

Environmental Impact Statement in 

October 2002, with the State of Idaho as 

a cooperating agency. The EIS analyzed 

two sets of alternatives for 

accomplishing the proposed action 

relative to calcine: 

1. Waste processing alternatives for 

liquid SBW, including newly generated 

liquid waste stored in three 300,000 

gallon below grade tanks, and solid 

calcine stored in bin sets at the INTEC 

on the INL Site; and 

2. Facility disposition alternatives for 

final disposition of facilities directly 

related to the HLW and SBW Program 

after its missions are complete, 

including any new facilities necessary 

to implement the waste processing 

alternatives. 

In DOE’s 2005 ROD, DOE decided to 

pursue a phased decision-making 

process regarding the proposed actions 

in the EIS. DOE also decided, among 

other things, to treat the remaining 

liquid SBW using the steam reforming 

technology and to conduct performancebased RCRA closure of existing facilities 

directly related to the HLW program at 

INTEC, excluding the INTEC Tank Farm 

Facility (TFF) and bin set closure. As a 

result, DOE is constructing a facility for 

the purpose of treating and packaging 

the SBW. This new facility is known as 

the Integrated Waste Treatment Unit 

(IWTU). 

The 2005 ROD also addressed the 

plan to issue an Amended ROD in 2006 

specifically addressing closure of the 

TFF as well as an Amended ROD in 

2009 addressing the strategy for calcine 

disposition and bin set closure. In the 

2006 Amended ROD (71 FR 68811), 

DOE decided to conduct performance 

based closure of the INTEC TFF. 

Decisions made in this ROD consider 

the Administration’s intent to terminate 

ongoing funding for the Yucca 

Mountain program while evaluating 

nuclear waste disposal alternatives, as 

indicated in the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2010 budget request. DOE remains 

committed to meeting its obligations to 

manage and ultimately dispose of HLW 

and spent nuclear fuel. DOE will 

convene a Blue Ribbon Commission to 

evaluate alternatives for meeting these 

obligations. The commission will 

provide the opportunity for a 

meaningful dialogue on how best to 

address this challenging issue and will 

provide recommendations to DOE that 

will form the basis for working with the 

Congress to revise if appropriate the 

statutory framework for managing and 

disposing of HLW and spent nuclear 

fuel. The ultimate disposition of the 

calcine HLW, and the applicable waste 

acceptance criteria, may be affected by 

the upcoming recommendations of the 

anticipated Blue Ribbon Commission. 

II. Waste Processing Alternatives 

Analyzed in the EIS 

The 2002 EIS analyzed six 

alternatives for calcine: 

• No Action Alternative 

Under this alternative, the New Waste 

Calcining Facility (NWCF) would 

remain in standby and the calcine 

would remain in the bin sets 

indefinitely. 

• Continued Current Operations 

Alternative 

Under this alternative, the NWCF 

would remain in standby pending 

receipt of a RCRA permit from the State 

of Idaho and upgrades to air emission 

controls required by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

• Separations Alternative (with three 

treatment options) 

This alternative comprises three 

treatment options, each of which would 

use a chemical separations process, 

such as solvent extraction, to divide the 

calcine into fractions suitable for 

disposition as either: HLW, transuranic 

(TRU) waste, or low-level waste, 

depending on waste characteristics. 

Separating the radionuclides in the 

waste into fractions would decrease the 

amount of HLW, saving space and 

reducing disposition costs. The three 

waste treatment options under the 

Separations Alternative are described 

below: 

1. The Full Separations Option would 

separate the radioisotopes in the calcine 

into high-level and low-level waste 

fractions. The HLW fraction would be 

vitrified in a new facility at INTEC, 

placed in stainless steel canisters, and 

stored onsite until shipped to a storage 

or disposition facility. DOE would 

dispose of the low-level waste fraction 

on site, or at an offsite DOE or 

commercial low-level waste disposal 

facility. 

2. The Planning Basis Option reflects 

previously announced DOE decisions 

and agreements with the State of Idaho 

regarding the management of HLW. It is 

similar to the Full Separations Option in 

that, after separations, the HLW fraction 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Notices 139 

would be vitrified in a new facility at 

INTEC, placed in stainless steel 

canisters, and stored onsite until 

shipped to a storage or disposition 

facility. DOE would dispose of the lowlevel waste fraction on site, or at an 

offsite DOE or commercial low-level 

waste disposal facility. 

3. The Transuranic Separations 

Option would consist of separating the 

HLW into two fractions. The resulting 

fractions would be managed as TRU 

waste and low level waste. The TRU 

fraction that meets applicable 

requirements, would be solidified, 

packaged, and shipped to the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal. DOE 

would dispose of the low-level waste 

fraction on site or at an offsite DOE or 

commercial low-level waste disposal 

facility. 

• Non-Separations Alternative (with 

four treatment options) 

This alternative includes four 

treatment options for solidifying HLW 

calcine. The four treatment options are 

briefly described below: 

1. The Hot Isostatic Pressing (HIP) 

Waste Option under which HLW calcine 

would be treated in a high pressure, 

high temperature process that would 

convert the calcine into a glass-ceramic 

waste form. The final product would be 

packaged for storage, transport, and 

disposition. 

2. The Direct Cement Waste Option 

under which HLW calcine would be 

retrieved, mixed with cement, poured in 

stainless-steel canisters, and cured at 

elevated temperature and pressure. The 

canisters would be placed in storage for 

transport and subsequent disposition. 

3. The Early Vitrification Option 

would involve vitrifying the HLW 

calcine into a glass-like solid. The 

vitrified HLW would be placed in 

interim storage pending disposition. 

4. The Steam Reforming Option 

includes packaging of HLW calcine 

without additional treatment for 

shipment and disposition. 

• Minimum INEEL (now INL) 

Processing Alternative 

This alternative would minimize the 

amount of waste treatment at the INL by 

using the vitrification facility (Waste 

Treatment Plant) under construction for 

the DOE Hanford Site in the State of 

Washington. The HLW calcine would be 

placed in shipping containers and sent 

to the Hanford Site where it would be 

vitrified. 

• Direct Vitrification Alternative 

(with two treatment options) 

This alternative includes two 

treatment options: Vitrification without 

Calcine Separations and Vitrification 

with Calcine Separations. The option to 

vitrify calcine without separations 

would be similar to the Early 

Vitrification Option. The option to 

vitrify the HLW fraction from calcine 

separations would be similar to the Full 

Separations Option. Under the 

Vitrification with Calcine Separations 

Option, calcine would be retrieved from 

the bin sets, and chemically separated 

into a HLW fraction to be vitrified and 

a low-level waste (LLW) fraction to be 

grouted. Under the Vitrification without 

Calcine Separations Option, calcine 

would be directly vitrified. Under either 

option, vitrified HLW would be stored 

pending disposition. 

III. DOE and the State of Idaho 

Preferred Alternatives Identified in the 

EIS 

The DOE Preferred Alternative 

identified in the 2002 EIS for waste 

processing (including calcine) was to 

implement the proposed action by 

selecting from among the action 

alternatives, options, and technologies 

analyzed in the 2002 EIS. The selection 

of any one of, or combination of, 

technologies or options used to 

implement the proposed action would 

be based on the performance criteria of 

technical maturity, environmental 

health and safety considerations, 

consideration of public comment, cost, 

schedule, and programmatic risk. 

Options excluded from DOE’s preferred 

alternative were storage of calcine in bin 

sets for an indefinite period of time 

(analyzed under the Continued Current 

Operation Alternative), shipment of all 

calcine to the Hanford Site for treatment 

(analyzed under the Minimum INEEL 

[now INL] Processing Alternative), and 

disposal of mixed LLW at INL (analyzed 

under multiple alternatives). 

The State of Idaho Preferred 

Alternative identified in the 2002 EIS 

for waste processing was the Direct 

Vitrification Alternative. The State of 

Idaho preferred vitrification based on 

the belief that it was the treatment 

alternative with the lowest technical 

and regulatory uncertainty for meeting 

waste removal goals and providing a 

clear baseline for fulfilling the 

objectives of removal of waste from 

Idaho within the timelines envisioned 

by the Settlement Agreement. The State 

of Idaho was willing to consider other 

waste treatment options, if they were 

comparable or better than the Direct 

Vitrification Alternative in terms of 

environmental impact, schedule, and/or 

cost. 

IV. Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative 

In nine of fourteen environmental 

areas analyzed, the 2002 EIS indicates 

little or no environmental impact would 

occur under all of the action 

alternatives. In the remaining five areas 

analyzed (air, traffic and transportation, 

health and safety, waste and materials, 

and facility accidents), the results 

indicate that potential short-term 

impacts from routine exposures would 

be small and would not differ 

significantly among action alternatives. 

Under normal operations, none of the 

waste processing action alternatives 

analyzed in the EIS would result in 

large short-term or long-term impacts to 

human health or the environment. Also, 

none of the action alternatives would 

result in appreciably different impacts 

on historic, cultural and natural 

resources. 

Any of the waste treatment 

alternatives that place the calcine in a 

waste form suitable for disposition 

outside of the State of Idaho would be 

environmentally preferable compared to 

the No Action and Continued Current 

Operations Alternatives. 

V. Decision 

DOE has decided to deploy the HIP 

technology to cost-effectively treat the 

calcine waste. This option also presents 

the flexibility to either: 

• Treat calcine in a sealed high 

temperature and high pressure canning 

process including the addition of 

treatment additives necessary to 

produce a glass-ceramic and volume 

reduced monolithic waste form; or 

• Treat calcine in a sealed high 

temperature and high pressure canning 

process without addition of treatment 

additives resulting in an even greater 

volume reduction. 

The HIP technology deployed for the 

treatment of HLW calcine also provides 

the technological capability to further 

treat the SBW steam-reformed carbonate 

waste form, should such treatment be 

necessary in order for this waste to be 

ready to leave Idaho by 2035 as required 

by the 1995 Settlement Agreement. 

Treatment using the HIP technology 

has been demonstrated to generate a 

waste form consistent with waste form 

requirements that are currently 

specified for the performance of singlephase borosilicate glass being produced 

at DOE’s Defense Waste Processing 

Facility at the Savannah River Site and 

to be produced at the Waste Treatment 

Plant at DOE’s Hanford Site. The use of 

HIP with the addition of treatment 

additives will be necessary to eliminate 

the RCRA hazardous waste 

characteristics should calcine be 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
140 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 1 / Monday, January 4, 2010 / Notices 

2Under this treatment option (HIP with 

additives), an approved delisting petition would be 

required and any land disposal restrictions would 

also have to be met. 

3Under this treatment option (HIP without 

treatment additives), any land disposal restrictions 

would also have to be met. 

dispositioned at a non-RCRA-permitted 

site outside the State of Idaho.2

If it is decided to disposition calcine 

at a RCRA-permitted facility outside the 

State of Idaho, the use of HIP without 

addition of treatment additives would 

cost-effectively reduce the volume of 

waste even further, resulting in fewer 

canisters of product to be ultimately 

shipped for such disposition outside the 

State of Idaho.3

DOE’s decision will allow DOE to 

meet the provisions of the Settlement 

Agreement for the treatment of all 

calcinated waste and, if applicable, 

SBW. 

To facilitate treatment, DOE has 

decided to retrieve and pneumatically 

(forced air through piping) transport the 

calcine to a surge tank located at the 

head end of the IWTU at such time as 

the calcine treatment and packaging 

process is about to commence. The 

IWTU facility, after completion of its 

SBW mission and suitable 

reconfiguration, will be used to support 

treatment of the calcine and other 

wastes and meet associated safety and 

seismic design basis requirements. 

In accordance with the Settlement 

Agreement, DOE will submit a request 

for a Permit Modification to the 

Integrated Waste Treatment Unit RCRA 

Part B Permit no later than December 1, 

2012, that will address: 

• Calcine retrieval and pneumatic 

transport of the retrieved calcine to a 

designed surge tank to be located at the 

head end of the IWTU facility, and 

• HIP treatment/processing of all 

calcine within a modified IWTU facility. 

DOE has consulted with the State of 

Idaho on the decisions described herein. 

The State of Idaho concurs with DOE’s 

selection of HIP technology to treat 

calcine (and concurs that it provides the 

technological capability to further treat 

the SBW steam-reformed carbonate 

waste form, should such treatment be 

necessary) to produce a glass ceramic 

and volume reduced monolithic waste 

form. This treatment appears 

comparable to single-phase borosilicate 

glass resulting from vitrification which 

was Idaho’s previous preferred 

alternative. Idaho prefers the HIP 

technology with the addition of 

treatment additives because it is the 

most likely form to meet current 

regulatory requirements allowing for 

disposal outside the State of Idaho. 

Idaho does not object to the HIP 

technology without the addition of 

treatment additives provided the final 

waste form is eligible for transport 

outside the State of Idaho for storage or 

disposition. DOE will continue to 

consult with the State on the decisions 

yet to be made concerning the addition 

of treatment additives for the HIP 

treatment of the calcine waste. 

No environmental impacts resulting 

from operations under this decision 

would require specific mitigation 

measures. DOE will, however, use all 

practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm when 

implementing the actions described in 

this amended ROD. Those measures 

include employing engineering design 

features to ensure that calcine waste 

processing via HIP is conducted safely 

and in accordance with all applicable 

regulatory requirements. Other 

measures include maintaining a 

rigorous health and safety program to 

protect workers from radiological and 

chemical contaminants, monitoring 

worker and environmental risk, and 

continuing efforts to reduce generation 

of wastes. DOE will implement the 

comprehensive list of standards and 

requirements to protect workers, the 

public, and the environment specified 

in Chapter 6 of the Final EIS, as 

appropriate. 

VI. Basis for Decision 

DOE is selecting the HIP technology 

to treat calcine HLW for a number of 

reasons. The HIP technology is 

anticipated to cost-effectively treat the 

calcine waste, reduce the volume of the 

waste, and place the waste in a form 

ready to be moved out of the State of 

Idaho, consistent with the dates in the 

Settlement Agreement. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

23, 2009. 

Ine ́s R. Triay, 

Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. E9–31151 Filed 12–31–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 13328–001] 

Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc.; 

Notice of Intent To File License 

Application, Filing of Pre-Application 

Document, and Approving Use of the 

Alternative Licensing Procedures 

December 24, 2009. 

a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to 

File License Application, Filing of PreApplication Document, and Approving 

Use of the Alternative Licensing 

Procedures. 

b. Project No.: 13328–001. 

c. Dated Filed: October 28, 2009. 

d. Submitted by: Cordova Electric 

Cooperative, Inc. (Cordova Electric). 

e. Name of Project: Snyder Falls Creek 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: On Snyder Falls Creek, 

near the town of Cordova, Alaska. The 

project would occupy lands within the 

Chugach National Forest administered 

by the U.S. Forest Service. 

g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations. 

h. Applicant Contact: Clay Koplin, 

CEO, Cordova Electric Cooperative, Inc., 

705 Second Street, Cordova, Alaska 

99574; (907) 424–5026; e-mail at 

ckoplin@cordovaelectric.com. 

i. FERC Contact: Steve Hocking at 

(202) 502–8753; or e-mail at 

steve.hocking@ferc.gov. 

j. Cordova Electric filed a request to 

use the Alternative Licensing 

Procedures on October 28, 2009. 

Cordova Electric issued a public notice 

of its request on November 5, 2009. In 

a letter dated December 24, 2009, the 

Director, Division of Hydropower 

Licensing approved Cordova Electric’s 

request to use the Alternative Licensing 

Procedures. 

k. With this notice, we are initiating 

informal consultation with: (a) The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA 

Fisheries under section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act and the joint 

agency regulations thereunder at 50 

CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries 

under section 305(b) of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and implementing 

regulations at 50 CFR section 600.920; 

and (c) the Alaska State Historic 

Preservation Officer, as required by 

section 106, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the implementing 

regulations of the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation at 36 CFR section 

800.2. 

l. With this notice, we are designating 

Cordova Electric as the Commission’s 

non-federal representative for carrying 

out informal consultation, pursuant to 

section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 

section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act, and section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. 

m. Cordova Electric filed a PreApplication Document (PAD; including 

a proposed process plan and schedule) 

with the Commission, pursuant to 18 

CFR 5.6 of the Commission’s 

regulations. 

n. A copy of the PAD is available for 

review at the Commission in the Public 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES