2244 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

contaminated process residues, sludges,

and particulates to satisfy RCRA

requirements.

29. Trace metal removal—Techniques

are needed to meet wastewater

discharge permit requirements (e.g.

0.001mg/L cadmium, 0.003 mg/L lead,

and 0.004 mg/L silver) while

minimizing secondary waste generation.

30. Supercritical CO2—Techniques

are needed to minimize pretreatment to

adequately prepare the wastes for

supercritical CO2 extraction so that the

organics can be removed, and the wastes

can be fed and removed from the

supercritical environment while

maintaining radionuclide containment.

The MWFA desires a list of interested

parties who have technology available

to address one or more of the technology

deficiency areas. This includes

technology that may need to be

demonstrated in a radioactive

environment on DOE mixed waste to

verify its applicability. The MWFA also

desires a list of parties interested in

participating in cooperative research

and development leading to

demonstration of technologies. A

document with more detailed

descriptions of the deficiencies can be

obtained by accessing the Mixed Waste

Focus Area home page on the internet

at ‘‘http://wastenot.inel.gov/mwfa,’’ or

by calling the Mixed Waste Focus Area,

208–526–7575. From the MWFA home

page, simply push the button for ‘‘News

and Events.’’ Interested parties are asked

to submit a contact name and address

plus a brief description of existing

technology or of capabilities for

conducting research and development

(R&D) to Jihad Aljayoushi, U.S.

Department of Energy, 850 Energy

Drive, MS 1118, Idaho Falls, ID 83401–

1563. Written expressions of interest

should not include detailed proposals or

proprietary data, but should include the

name, address, telephone number, and

facsimile (fax) number of the primary

contact person. Submittals should be as

brief as practical (e.g., should not

exceed five pages). To assist in the

‘‘Organizational Conflicts of Interest’’

determinations, all submittals are

required to disclose business

affiliations, partners for proposed

teaming arrangements, sister

organizations, etc. To assist in the SBA

determinations all submittals are

required to disclose business size and

type. Written expressions of interest

should be received on or before

February 20, 1996. This announcement

is for expressions of interest only, and

is not associated with any specific

funding opportunity, solicitation,

procurement, assistance award, etc.

Procurement Request Number: Not

Applicable.

Dated: January 17, 1996.

R. Jeffrey Hoyles,

Director, Procurement Services Division.

[FR Doc. 96–1199 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Advisory Committee on External

Regulation of Department of Energy

Nuclear Safety

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of release of Committee’s

final report.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

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

hereby given of the release of the Final

Report of the Advisory Committee on

External Regulation of Department of

Energy Nuclear Safety entitled

Improving the Regulation of Safety at

DOE Nuclear Facilities, which was

submitted to the Secretary of Energy,

and to the White House Office of

Management and Budget and the

Council on Environmental Quality on

January 19, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Copies of the Report are available from

the following sources:

• Calling (toll free) 1–800–736–3282

through January 31, 1996

• Environment, Safety, and Health

Information Center, EH–72, CXXI–

20030, USDOE, 19901 Germantown

Road, Germantown MD 20874–1290 (1–

800–473–4375) after February 1, 1996.

• The Internet World Wide Web at:

http://www.em.doe.gov/acd/index.html

• The National Technical Information

Service, U.S. Department of Commerce,

5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA

22161 (prices and information available

from 703–487–4650)

• DOE and DOE contractors from the

Office of Scientific and Technical

Information, P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge TN

37831 (prices and information available

from 615–576–8401).

• All Department of Energy Freedom

of Information Act Reading Rooms.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Committee’s Final Report presents a

number of recommendations to

strengthen both the regulation and the

assurance of safety at DOE nuclear

facilities. Three recommendations are

fundamental: (1) Essentially all aspects

of safety at DOE’s nuclear facilities and

sites should be externally regulated; (2)

existing agencies rather than a new one

should be responsible for external

regulation; and (3) under any regulatory

scheme, DOE must maintain a strong

internal safety management system.

Along with recommendations for

external regulation, the Report contains

a summary of the current state of the

DOE complex and its missions,

recommendations on issues that must be

addressed for any successful regulatory

scheme, and recommended actions to

achieve an effective internal system and

a well-managed transition. Additional

information is available in the

Appendices and References volumes of

the Final Report.

The Committee’s charter was to

provide advice, information, and

recommendations on whether and how

new and existing Department of Energy

(DOE) nuclear facilities and operations,

except those operations covered under

Executive Order 12344 (Naval

Propulsion Program), should be

externally regulated to ensure safety.

The Department currently self-regulates

many aspects of nuclear safety, pursuant

to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended. The Committee consisted of

24 members drawn from a cross section

of public, Federal, State, Tribal,

industrial, and academic sectors,

representing a diversity of expertise.

The Committee was co-chaired by John

F. Ahearne, Lecturer in Public Policy,

Duke University and Executive Director

of Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research

Society, and Gerard F. Scannell,

President of the National Safety

Council.

Issued at Washington, DC on January 19,

1996.

Thomas H. Isaacs,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–1204 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

[FE Docket No. PP–89]

Record of Decision for Issuance of

Presidential Permit; Bangor HydroElectric Company

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision: Presidential

Permit PP–89, Bangor Hydro-Electric

Company; construction of an

international electrical interconnection.

SUMMARY: Bangor Hydro applied to the

DOE for a Presidential permit to

construct a new electric transmission

facility at the U.S. border with Canada.

That action was determined to be ‘‘a

major federal action, significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment’’ within the meaning of

NEPA. An EIS was issued on August 18,

1995, that considered the environmental

impacts associated with granting or

denying the Presidential permit. This
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2245

ROD determined that allowing

construction of the new electric

facilities along alternative transmission

line corridors and the options for

alternative energy supplies discussed in

the EIS did not prove preferable to

granting the Presidential permit for

construction along the proposed route.

DATES: January 25, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of

Presidential Permit PP–89 or DOE/EIS–

0166 may be submitted to: Mr. Anthony

J. Como, U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Fossil Energy (FE–52), 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585–0350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anthony Como (Program Office) 202–

586–5935 or Carol M. Borgstrom (NEPA

process) 202–586–4600 or 1–800–472–

2756.

Record of Decision

On December 16, 1988, the Bangor

Hydro-Electric Company (BHE) filed an

application with the Department of

Energy (DOE) for a Presidential permit

pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as

amended by Executive Order 12038, to

construct, connect, operate, and

maintain a new international

transmission line interconnection with

New Brunswick, Canada. The proposed

new interconnection, referred to as

Bangor Hydro-Electric Company’s

Second 345-kV Transmission Tie Line

to New Brunswick, would cross the U.S.

International border near Baileyville,

Maine, and extend to an existing

substation at Orrington, Maine. In the

application, the BHE described the U.S.

portion of the proposed line as 83.8

miles in length.

The new transmission line is needed

to complement and share electrical load

with the existing 345-kV

interconnection owned and operated by

the Maine Electric Power Company. The

line is needed to reduce transmission

losses on the existing tie line, increase

the opportunities for economic power

transactions between New England and

New Brunswick, help meet projected

load growth in the New England region,

and increase the capacity benefits of the

transmission ties with New Brunswick.

This would result in a general increase

in electric system reliability for the New

England region. Overall, the annual net

savings could range from about $21.6

million (24 MW conserved, 50 MW

average increased economy, and 25 MW

additional reserves sharing) to more

than $87 million (24 MW conserved,

150 MW average increased economy,

and 300 MW additional reserves

sharing).

In reviewing this application the DOE

determined that granting the

Presidential permit for the proposed

interconnection would constitute ‘‘a

major federal action, significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment’’ within the meaning of

NEPA. Consequently, the DOE has

prepared an EIS to assess the

environmental impacts associated with

granting or denying the permit.

In October 1993, the DOE published

and distributed about 336 copies of a

draft EIS to interested individuals and

agencies. Following this distribution,

public hearings to obtain comments on

the draft EIS were held in Bradley and

Woodland, Maine, January 10 - 11,

1994. One speaker presented comments

at the public hearings, and DOE

received 33 written comments from

individuals during the 72-day public

comment period. Substantive comments

and responses associated with the draft

EIS are presented in the final EIS. No

comments were received on the final

EIS.

Basis For Decision

In compliance with the provisions of

NEPA, the DOE prepared an EIS to

address the environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action and

its alternatives. The EIS discusses in

detail construction activities (including

clearing and control of vegetation), loss

or alteration of wildlife habitat,

displacement and disturbance of

wildlife, disturbance of aquatic

resources, releases of gaseous pollutants

and dust, and disruption of agricultural

and forestry activities. The EIS also

discusses in detail, the potential

environmental impacts resulting from

operation and maintenance of the

transmission facilities (including the

collision of birds with structures), visual

impacts of additional lines within the

transmission line corridor, and possible

health and safety effects in close

proximity to the electromagnetic fields

associated with the proposed line. To

minimize impacts to the extent

practicable, BHE has committed to a

variety of mitigation actions to protect

the environment. These procedures are

presented in the EIS. The information

presented in the EIS indicates that the

issuance of the Presidential permit

would result in minor incremental

impacts to the environment.

Accordingly, based on the analysis in

the EIS, the DOE finds that any

environmental impacts resulting from

construction activities would be

minimal and of short duration.

Description of Alternatives and Their

Environmental Impacts

On August 18, 1995, DOE issued a

final EIS titled, ‘‘Environmental Impact

Statement for Construction and

Operation of the Proposed Bangor

Hydro-Electric Company’s Second 345-

kV Transmission Tie Line to New

Brunswick,’’ DOE/EIS–0166. Section 2

of this document contains analyses of

the following alternatives considered by

DOE in reaching its decision to grant

Presidential Permit PP–89:

1. Grant the Presidential permit as

requested.

2. Grant the Presidential permit but

require the use of alternative

transmission corridors and designs

(three alternative transmission line

corridors were considered).

3. Take no action — deny the

Presidential permit request. Under this

alternative, it is assumed that the

applicant would have two additional

alternatives:

(a) Do not implement alternative

supply or demand measures (maintain

the status quo).

(b) Implement energy supply

alternatives, such as: hydroelectric,

natural gas, nuclear, solar, wind, fuel

conversion, cogeneration, conservation

and load management, and utility

purchases and exchanges.

The DOE evaluated two alternative

transmission line routes: the Proposed

Route and the Existing-line Route. The

Proposed Route was found to be

environmentally preferable to the

Existing-line Route. Two other

alternatives, the Straight-line Route and

the Route 9 Route, were considered but

eliminated as viable alternatives.

Proposed Route: The proposed route

is also referred to as the Stud Mill Road

route because much of the line would be

located near Stud Mill Road, an existing

timber haul road jointly owned and

maintained by Georgia-Pacific

Corporation and Champion

International Incorporated. The first

71.6 miles of the proposed line (starting

at the crossing of the St. Croix River)

would be in a new 170-ft-wide right-ofway. For the remaining 12.2 miles of the

route, the new line would share rightof-way space with the Maine Electric

Power Company’s existing 345-kV

interconnection and other lines.

For the proposed route, the estimated

amount of existing vegetation directly

impacted is 1,623 acres. The

unavoidable adverse impacts would

include: (1) Conversion of 1,450 acres of

forest to areas with small trees, shrubs,

and grassland for the duration of the

operation of the transmission line,

thereby preventing one or two
2246 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

commercial cycles of timber cutting

within the corridor; (2) about 1,185

acres of existing upland forest habitat

would be cleared; (3) most of about 268

acres of forested wetlands within the

proposed right-of-way would be

modified to scrub/shrub wetlands; and

(4) visual interruption at river crossings.

Existing-Line Route: The Existing-Line

Route is 106 miles in length and would

generally parallel the existing 345-kV

line right-of-way, crossing the

international border at Orient, Maine,

extending parallel to the existing route

to Chester, Maine, and then to the

Orrington substation. Because of the

presence of several sensitive

environmental areas (e.g., extensive

wetlands), this route would require

several diversions from the existing

right-of-way. The six staging areas

required for this route include Bradley,

Enfield, T2/R8 N.W.P., Mattawamkeag,

Glenwood, and Orient.

Unavoidable adverse impacts

associated with the Existing-Line Route

would include: (1) About 1,845 acres of

forest would be cleared; (2) an estimated

2,081 acres of existing vegetation would

be directly impacted; (3) a total of 150

houses would be located within 600 ft

of the centerline of the route, about 1.5

times greater than those of the proposed

route; (4) construction areas would be

closer to a larger population; (5) the

likelihood of bald eagles colliding with

the transmission lines would be greater

because there would be two crossings of

the Penobscot River, as compared with

only one crossing of the St. Croix River

by the proposed route.

Straight-Line Route: The Straight-Line

Route would be 115 miles, crossing the

international border just north of

Kellyland, Maine, and the Grand Falls

Flowage in Fowler Township, Maine.

The route would travel northwest to the

Topsfield, Maine, area and then west to

Lee, Maine. The line would then

proceed northwest to Chester, where it

would parallel the existing 345-kV line

to the Orrington substation.

The Straight-Line Route was

eliminated from consideration as a

viable alternative because the route

would (1) cross extensive areas of

wetlands, including Dead Man Stream;

(2) pass through more populated areas

along Routes 2 and 6; (3) cross Route 6

in several places and be more visually

intrusive than the other routes; (4) pass

through relatively undisturbed areas of

forest that contain few roads; (5) pass

near or through a series of white cedar

swamps in Lee, Springfield, and Carroll

that contain rare plants; (6) pass the

southern edge of the large flowage area

at Baskahegan Stream called Middle

Deadwater; (7) cross the Grand Falls

Flowage on the St. Croix River in an

area of active bald eagle nesting; and (8)

likely be the cause of a number of

landowner constraints along the length

of the corridor.

Route 9 Route: The Route 9 Route

would be 83 miles in length and would

cross the international border in

Woodland, Maine. It would generally

parallel the major east-west highway

between Bangor and Calais. This route

was eliminated as a viable alternative

because: (1) Several major crossings of

Route 9 would be required, possibly in

sections designated as scenic highway;

(2) river crossings of the south-flowing

St. Croix, Machias, Narraguagus, and

Union rivers would be more difficult

and extensive because these locations

are the widest (as compared with other

alternative routes); (3) the Maine

Department of Transportation is

planning significant reconstruction of

Route 9, possibly involving substantial

rerouting of the road, thus, making it

more difficult to locate the transmission

line; (4) several lakes and large wetlands

would probably have to be traversed or

would likely force significant route

changes, especially at Whalesback

(Union River), Mopang Lake, Crawford

Lake, and Meddybemps Lake; (5) the

corridor is more hilly and rugged

(particularly west of the Machias River)

than the other alternative routes, making

(for example) construction more

difficult and increasing the potential for

erosion; and (6) more individual

property owners (as compared with the

other alternative routes) would be

involved, thereby complicating the

routing of the corridor.

Take No Action: Under the No Action

Alternative, the DOE would not issue a

Presidential permit for the proposed

interconnection, and the transmission

line would not be constructed. BHE

would have to develop other sources of

energy to meet increases in demand for

electricity. The ‘‘no action’’ alternative

would not provide the needed

generating capacity and would result in

greater degradation of air quality as a

result of the continued use of fossil fuels

for generation of electricity.

Energy Supply Alternatives: If the

DOE were to deny the Presidential

permit, BHE could take other actions to

meet future demand for electricity, such

as identifying supply alternatives and/or

implementing demand-side options.

However, among the alternatives

available to BHE, none were considered

viable alternatives to the proposed

action.

One alternative would be construction

of a new central-station, non-oil-fired

generating plant. Candidate plant types

would be hydroelectric, natural gas,

nuclear, and coal-fired. BHE is currently

attempting to license several

hydroelectric projects within its service

territory. Additional hydroelectric

development beyond that currently

proposed would not be viable because

of the limited number of sites remaining

for such development. The availability

of natural gas for generating facilities is

quite limited in Maine. Natural gas is

being imported from Canada, but not in

sufficient quantities to generate power

at a utility scale.

The time required to license and build

a new nuclear plant is 10–15 years and

the average lead time for a new coalfired plant is 8 years. Therefore, such

alternative facilities could not be placed

in service until the year 2003 or later.

In addition, these alternatives would

have similar environmental impacts as

the proposed action because

construction of additional domestic

transmission lines would be required in

order to deliver energy to the region.

The use of nonconventional

generating facilities such as fuel

substitution, solar-, wind-, and biomasspowered facilities of the size required to

meet the energy supply level of the

proposed interconnection are not

considered reasonable alternatives.

Commercial-scale developments of the

size comparable to the proposed project

are not feasible for the near future.

The increased use of cogeneration and

small power production (CSPP) was not

considered to be a viable alternative to

the proposed action because reliability

of supply, operational problems, and

financial stability make reliance on

these sources undesirable over the longterm. CSPP’s are generally

nondispatchable (i.e., BHE does not

have the contractual option to shut

down those resources when it is

economical to do so). Furthermore, BHE

does not have complete control over

when, where, or if these alternative

supply sources are developed.

In some cases, BHE’s transmission

system would need upgrading to handle

the interconnection with the CSPPs.

In evaluating the suitability of energy

conservation and load management

(shifting of energy consumption from

on-peak to off-peak hours), BHE

estimates an 11% peak reduction by the

year 2000. While load management will

continue to reduce energy demand,

expected growth rates for electricity

consumption are projected to be high

enough to require additional generating

capacity in the New England region

within the next 5 to 10 years.

Several members of the New England

Power Pool (NEPOOL) already purchase

power from other sources; however, to

be considered a viable alternative, a
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2247

potential source must be able to provide

NEPOOL with energy and/or capacity

benefits which are comparable to those

provided by the proposed tie-line. Such

purchases would not be possible from

existing sources. In addition, the New

York Power Pool (NYPP), a contiguous

utility system that is a potential source

of purchased power for NEPOOL

members, is a competitor of NEPOOL

for the energy available in Canada and

the coal-fired energy in the midwestern

United States. Therefore, purchase of

power from NYPP was not considered a

viable alternative to the proposed

project.

The Midwest is another potential

source of purchased power because of

its surplus of non-oil-fired capacity.

Factors that precluded consideration of

this source as a viable alternative to the

proposed action are as follows:

• Load and capacity projections

indicate that the present capacity

surpluses would not last long enough to

sustain a firm energy sale to NEPOOL

through the 1990s.

• Any available surpluses are likely

to be purchased by utilities in regions

with existing direct transmission

connections.

• Any power purchased must flow

through the central New York State and

Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland

(PJM) systems. The transmission

systems in these areas are already

heavily used and could not readily

withstand the additional load imposed

by transmitting midwestern energy to

New England.

• The construction of additional

transmission lines through New York or

the states of the PJM systems could

encounter various regulatory, legal, and

environmental obstacles that could

prevent or delay implementation and

raise the final cost of the energy.

Installing the transmission line

underground and alternative structure

designs were also considered. The

environmental impacts and construction

costs of installing the transmission line

underground would be greater than

those for the proposed project, and the

reliability would be lower than that of

an overhead system. The wood H-frame

structure was chosen largely because of

economic considerations, and because

the impacts caused by most structure

types would be similar. The primary

impacts associated with an underground

system that precluded it from

consideration as a viable alternative

included (1) extensive excavation,

grading, and backfilling; (2) potential for

oil contamination of soils; (3) disruption

of land use patterns along the entire

length of the route; (4) limitation on

land uses allowed over or near the

route; (5) instream disturbance of all

waterways crossed by the route; (6)

potential for oil spills or leaks into

surface water and wetlands; (7)

potential for oil contamination of

groundwater; (8) decreased habitat

diversity along the route because the

area would have to be maintained as

grasses; (9) increased potential for

damage to surface and subsurface

archaeological sites; and (10) increased

worker safety concerns because of the

increased construction and maintenance

activities that would be required.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

Upon completion of a thorough

review of all proposed alternatives, DOE

has concluded that construction of the

Stud Mill Road route is the

environmentally preferred alternative

and that adequate safeguards of the

environment can be accomplished using

mitigation measures identified in the

EIS as well as the standard practices of

utility companies constructing and

maintaining ROW. With approximately

83 miles of transmission line to be sited

within Maine, the Stud Mill Road route

is the shortest when compared to the

106 mile Existing Line and 115 mile

Straight-Line routes. The preferred route

would require the fewest transmission

structures with the greatest spacing. The

preferred route would require the least

amount of forest clearing, stream

crossings and new service road

construction due to use of existing

service roads and timber haul roads that

traverse the route. Construction of the

transmission line along the preferred

route will have the least impact to

wildlife species due to the reduced

amount of vegetation clearing. Where

the proposed alternative will parallel

existing 345-kV transmission facilities,

interactions between the phases

(conductors) of the existing and

proposed line will decrease magnetic

field exposure to residents located near

the two-line corridor. Application of the

No Action alternative would likely have

a negative impact on air quality in the

region as a result of continued or

increased fossil fuel use in the New

England region. The technology for use

of nonconventional generation sources

in place of the proposed facilities is not

considered to have advanced

sufficiently to provide the energy

resources required today. Construction

of a new, non-oil-fired generating plant,

would require an extensive design and

construction phase and would clearly

have significant negative environmental

impacts especially in terms of air

emissions.

Decision

DOE will issue Presidential Permit

PP–89 to BHE for the construction,

connection, operation, and maintenance

of a 345-kV transmission line across the

international border between the United

States, at Baileyville, Maine, and

Canada for interconnection with

facilities of the New Brunswick Power

Commission in New Brunswick,

Canada. In the United States, the

transmission line will follow the Stud

Mill Road route, as described in

Presidential Permit PP–89. As a

condition of granting the Presidential

permit, BHE will be required to

implement all mitigative measures to

which BHE has committed, as presented

in the EIS. This conditional requirement

shall be deemed adequate mitigation

protection to satisfy the requirements

for a Mitigation Action Plan (10 CFR

1021.331).

Copies of this Record of Decision will

be made available upon request, for

public inspection and copying at the

Department of Energy, Room 3F–090,

Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585,

between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday.

Issued in Washington, D.C. on January 18,

1996.

Anthony J. Como,

Director, Office of Coal & Electricity, Office

of Fuels Programs, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 96–1070 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Privatization of Isotope Activities;

Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of rescheduling of public

meeting.

SUMMARY: DOE published a Notice in

the December 5, 1995 Commerce

Business Daily and December 11, 1995

Federal Register seeking Expressions of

Interest concerning the possible

privatization of DOE isotope activities.

The Notice was to remain effective until

February 23, 1996, responses were due

by February 23, 1996, and an

information meeting was to be held at

the DOE facility auditorium in

Germantown, Maryland, on January 10,

1996. Due to severe weather, the

information meeting was not held. This

Notice announces a change in public

meeting dates.

DATES: The Notice seeking Expressions

of Interest concerning the possible

privatization of DOE isotope activities

will now remain effective until March

29, 1996. Responses may be submitted