23010 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

centers. The commenter believes that by

working independently of schools, the

centers can better assist families who do

not feel connected with the schools and

provide families with the tools needed

to create change in the schools.

Discussion: The Secretary is not

requiring non-profit organizations to

apply in consortium with one or more

LEAs. However, the Secretary believes

that strengthening school-communityfamily partnerships will help children

in low-performing schools succeed in

school. Under the priority, the parent

centers still will have considerable

autonomy in designing proposals that

best meet local needs and in

coordinating with low-performing

schools in implementing comprehensive

strategies to assist children in these

schools. The Secretary notes that the

legislation explicitly supports consortia

of non-profit organizations and school

districts. The priority is designed to

encourage such consortia.

Changes: None.

Competitive Preference: Under 34

CFR 75.105(c)(2), the Secretary gives a

competitive preference in the FY 2001

competition under the Parental

Assistance Program. To receive this

preference, an applicant must—

(1) Consist of a consortium that

includes a non-profit organization and

one or more LEAs with low-performing

schools. The low-performing schools

must be schools identified as in need of

improvement under section 1116(c) of

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act of 1965, as amended.

(2) Propose to implement

comprehensive strategies designed to

strengthen school-family-community

partnerships in order to help children in

the low-performing schools reach

challenging academic standards. The

applicant must clearly describe the role

of the non-profit organization and the

LEA(s) in conducting these activities

with the low-performing schools.

(3) Provide documentation from the

identified low-performing schools

demonstrating that the schools will

cooperate and coordinate with the

applicant in implementing the proposed

activities.

An applicant that meets the

competitive preference will receive up

to 10 points in the competition. These

points are in addition to any points the

applicant earns under the selection

criteria. The number of points that will

be awarded will be determined on the

basis of how well the applicant

addresses the competitive preference.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rachael Couch, (202) 401–0039, U.S.

Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW., FOB 6, Room 3E243, Mail

Stop 6400, Washington, DC 20202. The

e-mail address for Ms. Couch is:

Rachael.couch@ed.gov.

Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–888–877–

8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternative

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed

above.

Individuals with disabilities may also

obtain a copy of the application package

in an alternative format on request to

the contact person listed. However, the

Department is not able to reproduce in

an alternative format the standard forms

included in the application package.

Electronic Access to This Document

You may view this document, as well

as other Department of Education

documents published in the Federal

Register, in text or Portable Document

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the

following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/

FedRegister

To use PDF you must have Adobe

Acrobat Reader, which is available free

at the preceding site. If you have

questions about using PDF, call the U.S.

Government Printing Office (GPO), toll

free, at 1–888–293–6498, or in the

Washington, DC area at (202) 512–1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 5911 et seq.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Thomas M. Corwin,

Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for

Elementary and Secondary Education.

[FR Doc. 01–11439 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Advance Notice of Intent To Prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement for

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

Conversion Facilities

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Advance notice of intent.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) is providing advance

notice of its intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

under the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) on the proposed

construction, operation, and

decontamination/decommissioning of

two depleted uranium hexafluoride

(DUF6) conversion facilities, at

Portsmouth, Ohio and Paducah,

Kentucky. DOE intends to use the

proposed facilities to convert its

inventory of DUF6 to a more stable

chemical form suitable for storage,

beneficial use or disposal.

Approximately 700,000 metric tons of

DUF6 in about 57,700 cylinders are

stored at DOE’s Paducah, Portsmouth,

and Oak Ridge, Tennessee, sites.

DOE is issuing this Advance Notice

pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.31(b) to inform

the public and interested parties early

about the proposed action, the range of

alternatives, and the nature of impact

analysis to be considered in the EIS.

DOE intends later to issue a formal

Notice of Intent (NOI) and conduct a

public scoping process during which

DOE will invite the public to comment

on the scope, proposed action, and

possible alternatives considered in the

EIS. DOE seeks comments on this

Advance Notice, and they can be

submitted as explained below.

DATES: DOE plans to issue the NOI later

this year. After the NOI is issued, DOE

will conduct public scoping meetings to

assist in defining the scope of the EIS

and to identify significant issues to be

addressed. The dates and locations of all

scoping meetings will be announced in

the NOI or subsequent Federal Register

notices and in local media before the

meetings.

ADDRESSES: Please direct comments or

suggestions on the scope of the EIS and

questions concerning the proposed

project to: Kevin Shaw, U.S. Department

of Energy, Office of Environmental

Management, Office of Site Closure—

Oak Ridge Office (EM–32), 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown,

Maryland 20874, fax (301) 903–2978, email DUF6.Comments@em.doe.gov

(please use ‘A–NOI Comments’ for the

subject).

For general information on the DOE

NEPA process, please contact Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Compliance, EH–42, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0119, telephone

(202) 586–4600 or leave a message at

(800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Depleted UF6 results from the process

of making uranium suitable for use as

fuel in nuclear reactors or for military

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23011

applications. The use of uranium in

these applications requires increasing

the proportion of the uranium-235

isotope found in natural uranium,

which is approximately 0.7% (by

weight), through an isotopic separation

process. A U–235 ‘‘enrichment’’ process

called gaseous diffusion has historically

been used in the United States. The

gaseous diffusion process uses uranium

in the form of UF6, primarily because

UF6 can conveniently be used in the gas

form for processing, in the liquid form

for filling or emptying containers, and

in the solid form for storage. Solid UF6

is a white, dense, crystalline material

that resembles rock salt.

Over the last five decades, large

quantities of uranium were enriched

using gaseous diffusion. ‘‘Depleted’’ UF6

(DUF6) is a product of the process and

was stored at the three uranium

enrichment sites located at Paducah,

Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; and the

East Tennessee Technology Park

(ETTP—formerly known as the K–25

Site) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Depleted

uranium is uranium that, through the

enrichment process, has been stripped

of a portion of the uranium-235 that it

once contained so that it has a lower

uranium-235 proportion than the 0.7

weight-percent found in nature. The

uranium in most of DOE’s DUF6 has

between 0.2 to 0.4 weight-percent

uranium-235.

DOE has management responsibility

for approximately 700,000 metric tons

(MT) of DUF6 contained in about 57,700

steel cylinders at the Portsmouth,

Paducah, and ETTP sites, where it has

stored such material since the 1950s.

The characteristics of UF6 pose potential

health and environmental risks. UF6

emits low levels of gamma and neutron

radiation. Also, when released to the

atmosphere, UF6 reacts with water

vapor in the air to form hydrogen

fluoride (HF) and uranyl fluoride

(UO2F2), both chemically toxic

substances. In light of such

characteristics, DOE stores UF6 in a

manner designed to minimize the risk to

workers, the public, and the

environment.

In October 1992, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

(OEPA) issued a Notice of Violation

(NOV) alleging that DUF6 stored at the

Portsmouth facility is subject to

regulation under state hazardous waste

laws applicable to the Portsmouth

Gaseous Diffusion Plant. The NOV

stated that OEPA had determined DUF6

to be a solid waste and that DOE had

violated Ohio laws and regulations by

not evaluating whether such waste was

hazardous. DOE disagreed with this

assessment, and in February 1998, DOE

and OEPA reached an agreement. This

agreement sets aside the issue of

whether the DUF6 is subject to Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act

regulation and institutes a negotiated

management plan governing the storage

of the Portsmouth DUF6. The agreement

also requires DOE to continue its efforts

to evaluate potential use or reuse of the

material. The agreement expires in

2008.

In 1994, DOE began work on the

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement for Alternative Strategies for

the Long-Term Management and Use of

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (DUF6

PEIS). The DUF6 PEIS was completed in

1999 and identified conversion of DUF6

to another chemical form for use or

long-term storage as part of a preferred

management alternative. In the

corresponding Record of Decision for

the Long-Term Management and Use of

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride (ROD)

(64 FR 43358, August 10, 1999), DOE

decided to promptly convert the DUF6

inventory to depleted uranium oxide,

depleted uranium metal, or a

combination of both. The ROD further

explained that depleted uranium oxide

will be used as much as possible and

the remaining depleted uranium oxide

will be stored for potential future uses

or disposal, as necessary. In addition,

according to the ROD, conversion to

depleted uranium metal will occur only

if uses are available.

During the time that DOE was

analyzing its long-term strategy for

managing the DUF6 inventory, several

other events occurred related to DUF6

management. In 1995, the Department

began an aggressive program to better

manage the DUF6 cylinders, known as

the DUF6 Cylinder Project Management

Plan. In part, this program responded to

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board (DNFSB) Recommendation 95–1,

Safety of Cylinders Containing Depleted

Uranium. This program included more

rigorous and frequent inspections, a

multi-year program for painting and

refurbishing of cylinders, and

construction of concrete-pad cylinder

yards. Implementation of the DUF6

Cylinder Project Management Plan has

been successful, and, as a result, on

December 16, 1999, the DNFSB closed

out Recommendation 95–1.

In February 1999, DOE and the

Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation (TDEC) entered into a

consent order which included a

requirement for the performance of two

environmentally beneficial projects: the

implementation of a negotiated

management plan governing the storage

of the small inventory (relative to other

sites) of all UF6 (depleted, low enriched,

and natural) cylinders stored at the

ETTP site, and the removal of the DUF6

from the ETTP site or the conversion of

the material by December 31, 2009.

In July 1998, the President signed

Public Law (Pub. L.) 105–204. This law

directed the Secretary of Energy to

prepare ‘‘a plan to ensure that all

amounts accrued on the books’’ of the

United States Enrichment Corporation

(USEC) for the disposition of DUF6

would be used to commence

construction of, not later than January

31, 2004, and to operate, an onsite

facility at each of the gaseous diffusion

plants at Paducah and Portsmouth, to

treat and recycle DUF6 consistent with

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA). DOE responded to Pub. L. 105–

204 by issuing the Final Plan for the

Conversion of Depleted Uranium

Hexafluoride (referred to herein as the

‘‘Conversion Plan’’) in July 1999. The

Conversion Plan describes DOE’s intent

to chemically process the DUF6 to create

products that would present both a

lower long-term storage hazard and

provide a material that would be

suitable for use or disposal.

DOE initiated the Conversion Plan

with the announced availability of a

draft Request for Proposals (RFP) on

July 30, 1999, for a contractor to design,

construct, and operate DUF6 conversion

facilities at the Paducah and Portsmouth

uranium enrichment plant sites. Based

on comments received on the draft RFP,

DOE revisited some of the assumptions

about management of the DUF6

inventory made previously in the PEIS

and ROD. For example, as documented

in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

study, Assessment of Preferred Depleted

Uranium Disposal Forms (ORNL/TM–

2000/161, June 2000), four potential

conversion forms (triuranium octoxide

(U308), uranium dioxide (U02), uranium

tetrafluoride (UF4), and uranium metal)

were evaluated and found to be

acceptable for near-surface disposal at

low-level radioactive waste disposal

sites such as those at DOE’s Nevada Test

Site and Envirocare of Utah, Inc.

Therefore, the RFP was modified to

allow for a wide range of potential

conversion product forms and process

technologies. However, any of the

proposed conversion forms must have

an assured, environmentally acceptable

path for final disposition.

On October 31, 2000, DOE issued a

final RFP to procure a contractor to

design, construct and operate DUF6

conversion facilities at the Paducah and

Portsmouth plant sites. The conversion

plants that result from this procurement

will convert the DUF6 to a more stable

chemical form that is suitable for either

beneficial use or disposal. The selected

23012 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices

contractor will design the conversion

plants using the technology it proposes

and construct the plants. The selected

contractor also will operate the plants

for a five-year period, which will

include maintaining depleted uranium

and product inventories, transporting all

uranium hexafluoride storage cylinders

in Tennessee to a conversion plant at

Portsmouth, as appropriate, and

transporting converted product for

which there is no use to a disposal site.

The selected contractor will be expected

to prepare excess material for disposal

at an appropriate site. DOE is evaluating

the five proposals it received and

anticipates awarding a contract during

the first quarter of 2002. Since the site

specific NEPA process will not be

completed prior to contract award, the

contract will be structured such that the

NEPA process will be completed in

advance of a go/no-go decision. (See

NEPA Process below.)

Purpose and Need for Agency Action

DOE needs to convert its inventory of

DUF6 to a more stable chemical form for

storage, use or disposal. This need

follows directly from the decision

presented in the August 1999 Record of

Decision for Long-Term Management

and Use of Depleted Uranium

Hexafluoride, namely to begin

conversion of the DUF6 inventory as

soon as possible.

This EIS will assess the potential

environmental impacts of constructing,

operating and decontaminating/

decommissioning DUF6 conversion

facilities at the Portsmouth and Paducah

sites, as well as other reasonable

alternatives. The EIS will aid

decisionmaking on DUF6 conversion by

evaluating the environmental impacts of

the range of reasonable alternatives, as

well as providing a means for public

input into the decisionmaking process.

The Department is committed to

ensuring that the public has ample

opportunity to participate in this

review.

Preliminary Alternatives

Below is a preliminary list of

alternatives to be considered in the EIS.

This list of alternatives is subject to

modifications in response to comments

received during the public scoping

process.

Preferred Alternative. Under the

preferred alternative, two conversion

facilities would be built: One at the

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant site

and another at the Portsmouth Gaseous

Diffusion Plant site. The cylinders

currently stored at the ETTP site near

Oak Ridge, Tennessee, would be

transported to Portsmouth for

conversion. The conversion products

(i.e., depleted uranium as well as

fluorine components produced during

the conversion process) would be

stored, put to beneficial uses, or

disposed of at an appropriate disposal

facility. This alternative is consistent

with the Conversion Plan, which DOE

submitted to Congress in July 1999, in

response to Pub. L. 105–204.

Technology subalternatives for the

preferred alternative will include those

technology processes identified in

response to the final RFP for DUF6

conversion services, plus any other

technologies that DOE believes must be

considered. (Technologies specify the

processes used for conversion and the

products of conversion.) Local siting

subalternatives for building and

operating conversion facilities within

the Paducah and Portsmouth plant

boundaries will be considered. Timing

options, such as staggering the start of

the construction and operation of the

two conversion facilities, will also be

considered for the preferred alternative.

One Conversion Plant Alternative. An

alternative of building and operating

only one conversion facility at either the

Portsmouth or the Paducah site will be

considered. This plant could differ in

size or production capacity from the two

proposed for Portsmouth and Paducah.

Technology and local siting

subalternatives will be considered as

with the preferred alternative.

Use of Existing UF6 Conversion

Capacity Alternative. DOE will consider

using already-existing UF6 conversion

capacity at commercial nuclear fuel

fabrication facilities in lieu of

constructing one or two new conversion

plants. DOE is currently evaluating the

feasibility of using existing conversion

capacity, although no expression of

interest has been received from such

facilities.

No Action Alternative. Under the ‘‘no

action’’ alternative, cylinder

management activities (handling,

inspection, monitoring, and

maintenance) would continue the

‘‘status quo’’ at the three current storage

sites indefinitely, consistent with the

DUF6 Cylinder Project Management

Plan and the consent orders, which

includes actions needed to meet safety

and environmental requirements.

Where applicable under the

alternatives listed above, transportation

options, such as truck, rail, and barge,

will be considered for shipping DUF6

cylinders to a conversion facility and

conversion products to a storage or

disposal facility. Also, for each

technology alternative, alternatives for

conversion products, including storage,

use, and disposal at one or more

disposal sites, will be considered.

Further, DOE would appreciate

comments regarding whether there are

additional siting alternatives for one or

more new conversion facilities that

should be considered.

Preliminary Environmental Analysis

This EIS represents the second level

of a tiered environmental review

process being used to evaluate and

implement the DUF6 management

program. Tiering refers to the process of

first addressing general (programmatic)

matters in a PEIS followed by more

narrowly focused (project level)

environmental review that incorporates

by reference the more general

discussions. The DUF6 PEIS, issued in

April 1999, was the first level of this

tiered approach.

The DUF6 PEIS addressed the

potential environmental impacts of

broad strategy alternatives, including

analyses of the general impacts of (1)

continued storage of DUF6 at DOE’s

current storage sites, (2) technologies for

converting the DUF6 to other chemical

forms, (3) storage of conversion

products for subsequent use or disposal,

(4) use of conversion products, (5)

transportation of materials, and (6)

disposal. The ROD for the DUF6 PEIS

declared DOE’s decision to promptly

convert the DUF6 inventory to a more

stable chemical form. This tiered EIS

will address specific issues associated

with the implementation of the DUF6

PEIS ROD.

NEPA Process

The EIS for the proposed project will

be prepared pursuant to the NEPA of

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA

Regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500—1508),

and DOE’s NEPA Implementing

Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021).

Following the publication of the Notice

of Intent, DOE will hold scoping

meetings, prepare and distribute the

draft EIS for public review, hold public

hearings to solicit public comment on

the draft EIS, and publish a final EIS.

Not less than 30 days after the

publication of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Notice of

Availability of the final EIS, DOE may

issue a ROD documenting its decision

concerning the proposed action.

In addition to the above steps, DOE

will consider environmental factors in

selecting a contractor for the conversion

services through the procurement

process, including preparation of an

environmental critique and synopsis

pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.216. The

environmental critique will evaluate the

environmental data and information

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Notices 23013

submitted by each offeror and will be

subject to the confidentiality

requirements of the procurement

process. DOE will prepare a publicly

available environmental synopsis, based

on the environmental critique, to

document the consideration given to

environmental factors in the contractor

selection process. The environmental

synopsis will be filed with the EPA and

will be incorporated into the EIS. In

accordance with 10 CFR 1021.216(i),

since the NEPA process will not be

completed prior to contract award, the

contract will be structured to allow the

NEPA review process to be completed

in advance of a go/no-go decision.

Preliminary Identification of EIS Issues

DOE intends to address the following

issues when assessing the potential

environmental impacts of the

alternatives in this EIS. Potential

environmental impacts will be

evaluated for the site-specific conditions

found at the Portsmouth, Paducah, and

ETTP sites, and at other sites, as

appropriate. DOE invites comment on

these and any other issues that should

be addressed in the EIS:

—Potential effects on the public and

workers from exposure to radiological

and hazardous materials from normal

operations and reasonably foreseeable

accidents at the sites and during

transportation of DUF6 cylinders and

conversion products between sites.

—Potential effects on air, soil, ecological

resources, water quality and cultural

resources.

—Potential socioeconomic impacts

associated with the workforce needed

for construction and operations, and

environmental justice issues.

—Compliance with applicable Federal,

state, local requirements and

agreements.

—Pollution prevention, waste

minimization, and energy and water

use reduction technologies to

eliminate or reduce use of energy,

water, and hazardous substances and

to minimize environmental impacts.

—Potential impacts on local and DOEwide waste management capabilities.

—Potential impacts on available

resources, including land, materials,

and energy.

—Potential cumulative impacts of the

past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions (including

impacts resulting from the activities

of the United States Enrichment

Corporation).

—Potential irreversible and irretrievable

commitment of resources.

—Relationship between short-term use

of the environment and long-term

productivity.

Related NEPA Reviews

Final Programmatic Environmental

Impact Statement for Alternative

Strategies for the Long-Term

Management and Use of Depleted

Uranium Hexafluoride (DOE/EIS–0269,

April 1999); Final Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement for Managing Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal of Radioactive

and Hazardous Waste (DOE/EIS–0200–

F, May 1997); Disposition of Surplus

Highly Enriched Uranium, Final

Environmental Impact Statement (DOE/

EIS–0240, June 1996); Environmental

Assessment for the Refurbishment of

Uranium Hexafluoride Cylinder Storage

Yards C–745–K, L, M, N, and P and

Construction of a New Uranium

Hexafluoride Cylinder Storage Yard (C–

745–T) at the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant, Paducah, Kentucky

(DOE/EA–1118, July 1996);

Environmental Assessment for DOE Sale

of Surplus Natural and Low Enriched

Uranium (DOE/EA–1172, October 1996);

and Environmental Assessment for the

Lease of Land and Facilities within the

East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee (DOE/EA–1175, 1997).

Scoping Meetings

The purpose of this Advance Notice is

to inform the public and interested

parties early about DOE’s plans to

prepare an EIS for proposed DUF6

conversion facilities and to encourage

early public involvement in the EIS

process. DOE intends to hold public

scoping meetings in Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and

Portsmouth, Ohio, to solicit both oral

and written comments from interested

parties. The dates and times of such

meetings will be announced in the NOI,

which DOE plans to issue later this year,

or in subsequent Federal Register

notices and in local media before the

meetings.

Signed in Washington, DC, this 1st day of

May, 2001.

Steven V. Cary,

Acting Assistant Secretary, Office of

Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 01–11384 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste

Management; Yucca Mountain Science

and Engineering Report; Site

Recommendation Consideration and

Request for Comment

AGENCY: Office of Civilian Radioactive

Waste Management, Department of

Energy.

ACTION: Notice of availability of report

and initiation of public comment

period.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(the Department or DOE) announces the

initiation of a public comment period

on the possible recommendation of the

Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada by the

Secretary of Energy to the President for

development as a spent nuclear fuel and

high-level nuclear waste geologic

repository. To facilitate the public

review and comment process, the

Department announces today the

availability of the Yucca Mountain

Science and Engineering Report

(YMS&ER). This report provides the

public with a summary of the

information and data collected to date

by the Department in its multi-year

study and characterization of the Yucca

Mountain site as a potential spent

nuclear fuel and high-level waste

repository. A decision to recommend

the site has not been made; the YMS&ER

is being issued to describe the results of

site characterization studies completed

to date, the waste forms to be disposed,

a repository and waste package design,

and updated assessments of the long

term performance of the potential

repository. The Department intends for

the YMS&ER, and its supporting

documents, to be used by the public as

an aid in providing comments on the

technical information and data

underlying the Department’s

consideration of a possible

recommendation of the site. This

summer, after the release of additional

information, DOE will announce the

dates, locations and times for public

hearings on the possible

recommendation and the date for the

end of the public comment period. In

addition, in recognition of the fact that

technical and scientific analyses are

continuing, and that the pertinent

regulatory framework is not currently in

final form, the issuance of additional

information, beyond that anticipated for

release this summer, may be warranted.

By making the large amount of

information developed by the

Department on the Yucca Mountain site

available in stages, the Department

intends to provide the public and

interested parties with ample time to

review all the available materials and

formulate their comments regarding a

possible site recommendation by the

Secretary.

DATES: The public may submit written

comments at this time. DOE will issue

additional information this summer and

will at that point announce the dates,

locations and times of public hearings