2238 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices

or certified mail, return receipt

requested. Two copies of the claim

should be included with each

submission.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Coffey or Gil Maldonado,

Environmental Restoration Division,

U.S. Department of Energy, (505) 845–

4628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Department of Energy published a final

rule under 10 CFR part 765 in the

Federal Register on May 23, 1994 (59

FR 26714) to carry out the requirements

of Title X of the Energy Policy Act of

1992 (sections 1001–1004 of Pub. L.

102–486, 42 U.S.C. 2296a et seq.) and to

establish the procedures for eligible

licensees to submit claims for

reimbursement. Title X requires the

Department of Energy to reimburse

eligible uranium and thorium licensees

for certain costs of decontamination,

decommissioning, reclamation, and

other remedial action incurred by

licensees at active uranium and thorium

processing sites to remediate byproduct

material generated as an incident of

sales to the United States Government.

To be reimbursable, costs of remedial

action must be for work which is

necessary to comply with applicable

requirements of the Uranium Mill

Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978

(42 U.S.C. 7901 et seq.) or, where

appropriate, with requirements

established by a state pursuant to a

discontinuance agreement under section

274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954

(42 U.S.C. 2021). Claims for

reimbursement of costs of remedial

action must be supported by reasonable

documentation as determined by the

Department of Energy in accordance

with 10 CFR part 765. Section

1001(b)(2) of the Energy Policy Act of

1992 limits the amount of

reimbursement paid to the licensees of

an active uranium site to an amount not

to exceed $5.50, as adjusted annually for

inflation, multiplied by the dry short

tons of byproduct material located at the

site on October 24, 1992, and generated

as an incident of sales to the United

States. Total reimbursement, in the

aggregate, for work performed at the

active uranium processing sites shall

not exceed $270 million, as adjusted

annually for inflation. Total

reimbursement for work performed at

the active thorium processing site shall

not exceed $40 million, as adjusted

annually for inflation, and is limited to

costs incurred for offsite disposal.

Funds for reimbursement will be

provided from the Uranium Enrichment

Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund established at the United States

Department of Treasury pursuant to

section 1801 of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2297g). Payment or

obligation of funds shall be subject to

the requirements of the Anti-Deficiency

Act (31 U.S.C. 1341).

In the May 23, 1994 (59 FR 26714)

Federal Register, the Department of

Energy established a preliminary per

dry short ton limit of $4.78 on

reimbursement to licensees of eligible

uranium processing sites. This was

necessary because the $270 million

statutory ceiling would not support the

maximum allowable reimbursement of

$5.50 per dry short ton, as established

by Title X, if remedial action costs at all

of the eligible uranium processing sites

reach or approach this per dry short ton

limit (i.e., $270 million divided by the

total amount of Federal-related dry short

tons of byproduct material present at all

eligible active uranium processing sites,

56.521 million dry short tons, equals

$4.78).

To adjust the above reimbursement

ceilings for inflation, the Department of

Energy is required by 10 CFR part

765.12 to apply the Consumer Price

Index-Urban (CPI–U) annually,

beginning in 1994, using the CPI–U as

published by the Bureau of Labor

Statistics within the Department of

Commerce for the preceding calendar

year.

As announced by the Department of

Energy in the April 5, 1995 Federal

Register (60 FR 17343), the adjusted

values of the statutory per dry short ton

ceiling, preliminary per dry short ton

ceiling, and total remaining

reimbursement ceilings for uranium and

thorium licensees for 1995 were $5.82,

$4.92, $251,339,303.43, and

$35,123,038.98. Following that

announcement, the Department of

Energy issued reimbursements in

September and December 1995 to

uranium and thorium licensees totaling

$30,213,035.89 and $11,478,964.10,

respectively. Accordingly, the total

remaining reimbursement ceilings for

uranium and thorium licensees are

currently $221,126,267.54 and

$23,644,074.88. These amounts and the

per dry short ton ceilings on

reimbursement will be adjusted for

inflation in 1996 after the CPI–U for

1995 has been published by the

Department of Commerce.

The Department of Energy Annual

Title X Report for 1994 and 1995

summarizes key activities performed by

the Department during that period

including review of claims, individual

amounts paid for claims approved, and

other relevant information concerning

the reimbursement program. The report

is available to all interested parties by

contacting David E. Mathes, Office of

Southwestern Area Programs,

Environmental Restoration, U.S.

Department of Energy, EM–45/

Cloverleaf Building, 19901 Germantown

Road, Germantown, MD, 20874–1290.

Telephone (301) 903–7222.

Authority: Section 1001–1004 of Pub. L.

102–46, 106 Stat. 2776 (42 U.S.C. 2296a et

seq.).

Issued in Washington, DC, on this 18th of

January 1996.

David E. Mathes,

UMTRA Team Leader, Office of Southwestern

Area Programs, Environmental Restoration.

[FR Doc. 96–1200 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Environmental Management;

Environmental Management Advisory

Board Renewal

Pursuant to Section 14(a)(2)(A) of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act (Public

Law 92–463), and in accordance with

title 41 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, section 101–6.1015(a), and

following consultation with the

Committee Management Secretariat,

General Services Administration, notice

is hereby given that the Environmental

Management Advisory Board has been

renewed for a two-year period beginning

on January 18, 1996. The Board will

provide advice to the Assistant

Secretary for Environmental

Management.

The purpose of the Board is to

provide the Assistant Secretary for

Environmental Management with advice

and recommendations on

Environmental Management projects

and issues, such as program budget,

risk, technology development, the

National Environmental Policy Act, the

Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial

Action Program, worker health and

safety, and program cost effectiveness,

from the perspective of affected groups

and State and local governments.

Consensus recommendations to the

Department of Energy from the Board on

programmatic nationwide resolution of

numerous difficult issues will help

achieve the Department’s objective of an

integrated environmental restoration

program.

Additionally, the renewal of the

Environmental Management Advisory

Board has been determined to be

essential to the conduct of Department

of Energy business and to be in the

public interest in connection with the

performance of duties imposed on the

Department of Energy by law and

agreement. The Board will operate in

accordance with the provisions of the

Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 17 / Thursday, January 25, 1996 / Notices 2239

Department of Energy Organization Act

(Public Law 95–91), and rules and

regulations issued in implementation of

those Acts.

Further information regarding this

Advisory Board may be obtained from

Rachel Murphy Samuel at (202) 586–

3279.

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 18,

1996.

JoAnne Whitman,

Deputy Advisory Committee Management

Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–1197 Filed 1–24–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Alternative Strategies for the LongTerm Management and Use of

Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

AGENCY: Department of Energy

ACTION: Notice of Intent (NOI).

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

(DOE) announces its intent to prepare a

programmatic environmental impact

statement (PEIS) pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act

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

The PEIS will assess the potential

environmental impacts of alternative

strategies for the long-term management

and use of 560,000 metric tons of

depleted uranium hexafluoride (UF6)

currently stored in cylinders at DOE’s

three gaseous diffusion plant sites

located near Paducah, Kentucky;

Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge,

Tennessee.

This impact statement will support

management decisions on depleted UF6

by evaluating the environmental

impacts of a range of reasonable

alternative strategies as well as

providing a means for the public to have

a meaningful opportunity to be heard on

this matter. This NOI informs the public

of the proposal, explains the schedule,

announces the dates, times, and places

for scoping meetings, and solicits public

comment.

DATES: To ensure that the full range of

issues and alternatives related to this

proposal is addressed, DOE invites

comments on the scope of this proposed

PEIS. Written comments should be

postmarked by March 25, 1996, to

ensure consideration. Comments

received after this date will be

considered to the extent practicable.

Three public scoping meetings will be

held to provide information and

opportunities for discussion of the

subject PEIS and to receive oral and

written comments. The meetings will be

held near the storage sites located near

Paducah, Kentucky; Oak Ridge,

Tennessee; and Portsmouth, Ohio. The

scoping meetings will be held twice a

day, beginning at 3:00 p.m. and 7:00

p.m., at each site to allow for as much

interaction with the stakeholders as

possible. The meetings will be held

according to the following schedule:

Paducah, Kentucky; February 13, 1996

(Information Age Park Resource

Center, 2000 McCracken Blvd.,

Paducah, Kentucky 42001)

Oak Ridge, Tennessee; February 15,

1996 (Pollard Auditorium at Oak

Ridge Institute for Science and

Education, 210 Badger Avenue, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee 37831)

Portsmouth, Ohio; February 20, 1996

(Vern Riffe Pike County Vocational

School, State Route 124, Piketon,

Ohio 45661)

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

scope of the PEIS and requests for

copies of referenced material should be

directed to: Mr. Charles E. Bradley, Jr.,

Office of Facilities, Office of Nuclear

Energy, Science and Technology, U.S.

Department of Energy, 19901

Germantown Road, Germantown,

Maryland, 20874–1290, (301) 903–4781.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information on the DOE NEPA

process, please contact Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance, U.S. Department

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202)

586–4600 or 1–800–472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

unique properties and value of depleted

UF6, such as its high purity and density,

as well as the large volume (560,000

metric tons) in storage, make it

appropriate to evaluate, analyze, and

decide the fate of this material

separately from other DOE materials in

storage or awaiting disposition. DOE has

determined that such an action is a

major Federal action with potentially

significant environmental impacts and

requires the preparation of an EIS in

accordance with NEPA. The purpose of

this PEIS will be to assess the potential

impacts of a range of reasonable

alternative strategies for the long-term

management of depleted UF6. A strategy

is a set of actions for handling depleted

UF6, from its current storage condition

at three DOE sites—Portsmouth, Ohio;

Paducah, Kentucky; and Oak Ridge,

Tennessee—to ultimate disposition.

These broad strategies focus on material

use, storage, and disposal. The

programmatic impact statement will

address the potential impacts of the

actions that would comprise each

strategy. DOE will prepare additional

tiered, project-specific NEPA documents

as appropriate.

The proposed PEIS is the second

component of an integrated three-part

program to select a long-term

management strategy for depleted UF6 at

Portsmouth, Paducah, and Oak Ridge.

The first component of the program is

an engineering analysis of proposed

technologies for managing or using the

material. This analysis will be based, in

part, on responses to a request for

recommendations for potential uses,

associated conversion technologies, and

management technologies for depleted

UF6.

In November 1994, DOE published

two notices in the Federal Register to

initiate the consideration of alternative

strategies for the long-term management

and use of depleted UF6. The first notice

was the ‘‘Management of Depleted

Uranium Hexafluoride (UF6): Request

for Recommendations’’ (59 FR 56324),

and the second notice was the

‘‘Advance Notice of Intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement:

Alternative Strategies for the Long-Term

Management of Depleted Uranium

Hexafluoride at Several Geographic

Locations’’ (59 FR 56325). As indicated

in the request for recommendations,

Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory used technical experts to

evaluate the 57 responses to the request

for recommendations. The results of

these evaluations are presented in ‘‘The

Technology Assessment Report for the

Long-Term Management of Depleted

Uranium Hexafluoride’’ (UCRL–AR–

120372), dated June 30, 1995. Copies of

this report are available from the

National Technical Information Service,

U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia

22161, phone (703) 487–4650, or from

Mr. Bradley at the address above. Copies

are also in the DOE reading rooms at the

following locations:

DOE Headquarters, 1000 Independence

Avenue, SW, Room 1E–190, Washington,

D.C. 20585, phone (202) 586–3142;

Oak Ridge Operations Office, Public Reading

Room, 55 Jefferson Circle, Room 112, Oak

Ridge, Tennessee 37831, phone (615) 241–

4780;

Paducah/DOE, Environmental Information

Center, 175 Freedom Blvd., Kevil,

Kentucky 42053, phone (502) 462–2550;

Portsmouth/DOE, Environmental Information

Center, 505 West Emmitt Avenue, Suite 3,

Waverly, Ohio 45690, phone (614) 947–

5093.

As a result of the process

implemented to date, DOE has

considered a wide range of potential

alternatives. While many of the options

offered in response to DOE’s request for

recommendations were already known,