Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25697

associated with the construction and

operation of those facilities and

infrastructure necessary to support the

CVN and preserve the existing

capability to accommodate one transient

CVN. Homeporting a CVN will require

dredging of the berthing areas and the

San Diego Bay channel, a new berthing

wharf involving bay fill, construction of

new propulsion plant and ship

maintenance facilities, and expanded

utilities.

The EIS describes and evaluates

potential homeport sites in San Diego

Bay, three alternative berthing

arrangements, dredge material disposal

alternatives, and the ‘‘no action’’

alternative as required by NEPA. The

EIS analyzes potential project specific

impacts associated with a number of

projects proposed for implementation

during the next five years at Naval Air

Station, North Island. No decision on

the proposed action will be made until

the NEPA process has been completed

and the Navy releases a Record of

Decision.

The EIS is available for review at the

Coronado Public Library, 640 Orange

Avenue, Coronado, California; San

Diego Public Library, Science and

Industry Section, 820 E Street, San

Diego, California; Chula Vista Public

Library, 365 F Street, Chula Vista,

California; Imperial Beach Public

Library, 810 Imperial Beach Boulevard,

Imperial Beach, California; National

City Public Library, 200 East 12th Street,

National City, California; Encinitas

Public Library, 540 Cornish Drive,

Encinitas, California; and the Oceanside

Public Library, 330 North Hill Street,

Oceanside, California. All interested

parties are invited to submit comments

on the proposed action to the address

listed at the end of this notice no later

than June 26, 1995, to become part of

the official record.

A public hearing to inform the public

of the DEIS findings and to solicit

comments will be held on Wednesday,

June 7, 1995, beginning at 7 p.m., in the

Coronado High School Auditorium, 650

D Avenue, Coronado, California.

Federal, state and local agencies, and

interested parties are invited and urged

to be present or be represented at the

hearing. Oral statements will be heard

and transcribed by a stenographer;

however, to ensure accuracy of the

record, all statements should be

submitted in writing. All statements,

both oral and written, will become part

of the public record for the study. Equal

weight will be given to both oral and

written statements.

The EIS point of contract for receiving

comments is: Commanding Officer,

Southwest Division, Naval Facilities

Engineering Command (Attention: Mr.

Bob Hexom, Code 232RH), 1220 Pacific

Highway, San Diego, California 92132–

5190.

Dated: May 9, 1995.

M.D. Schetzsle,

LT, JAGC, USNR, Alternative Federal Register

Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–11753 Filed 5–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement Los Alamos National

Laboratory

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a

Site-Wide Environmental Impact

Statement for the Los Alamos National

Laboratory.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) announces its intent to

prepare a Site-Wide Environmental

Impact Statement (SWEIS) for its Los

Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),

Los Alamos, New Mexico, a DOE

multiprogram research and

development laboratory. The SWEIS

will be prepared pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969, 42 USC 4321 et seq.,

the Council on Environmental Quality’s

NEPA regulations [40 CFR Parts 1500–

1508] and the DOE NEPA regulations

[10 CFR Part 1021]. It will analyze as

alternatives various levels of LANL

operations, including reasonable

foreseeable new operations and

facilities.

DOE initiated a prescoping process

with an Advance Notice of Intent

published in the Federal Register on

August 10, 1994 [59 FR 40889]. This

Notice of Intent reflects the

consideration of comments provided

during the prescoping process,

including comments regarding NEPA

reviews initiated or anticipated at the

time of the Advance Notice of Intent,

and issues and alternatives for the

SWEIS.

DATES: The DOE invites other Federal

agencies, the State, Indian Tribes, local

governments, and the general public to

comment on the scope of this SWEIS.

The public scoping period starts with

the publication of this notice in the

Federal Register and will continue until

June 30, 1995. DOE will consider all

comments received or postmarked by

that date in defining the scope of this

SWEIS. Comments received or

postmarked after that date will be

considered to the extent practicable.

Public scoping meetings are scheduled

to be held as follows:

June 13, 1995; Hilltop House Hotel, 400

Trinity Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico

87544

June 14, 1995; Sweeney Center, 201 West

Marcy Street, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

June 15, 1995; Northern New Mexico

Community College, 1002 North Onate

Street, Espanola, New Mexico 87532

The purpose of these meetings is to

receive oral and written comments from

the public. The meetings will use a

workshop format to facilitate dialogue

among DOE, LANL, and the public and

will provide an opportunity for

individuals to provide written or oral

statements. The DOE will publish

additional notices on the dates, times,

and locations of the scoping meetings in

local newspapers in advance of the

scheduled meetings. Any necessary

changes will be announced in the local

media.

In addition to providing oral

comments at the public scoping

meetings, all interested parties are

invited to record their comments, ask

questions concerning the LANL SWEIS,

request speaking times, request to be

placed on the LANL SWEIS mailing or

document distribution list, or request

copies of the LANL SWEIS

Implementation Plan (when available)

by leaving a message on the LANL

SWEIS Hotline at 1–800–898–6623. The

Hotline will have instructions on how to

record your comments and requests.

ADDRESSES: Written comments or

suggestions to assist the DOE in

identifying the appropriate scope of the

LANL SWEIS should be directed to: Mr.

Corey A. Cruz, U.S. Department of

Energy, Albuquerque Operations Office,

P.O. Box 5400, Albuquerque, New

Mexico, 87185–5400, or by facsimile at

(505) 845–6392. For express delivery

services, the appropriate address is

Pennsylvania and H Streets, Kirtland

Air Force Base, Albuquerque, NM

87116.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

further information on the SWEIS and

the public scoping process, contact

Corey Cruz at the address and telephone

number listed above.

For information on DOE’s NEPA

process, please contact: Carol

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW, Washington,

DC 20585. Ms. Borgstrom can be

reached at (202) 586–4600, by facsimile

at (202) 586–7031, or by leaving a

message at 1–800–472–2756.
25698 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

The public is invited to participate in

the scoping process and is encouraged

to comment on the preliminary

alternatives and issues identified for the

LANL SWEIS. The results of the scoping

process will be documented in an

Implementation Plan which will be

made available to the public and will

reflect how comments provided during

the scoping process were incorporated

or addressed.

Availability of Scoping Documents

Copies of all written comments,

transcripts of all oral comments, and

copies of the SWEIS Implementation

Plan will be available at the following

locations:

Los Alamos National Laboratory,

Community Reading Room, Museum

Park Office Complex, 1450 Central

Avenue, Suite 101, Los Alamos, New

Mexico 87544, 505–665–2127 or 1–

800–543–2342

U.S. Department of Energy, National

Atomic Museum Public Reading

Room, Kirtland Air Force Base,

Building 20358, Wyoming Boulevard,

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87185,

505–845–6870/4378.

A full set of comments on the

Advance Notice of Intent is available at

the Los Alamos Community Reading

Room.

LANL’s Mission

Among other missions, DOE is

responsible for the Federal

government’s nuclear weapons program,

research and development of energy

technologies, and basic science

research. LANL is one of DOE’s primary

research and development laboratories.

It was established in 1943 to provide

research, design, and testing for nuclear

weapons and nuclear materials, and

remains one of the three laboratories in

DOE’s nuclear weapons complex. Over

the past 50 years, LANL’s mission has

expanded to include research in energy,

materials science, nuclear safeguards

and security, biomedical science,

computational science, environmental

protection and cleanup, and other basic

and applied science research. LANL

provides these research and science

services for DOE and other Federal

agencies, universities, foreign countries,

and private industry. LANL is one of the

largest multidisciplinary research

laboratories in the world, with an

annual budget of approximately $1

billion and more than 10,000 contractor

and subcontractor employees. LANL

covers about 43 square miles of land

held as a Federal reservation in northcentral New Mexico in Los Alamos,

Sandoval and Santa Fe Counties.

A report entitled ‘‘Alternative Futures

for the DOE National Laboratories’’ (the

‘‘Galvin Report’’), prepared for the

Secretary of Energy by the Secretary of

Energy Advisory Board, was completed

in February 1995. This independent

review provided recommendations on

the future missions of all DOE National

Laboratories. Although the DOE has not

yet fully determined which of these

recommendations will be adopted, the

preliminary SWEIS alternatives are

structured to allow for inclusion of the

report’s recommendations specific to

LANL operations.

The Role of the SWEIS in the DOE

NEPA Compliance Strategy

The DOE has a policy [10 CFR

1021.330] of preparing SWEISs for

certain large, multiple-facility sites,

such as LANL. The purpose of a SWEIS

is to provide DOE and its stakeholders

with an analysis of the environmental

impacts caused by ongoing and

reasonably foreseeable new operations

and facilities and reasonable

alternatives at a DOE site, to provide a

basis for site-wide decision making, and

to improve and coordinate agency plans,

functions, programs, and resource

utilization. Additionally, a SWEIS is to

provide an overall NEPA baseline for a

site that is useful for tiering or as a

reference when project-specific NEPA

documents are prepared. The NEPA

process allows for Federal, state, tribal,

county, municipal, and public

participation in the environmental

review process. A SWEIS was last

prepared for LANL in 1979 [DOE/EIS–

0018]. The proposed SWEIS would

replace that document as the baseline

environmental impact statement

regarding LANL operations.

A SWEIS is a useful aid for DOE

management of its facilities and

operations. It provides the DOE decision

makers and the public with analyses of

the cumulative environmental impacts

of past, ongoing and reasonably

foreseeable activities at a site and

contrasts these with reasonable

alternatives in order to inform decisions

regarding the resources entrusted to

DOE’s care. A SWEIS can be used as a

way to efficiently deal with multiple

proposals and can help establish an

efficient, environmentally sound and

cost effective plan for operating the site

and its facilities. In accordance with 10

CFR 1021.330(d), DOE will evaluate the

SWEIS at least every five years after its

completion to determine whether it

remains adequate or should be

supplemented or replaced with a new

SWEIS.

The LANL Site-Wide Analysis

The SWEIS will address operations

and activities that DOE foresees at

LANL within approximately the next 10

years. The SWEIS will focus on

operating practices and facility

management, specifically with the

intent to analyze the overall impacts of

current and reasonably foreseeable

operations at LANL. The DOE proposes

for the SWEIS to include an analysis of

land use requirements related to the

operations at LANL, as well as DOE

activities as the primary Natural

Resources Trustee for LANL. The DOE

proposes to use the SWEIS to analyze:

mitigation measures for impacts of

LANL operations; interim nuclear

materials storage and management

strategies for LANL; LANL

environmental restoration strategies;

and waste management strategies for

LANL. Specific projects or facilities that

are speculative and therefore not ready

for analysis would not be addressed in

the SWEIS. However, if such projects

later become definite proposals for

action they would be subject to

subsequent project- or facility-specific

NEPA reviews that would be tiered from

the SWEIS.

The SWEIS is expected to facilitate

and streamline subsequent NEPA

reviews at LANL by allowing DOE to

focus on project-specific issues and to

narrow and simplify the scope of later

reviews. This process is called ‘‘tiering’’

[40 CFR 1508.28]. DOE believes that the

SWEIS analysis will provide adequate

NEPA review for those activities and

projects designated and analyzed within

the SWEIS.

Preliminary Alternatives

The scoping process is an opportunity

for the public to assist the DOE in

determining the alternatives and issues

for analysis. A preliminary set of

alternatives and issues for evaluation in

the SWEIS is identified below, after

consideration of comments received

during the prescoping process. In

response to prescoping comments, a

discussion of the relationship between

programs and specific LANL operations

has been included in each preliminary

alternative description. Future programs

and activities will be determined based

on such factors as national needs,

scientific developments, budgets,

environmental impacts, the results of

NEPA reviews such as the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS) discussed below, and

other considerations. Thus, the program

discussions provided below are not allinclusive and are only examples for the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25699

facility operational levels described in

the alternatives. For each of the

alternatives discussed, waste

management/environmental restoration

activities, interim activities for nuclear

materials storage and handling, and

land requirements will be analyzed. The

environmental impacts of both facilities

and operations and cumulative sitewide operations will be assessed. DOE

will continue to conduct ongoing

activities as the SWEIS is being

prepared.

No Action

The No Action alternative would

continue current facility operations

throughout LANL in support of assigned

missions. NEPA regulations require

analysis of the No Action alternative to

provide a benchmark for comparison

with environmental effects of the other

alternatives. This alternative would

include ongoing and proposed activities

for which the NEPA reviews will have

been completed prior to completion of

the SWEIS. The current Waste

Management/Environmental Restoration

program plans (i.e., actions for which

NEPA review will have been completed)

will be reflected in this alternative,

including specific strategies to address

anticipated waste generated by facility

and restoration operations.

This alternative reflects the current

nuclear weapons program missions at

LANL. This includes support of

competence in nuclear weapons

component fabrication technologies;

nuclear weapons material processing to

support technology competence, process

development and improvement, and

safe, secure storage of the nuclear

material inventory; acceptance and

processing of neutron sources from offsite (from licensees such as universities

and corporations that no longer need

them); maintenance of the

hydrodynamic test program at projected

material throughputs; destructive

evaluation of plutonium components;

continued weapons and other research

and development operations using

accelerators; continued operations at the

Los Alamos Critical Experiments

Facility in support of existing missions;

and transportation and storage of

nuclear material at currently projected

levels.

Reduced Operation

This alternative would reflect a

reduction in facility operations from

those currently ongoing and planned.

For example, nuclear materials

processing activities would be reduced

and consolidated. Reduced shipments

and receipts of nuclear materials would

also be reflected under this alternative,

as would a reduced nuclear material

inventory over the time period under

analysis (as compared to inventory

projections under the other

alternatives). This alternative may

include some construction projects to

consolidate operations within existing

facilities, maintain existing facilities,

and replace existing facilities, if

necessary. Specific waste management

strategies would be developed to

address the types and quantities of

waste anticipated under this scenario.

These strategies would consider off-site

and on-site treatment and disposition

options.

The programmatic context for this

alternative is the maintenance of

existing missions at a reduced scope.

This alternative would be represented

by one or more of the following:

Maintenance of capability for fewer

weapon production technologies;

reduced nuclear materials processing

(only to support safe, secure storage of

the LANL inventory); support of only

existing commitments regarding the

processing of neutron sources from offsite; reduction in the materials

throughput for hydrodynamic and other

above ground weapon-related

experiments; destructive evaluation of

fewer plutonium components each year;

reduction in weapons and other

research and development use of

accelerators; a reduced inventory and

number of criticality experiments and

training courses at the Los Alamos

Critical Experiments Facility; and

reduced transportation and storage of

nuclear materials.

Expanded Operation

This alternative would reflect an

increase in facility operations to the

highest levels that can be supported by

current facilities, and would evaluate

those new facilities that are reasonably

foreseeable. This could require

construction projects to address safety,

security and environmental compliance

as well as to support reconfiguration of

facility equipment and operations to

optimize use of current facilities’

capabilities. This could also require

construction projects for reasonably

foreseeable new facilities. Specific

waste management strategies would be

developed to address the increased

types and quantities of waste

anticipated under this scenario,

considering off-site and on-site

treatment and disposition options.

These waste management strategies

would include alternative approaches to

accommodate the receipt of off-site

waste for treatment and disposal,

consistent with the Waste Management

PEIS discussed below.

The programmatic context for this

alternative is the continued support of

existing missions, and additional

missions which may be supported with

the capabilities and capacities inherent

in the existing facilities or which may

require new facilities. Such program

activities could include: low-level

production of weapon components;

increased throughput for nuclear

materials processing; increased support

of processing for off-site neutron

sources; increased materials throughput

for hydrodynamic and other test

activities; destructive analysis of

additional plutonium components each

year; increased use of accelerators in

support of weapons and other research

and development missions; additional

numbers and types of experiments at the

Los Alamos Critical Experiments

Facility; and increased transportation

and storage of nuclear materials.

Other Alternatives Considered

DOE had asked in the Advance Notice

of Intent whether analysis of an

alternative that would describe phasing

out all LANL operations and eventually

decommissioning all facilities would be

useful for comparison to ongoing

activities. In response, the DOE received

seven comments from the public. Four

of the comments supported analysis of

decontamination and decommissioning

for the entire site; two recommended

analysis of decontamination and

decommissioning for ‘‘nuclear’’ related

activities and one comment indicated

the decontamination and

decommissioning alternative was not

reasonable and should not be analyzed.

Of those supporting inclusion of a

decontamination and decommissioning

alternative, three appeared to support it

as a determinant of useful comparative

information and three advocated actual

shutdown and decommissioning of

some or all of LANL. The seven

responses were obtained both orally and

in writing from a population of over 500

comments from over 250 commentors.

DOE carefully considered these

comments. DOE also recognizes that

LANL has unique capabilities, diverse

roles supporting a variety of national

programs, and that there is an essential

near-term need to manage and maintain

the safety and stability of the existing

nuclear materials inventory.

Accordingly, in view of the limited

community interest and DOE’s view at

this time that a decision to shut down

LANL operations within the 5–10 year

timeframe of the SWEIS would be

highly unlikely, DOE plans not to

expend the time and money that would

be needed to analyze an alternative

involving an orderly shutdown during
25700 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

this period. The public is welcome to

comment further on this issue during

the scoping period.

Preliminary List of Issues To Be

Addressed

The SWEIS will describe the potential

environmental impacts of the

alternatives, using available data where

possible and obtaining additional data

where necessary. In accordance with the

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (40 CFR 1500.4 and

1502.21), other documents, as

appropriate, may be incorporated into

the impacts analyses by reference, in

whole or in part. The following

preliminary list of issues was identified

following the prescoping process. The

DOE specifically invites suggestions for

the addition or deletion of items on this

list.

1. Water resources, particularly

tritium in the groundwater and

radioactive particles in streams and the

Cochiti Reservoir.

2. Cultural resources, particularly

regarding Native American access to

land, flora of religious or medicinal

significance, and protection of

archeological and religious sites.

3. Air quality, particularly regarding

compliance with Federal and state laws,

and releases of radioactive and

hazardous materials due to LANL

operations.

4. Land use, particularly regarding use

of DOE land by the public, radioactive

contamination of the land, and burial of

radioactive and hazardous materials.

5. Biota, particularly the effects of

radioactive and hazardous releases on

elk and the food chain, threatened and

endangered species, and species of

special concern.

6. Transportation, particularly

regarding the risks of transporting

nuclear material on and off the LANL

site, and the need for integrating

emergency plans with state, tribal, and

local police and health organizations in

case of a nuclear material release during

transport.

7. Socioeconomics, particularly

regarding the economic impact of LANL

on the surrounding community.

8. Health effects, particularly

regarding incidence of cancer in

workers and the communities

surrounding LANL, and other health

effects on the public and workers.

9. Environmental justice, particularly

whether or not activities at LANL

disproportionately and adversely affect

minority or low-income populations.

10. Noise/aesthetics, particularly

regarding the visual, noise, and other

aesthetic impacts of LANL facilities and

operations on the surrounding

communities and potential uses of

adjacent land.

Additional issues raised by the public

during the prescoping process include:

• National security policy

(particularly the need for a nuclear

stockpile, the need for stockpile

stewardship, and the effect of LANL

operations on international nonproliferation);

• The goals of, and funding for,

environmental restoration;

• The transfer of land to Pueblos or to

Los Alamos County;

• Laboratory management

(particularly the responsiveness of

LANL management to community

concerns, the equity in LANL/DOE

outreach programs, the equity of salary

and hiring policies, encouragement of

independent ideas, the management of

LANL by the University of California,

and the non-profit status of LANL); and

• The credibility of the DOE and

LANL (reliability of information

provided by DOE and LANL, concerns

regarding the actual effect of public

input on DOE decisions, and a lack of

trust in the DOE to prepare the SWEIS

in accordance with the laws and

regulations).

While DOE considers these issues to

be outside the scope of the SWEIS, DOE

will attempt to address these concerns

in the process of interacting with the

public on the SWEIS and on other

issues, by answering questions posed

during the SWEIS process, directing

stakeholders to other reviews where

appropriate, providing requested

information (to the extent allowed by

laws and regulations), and explaining

how public comment and input is

considered in each step of the LANL

SWEIS process.

Related NEPA Reviews

Currently, the DOE is analyzing

several proposals for programmatic, sitespecific, and project-specific action that

affect LANL either directly or indirectly.

These analyses are being performed as

NEPA reviews in several programmatic,

site-wide, and project-specific EISs and

environmental assessments. The

summaries below are intended to

familiarize the reader with the purpose

of these other NEPA reviews and how

LANL is being considered in them.

Programmatic NEPA Reviews

The Waste Management PEIS [Notice

of Intent, 55 FR 42633, October 22,

1990; also see 60 FR 4607, January 24,

1995] (formerly called the

Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management PEIS) will analyze the DOE

plan to formulate and implement a

national integrated Waste Management

program. LANL is one of the alternative

sites proposed to store and process

transuranic radioactive waste and to

store, process, and provide on-site

disposal for low-level radioactive waste,

which may include material generated

at locations other than LANL. The waste

management analyses in the SWEIS will

address the facilities and operations

necessary to implement a waste

management strategy at LANL,

consistent with the Waste Management

PEIS.

The Nuclear Weapons Complex

Reconfiguration PEIS [revised Notice of

Intent, 59 FR 54175, October 28, 1994]

was separated into the Tritium Supply

and Recycling PEIS and the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management PEIS.

LANL is not an alternative site for the

Tritium Supply and Recycling PEIS.

However, the Stockpile Stewardship

and Management PEIS will analyze

changes in LANL’s role in weapons

research and development and may

analyze aspects of a LANL weapon

component production mission. Since

public scoping for the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management PEIS has

not yet been initiated, LANL’s role in

the alternatives for this PEIS cannot

now be predicted. The SWEIS is

intended to provide the site-specific

analysis for various levels of facility

operations that could support a variety

of program missions. The SWEIS will

address LANL facility operations that

are expected to be of primary interest to

the public and DOE in support of

potential future programs. In this

manner, DOE intends to integrate

programmatic analyses for the Stockpile

Stewardship and Management PEIS

with site-specific analyses of the SWEIS.

The Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management

Programs PEIS includes a programmatic

analysis of transporting, processing, and

storing spent nuclear reactor fuel

[Notice of Availability, Final EIS, 60 FR

20992, April 28, 1995]. LANL has

generated spent fuel and continues to

store this material pending the outcome

of programmatic decisions following the

spent fuel PEIS. The nuclear material

storage and handling analyses in the

SWEIS will address the continued

storage and potential disposition of this

fuel, consistent with this PEIS.

The DOE is preparing a Storage and

Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile

Materials PEIS [Notice of Intent, 59 FR

31985, June 21, 1994]. This PEIS will

analyze alternatives for the long-term

storage and disposition of surplus

nuclear materials, with the exception of

surplus highly enriched uranium, in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25701

order to minimize the risk of

proliferation of nuclear weapons

capability in the world. Phase I of the

project would be to provide safe,

controlled, inspectable interim storage

of nuclear materials. Phase II would be

long-term storage or disposition of

surplus material. Among other things,

this PEIS will analyze a new,

consolidated long-term storage facility

at five candidate sites (LANL is not a

candidate site), as well as continued use

of existing facilities for interim storage.

On April 5, 1995, DOE published a

Notice [65 FR 17344] amending the

scope of this PEIS by removing the

disposition of all surplus highly

enriched uranium. Instead, DOE will

prepare a separate EIS entitled

Disposition of Surplus Highly Enriched

Uranium. The scope of this EIS has not

yet finally been determined, because the

public scoping period only closed on

May 1, 1995. LANL now stores some

nuclear materials; since the SWEIS

addresses approximately a 10-year

period, it will analyze storage and

handling of current and projected

inventories prior to implementation of

the decisions from Weapons-Usable

Fissile Materials PEIS.

The DOE is preparing the Medical

Isotope Production at Sandia National

Laboratory/New Mexico and Los

Alamos National Laboratory

Environmental Assessment for the

proposal to produce medical isotopes

for medical applications such as

diagnostics and chemotherapy [EA

determination, November 15, 1994]. The

proposal involves irradiating targets in a

nuclear reactor at Sandia National

Laboratory, Albuquerque, processing the

material, and disposing of waste.

Alternatives involving LANL facilities

would only include fabricating targets at

the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research

Building and disposing of waste from

target fabrication at LANL waste

management areas. Target fabrication

and associated activities are ongoing at

LANL and as such, would be analyzed

in the SWEIS to provide environmental

impacts at a variety of operational

levels.

Ongoing LANL NEPA Reviews

The DOE is preparing an EIS for the

construction and operation of an

enhanced radiographic hydrodynamic

test facility at LANL. This EIS examines

the alternatives to support some of the

stockpile stewardship missions

currently assigned to LANL in the

absence of nuclear testing. The preferred

alternative is to complete and operate

the partially constructed Dual Axis

Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test

Facility. DOE expects that all or

portions of this EIS will be incorporated

by reference into the LANL SWEIS and

that the decisions from this EIS will be

reflected in the LANL No Action

alternative. The Record of Decision for

this EIS is scheduled for September

1995.

DOE had initiated or considered

several other environmental analyses for

specific proposed projects at LANL.

Those presented in the LANL SWEIS

Advance Notice of Intent are identified

in Table I, with a summary of comments

received on each project through the

prescoping process and the DOE

decision as to which project NEPA

reviews will proceed immediately,

which will be suspended for inclusion

in the SWEIS, and those which will be

deferred until after the SWEIS.

The results of the LANL project-level

NEPA reviews that will precede

completion of the SWEIS will be

addressed in the No Action alternative.

Projects for which NEPA reviews were

suspended for inclusion in the SWEIS

will be addressed in one or more

alternatives and their impacts will be

included in the cumulative impact

analysis. It is also likely that additional

projects will be proposed as the SWEIS

process continues; each proposal will be

reviewed to determine whether its

NEPA process should proceed

separately, should be included in the

SWEIS, or should be deferred until after

the SWEIS. The exact relationship

between specific proposed projects and

the SWEIS alternatives will be detailed

in the Draft SWEIS.

The SWEIS Preparation Process

After the scoping period, DOE will

prepare and publish the LANL SWEIS

Implementation Plan, which will be

placed in the Los Alamos National

Laboratory Community Reading Room

and the Atomic Museum Public Reading

Room, and made available to members

of the public upon request. This

document will describe the DOE’s plan

for preparing the SWEIS, based upon

the results of the scoping process. The

Implementation Plan will include the

revised alternatives and environmental

issues which were refined through the

scoping process, and will describe how

comments received in the scoping

process were considered in its

development.

The DOE intends to complete the

Draft EIS in early 1996 and will

announce its availability in the Federal

Register and through local media. The

DOE will hold public hearings to solicit

comments on the Draft EIS from the

public, organizations, and other

agencies, and will consider all

comments in the preparation of the

Final EIS. The DOE intends to complete

the Final EIS in December 1996.

DOE expects to issue the Record of

Decision in early 1997, but at least 30

days after a Notice of Availability of the

Final EIS is published in the Federal

Register.

Classified Material

DOE will review classified material

while preparing this SWEIS. Within the

limits of classification, DOE will

provide to the public as much

information as possible. Any classified

material DOE needs to use to explain

the purpose and need for action, or the

uses, materials, or impacts analyzed in

this SWEIS, will be segregated into a

classified appendix or supplement.

Signed in Washington, D.C., this 5th day of

May 1995, for the United States Department

of Energy.

Peter Brush,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,

Environment, Safety and Health.
25702 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

TABLE 1

Project ANOI recommendation Comments received Proceed with independent

NEPA review?

Radioactive Liquid

Waste Treatment Facility.

Suspend the NEPA review for this project

and address it in the SWEIS.

6 comments received. 4 concurred with

the recommendation; 1 asserted that the

existing treatment facility is thought to

be leaking; 1 questioned why this

project has to be in the SWEIS.

No—as long as the existing

system can operate safely, DOE intends to analyze this proposed replacement in the SWEIS.

Chemistry and Metallurgy Research

Building Upgrades.

Proceed immediately with the NEPA review for project actions for maintenance

of the existing infrastructure, for improved safety of operations to workers

and the public, for enhanced environmental management systems, and for

improved security. Other upgrades

should be suspended and addressed in

the SWEIS.

16 comments received. 5 concurred with

the recommendation; 5 indicated that

additional information was required to

develop a position on this subject; 3 indicated that DOE should pursue uses

for this facility and funding which can

better benefit society; and 3 opposed

any upgrades prior to the completion of

the SWEIS.

Yes—proceed with a review

of the subset of proposed

upgrades, as recommended in the ANOI.

Additional upgrades will

be analyzed in the

SWEIS.

High Explosives Materials Test Facility.Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

2 comments received. 1 concurred with

the recommendation, given limited information; 1 opposed this recommendation, proposing that it be covered in the

SWEIS.

No—the project has been

cancelled.

Isotope Separator Facility.Defer the NEPA review for this project

until after the SWEIS.

3 comments received. All 3 concurred with

the recommendation.

No—defer until after

SWEIS.

Low Energy Accelerator Laboratory.Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. All 3 opposed the

recommendation.

Environmental Assessment

has been completed and

a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued.

Nuclear Materials Storage Facility Upgrade.The NEPA review for upgrades that would

increase capacity should be suspended

and addressed in the SWEIS. Activities

to correct design deficiencies should

proceed based upon previous NEPA

documentation.

8 comments received. 3 concurred with

the recommendation; 3 indicated that

additional information was necessary regarding nuclear material storage at

LANL; 1 opposed storage of weapons

usable fissile materials of any kind; 1

opposed even repairs to this facility

pending completion of the SWEIS.

No—repair and operate up

to 6.6 metric tons; proposed capacity changes

will be addressed in the

SWEIS.

Safety Testing of Pits

under Thermal

Stress.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

4 comments received. 2 opposed the recommendation; 2 indicated that additional

information was necessary regarding the

benefits of this project.

No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.

Transuranic Waste

Drum Staging Building.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

2 comments received. Both opposed the

recommendation.

Yes—in order to support

staging of waste drums

generated by ongoing activities.

Weapons Components

Test Facility Relocation.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. 1 comment indicated concurrence with the recommendation; 1 comment indicated that

additional information on this project

was required; 1 comment indicated that

public opinion on this subject was moot

because the environmental assessment

had since been completed.

Environmental assessment

has been completed and

a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued.

Decontaminate, Decommission, and Demolish Building, TA–

33–86.

Suspend the NEPA review for this project

and address it in the SWEIS.

3 comments received. All 3 concurred with

the recommendation.

No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.

New Sanitary Landfill .. Suspend the NEPA review for this project

and address it in the SWEIS.

4 comments received. 3 concurred with

the recommendation; 1 requested that

more emphasis be placed on minimization of sanitary waste.

No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.

Actinide Source Term

Waste Test Program.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. 2 opposed the recommendation; 1 indicated that additional

information was required to reach an

opinion on this subject.

Environmental assessment

has been completed and

a Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25703

TABLE 1—Continued

Project ANOI recommendation Comments received Proceed with independent

NEPA review?

Controlled Air Incinerator Operations.Suspend the NEPA review for treatment

operations and address that in the

SWEIS; no recommendations were

made regarding the NEPA review for

the proposed trial burn.

17 comments received. 2 concurred with

the recommendation; 1 indicated that no

aspects of incinerator operations be included in the SWEIS; 2 indicated that

additional information on this subject

was required; 5 indicated concerns with

the impacts of incineration; 2 indicated

opposition to incineration of waste; 1 indicated that alternatives to incineration

should be examined with the same rigor

as applied to incineration; 1 indicated

LANL needs to obey all laws enacted

for public protection; 1 indicated the

need to study the environmental impacts

of the incinerator; and 2 indicated that

all incinerator activities (including the

trial burn) be suspended and included in

the SWEIS.

No—this subject, including

the trial burn, will be addressed in the SWEIS.

This process is being

placed on stand-by pending completion of the

SWEIS.

Expansion of Area G

Low-Level Waste

Disposal Area.

Suspend the NEPA review for this project

and address it in the SWEIS.

19 comments received. 5 concurred with

the recommendation; 4 indicated that

additional information was required on

this subject; 1 indicated that alternatives

to burial should be pursued; 3 indicated

concern regarding the scope and impact

of Area G expansion; 1 indicated that

environmental restoration waste should

be considered weapons-related waste; 1

indicated that LANL is not in full compliance with regulations; 4 indicated opposition to any expansion of Area G.

No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.

Hazardous Waste

Treatment Facility

and Mixed Waste

Receiving and Storage Facility.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. 2 opposed the recommendation; 1 indicated no opinion on

the recommendation.

Yes—to support near-term

programmatic requirements.

High Explosives

Wastewater Treatment Facility.

No initial recommendation was made regarding the NEPA review for this project.5 comments received. 1 comment requested that DOE proceed promptly

with NEPA documentation for this

project; 2 indicated that additional information was required on this subject; 2

requested that the NEPA documentation

for this project be suspended and addressed in the SWEIS.

Yes—to support near-term

objectives regarding

waste minimization and

management.

Mixed Waste Disposal

Facility.

No initial recommendation was made regarding the NEPA review for this

project. However, the DOE proposed to

proceed with an environmental assessment for the environmental restoration

waste only.

4 comments received. 1 concurred with

the DOE proposal; 3 opposed any action proceeding for this project prior to

completion of the SWEIS.

Yes—for support of the environmental restoration

program only. The use of

this facility for other waste

sources will be examined

in the SWEIS.

National Biomedical

Tracer Facility.

Defer the NEPA review for this project

until after the SWEIS is completed.

3 comments received. All 3 concurred with

the recommendation.

No—defer until after the

SWEIS.

Laundry ........................ Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. 2 opposed the recommendation; 1 indicated that this facility might benefit from analysis in the

SWEIS, but noted insufficient information to reach a clear decision.

No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.

Receipt and Storage of

Nuclear Material for

Criticality Experiment.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. All 3 opposed the

recommendation.

Yes—to support the programmatic need for this

material.

Hazardous Low-Level

Radioactive, and

Mixed Waste Treatment Skids.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. All 3 indicate support of the recommendation.Yes—to support near term

waste management program activities.

Replacement Waste

Compactor.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

5 comments received. All 5 indicate support of the recommendation.This proposed replacement

has been categorically excluded from further NEPA

review.

Radioisotope Heat

Source Fabrication.

Proceed with the NEPA review for this

project immediately.

3 comments received. All 3 indicate opposition to the recommendation.No—this subject will be addressed in the SWEIS.
25704 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

[FR Doc. 95–11806 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Monticello

Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Pub. L. 92–463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is

hereby given of the following Advisory

Board Committee Meeting:

Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Monticello

Site.

DATES AND TIMES: Tuesday, May 16, 1995

6:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Monticello City Hall,

Monticello, Utah 84535.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Audrey Berry, Public Affairs Specialist,

Department of Energy Grand Junction

Projects Office, P.O. Box 2567, Grand

Junction, CO, 81502 (303) 248–7727.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Board

The purpose of the Board is to advise

DOE and its regulators in the areas of

environmental restoration, waste

management, and related activities.

Tentative Agenda

The Environmental Management SiteSpecific Advisory Board, Monticello

Site, will be discussing issues related to

the reorganization of the advisory board.

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 Audrey Berry’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. This notice is

being published less than 15 days before

the date of the meeting, due to

programmatic issues that had to be

resolved prior to publication.

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 Independence Avenue,

SW, Washington, DC 20585 between

9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday,

except Federal holidays. Minutes will

also be available by writing to Audrey

Berry, Department of Energy Grand

Junction Projects Office, P.O. Box 2567,

Grand Junction, CO 81502, or by calling

her at (303)–248–7727.

Issued at Washington, DC on May 9, 1995.

Rachel M. Samuel,

Acting Deputy Advisory Committee

Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–11805 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Fossil Energy

[FE Docket No. 95–25–NG]

American Hunter Exploration Ltd.;

Order Granting Blanket Authorization

to Export Natural Gas to Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of

the Department of Energy gives notice

that it has issued an order granting

American Hunter Exploration Ltd.

authorization to export up to 100 Bcf of

natural gas to Canada over a two-year

term beginning on the date of the first

export delivery.

This order is available for inspection

and copying in the Office of Fuels

Programs Docket Room, 3F–056,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585,

(202) 586–9478. The docket room is

open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Issued in Washington, D.C., April 28, 1995.

Clifford P. Tomaszewski,

Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels

Programs, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 95–11804 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

[FE Docket No. 95–24–NG]

CoWest Energy; Order Granting

Blanket Authorization to Import and

Export Natural Gas From and to

Canada

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of order.

SUMMARY: The Office of Fossil Energy of

the Department of Energy gives notice

that it has issued an order granting

CoWest Energy blanket authorization to

import and export up to a combined

total of 400 Bcf of natural gas from and

to Canada over a two-year term

beginning on the date of first import or

export delivery.

This order is available for inspection

and copying in the Office of Fuels

Programs docket room, 3F–056,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

(202) 586–9478. The docket room is

open between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Issued in Washington, D.C., April 28, 1995.

Clifford P. Tomaszewski,

Director, Office of Natural Gas, Office of Fuels

Programs, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 95–11803 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. EG95–49–000, et al.]

Southern Electric Wholesale

Generators, Inc., et al.; Electric Rate

and Corporate Regulation Filings

May 5, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. Southern Electric Wholesale

Generators, Inc.

[Docket No. EG95–49–000]

On April 28, 1995, Southern Electric

Wholesale Generators, Inc. (‘‘SEWG’’),

900 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 500,

Atlanta, Georgia 30338, filed with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

an application for determination of

exempt wholesale generator status

pursuant to Part 365 of the

Commission’s Regulations.

SEWG is a Delaware corporation that

is engaged directly, or indirectly

through one or more affiliates as defined

in Section 2(a)(11)(B) of PUHCA, and

exclusively in the business of owning or

operating, or both owning and

operating, all or part of one or more

eligible facilities and selling electric

energy at wholesale. The Commission

previously has determined that SEWG is

an EWG.

SEWG intends to acquire 100% of the

voting securities of Southern Energy

Marketing, Inc. (‘‘SEMI’’). Concurrent

with the filing of this application, SEMI

has filed its own application for EWG

status. SEMI owns an interest in an

eligible facility consisting of a 222 MW

coal-fired cogeneration facility that is

presently under construction in King

George County, Virginia.

Comment date: May 26, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E