19914 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

written inquiries to the Chief of Naval

Personnel (Pers-661) 2 Navy Annex,

Washington, DC 20370–6610.

Requests should contain the full name

and Social Security Number of the

individual.

CONTESTING RECORD PROCEDURES:

The Navy’s rules for accessing

records, and for contesting contents and

appealing initial agency determinations

are published in Secretary of the Navy

Instruction 5211.5; 32 CFR part 701; or

may be obtained from the system

manager.

RECORD SOURCE CATEGORIES:

Victim; offender; medical and dental

records; educational institutions;

medical institutions; private

practitioners; law enforcement agencies;

public and private health and welfare

agencies; and witnesses.

EXEMPTIONS CLAIMED FOR THE SYSTEM:

Parts of this system may be exempt

under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2) and (k)(5), as

applicable.

An exemption rule for this system has

been promulgated in accordance with

requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(1), (2),

and 3, (c) and (e) and published in 32

CFR part 701, subpart G. For additional

information contact the system manager.

[FR Doc. 96–10979 Filed 05–02–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–F

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Federal Interagency Coordinating

Council Meeting (FICC)

AGENCY: Federal Interagency

Coordinating Council, Education.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice describes the

schedule and agenda of a forthcoming

meeting of the Federal Interagency

Coordinating Council. Notice of this

meeting is required under section 685(c)

of the Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act, as amended, and is

intended to notify the general public of

their opportunity to attend the meeting.

The meeting will be accessible to

individuals with disabilities.

DATE AND TIME: May 23, 1996, from 1:30

p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Hubert H. Humphrey

Building, Room 503A/529A, 200

Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20202.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Garner, U.S. Department of

Education, 600 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Room 3127, Switzer Building,

Washington, D.C. 20202–2644.

Telephone: (202) 205–8124. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call (202) 205–

8170.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Federal Interagency Coordinating

Council (FICC) is established under

section 685 of the Individuals with

disabilities Education Act, as amended

(20 U.S.C. 1484a). The Council is

established to: (1) Minimize duplication

across Federal, State and local agencies

of programs and activities relating to

early intervention services for infants

and toddlers with disabilities and their

families and preschool services for

children with disabilities; (2) ensure

effective coordination of Federal early

intervention and preschool programs,

including Federal technical assistance

and support activities; and (3) identify

gaps in Federal agency programs and

services and barriers to Federal

interagency cooperation. To meet these

purposes, the FICC seeks to: (1) Identify

areas of conflict, overlap, and omissions

in interagency policies related to the

provision of services to infants,

toddlers, and preschoolers with

disabilities; (2) develop and implement

joint policy interpretations on issues

related to infants, toddlers, and

preschoolers that cut across Federal

agencies, including modifications of

regulations to eliminate barriers to

interagency programs and activities; and

(3) coordinate the provisions of

technical assistance and dissemination

of best practice information. The FICC is

chaired by the Assistant Secretary for

Special Education and Rehabilitative

Services.

At this meeting the FICC plans to: (1)

Update the membership on the issue of

Champus and the Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act, and (2)

discuss the findings of the national

survey on service integration in home

visiting programs serving Part H eligible

children and their families.

The meeting of the FICC is open to the

public. Written public comment will be

accepted at the conclusion of the

meeting. These comments will be

included in the summary minutes of the

meeting. The meeting will be physically

accessible with meeting materials

provided in both braille and large print.

Interpreters for persons who are hearing

impaired will be available. Individuals

with disabilities who plan to attend and

need other reasonable accommodations

should contact the contact person

named above in advance of the meeting.

Summary minutes of the FICC

meetings will be maintained and

available for public inspection at the

U.S. Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue, S.W., Room

3127, Switzer Building, Washington,

D.C. 20202–2644, from the hours of 9:00

a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays, except

Federal Holidays.

Judith E. Heumann,

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services.

[FR Doc. 96–11085 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization

Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Limited Reopening of

Public Comment Period.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) is evaluating alternatives

for stabilizing plutonium-bearing

materials at the Plutonium Finishing

Plant (PFP) Facility, located at the

Hanford Site near Richland,

Washington. On December 5, 1995 (60

FR 62244), the DOE announced the

availability of the Plutonium Finishing

Plant Stabilization Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (DOE/EIS–0244–D).

The Draft Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) was prepared pursuant

to the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) of 1969 and its

implementing regulations. Subsequent

to issuing the Draft EIS, DOE issued a

proposed policy for comment regarding

the treatment and disposition of excess

residues with plutonium concentrations

below 50 weight-percent. Following an

analysis using this draft policy, DOE has

concluded that it may be cost-effective

to immobilize up to 280 kg (617 lb) of

the plutonium-bearing materials at the

PFP Facility and transport it to Hanford

Site solid waste management facilities

for storage. The EIS is therefore being

revised to include an evaluation of the

environmental impacts of implementing

this alternative. A determination that

this plutonium-bearing material lacks a

beneficial use has not been made and

this alternative would only be selected

subsequent to such a decision. The

intent of this notice is to notify the

public of an additional alternative that

would immobilize certain plutoniumbearing materials, and to reopen the

comment period for 21 days in order to

solicit comments on the proposed

alternative.

DATES: DOE invites written and oral

comments on the immobilization

alternative from all interested parties.

Comments or suggestions regarding the

adequacy, accuracy, and completeness

of the immobilization alternative will be
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19915

considered in preparing the Record of

Decision, and should be submitted

(postmarked) by May 24, 1996.

Comments received after that date will

be considered to the degree practicable.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the

immobilization alternative may be made

during the comment period by calling

DOE toll free at 1–888–946–3700; by

facsimile to 509/946–3734; by electronic

mail to InterNet address ‘‘bll fll

jrll benll burton@rl.gov’’; or by

writing to PFP Stabilization EIS, Attn:

Mr. Ben Burton, PO Box 550, MSIN B1–

42, Richland, WA 99352.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information on the DOE NEPA

process, please contact: Ms. Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director of NEPA Policy and

Assistance, EH–42, U.S. Department of

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20585, 202/586–

4600 or 1–800–472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In two

Notices of Intent published in the

Federal Register on October 27, 1994

(59 FR 53969) and November 23, 1994

(59 FR 60358), the U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE) announced its intent to

prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS) to resolve safety issues

associated with the continued presence

of relatively large quantities of

chemically reactive materials at the

Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP)

Facility. A Draft EIS was prepared

pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA

in order to provide an objective,

technical basis for decision makers and

the public to evaluate alternatives to: (1)

Convert plutonium-bearing materials at

the PFP Facility into a more stable, safer

form; (2) reduce radiation exposure to

PFP Facility workers; and (3) reduce the

cost of maintaining the PFP Facility and

its contents. A preferred alternative for

resolving the safety issue was identified

to remove readily retrievable

plutonium-bearing material in hold-up

at the PFP Facility and stabilize these

and other plutonium-bearing materials

at the PFP Facility through four

treatment processes: (1) Ion exchange,

vertical calcination, and thermal

stabilization of plutonium-bearing

solutions; (2) thermal stabilization using

a continuous furnace for oxides,

fluorides, and process residues; (3)

repackaging of metals and alloys; and

(4) pyrolysis of polycubes and

combustibles. The availability of this

Draft EIS was announced in a Federal

Register notice on December 5, 1995 (60

FR 62244).

Subsequent to issuing the Draft EIS,

DOE issued a proposed policy for

comment regarding the treatment and

disposition of excess plutonium-bearing

residues. This draft policy specifies that

materials with plutonium

concentrations less than 50 weightpercent are candidates for processing as

waste for disposal, or separation from its

residue matrix and packaging for storage

according to DOE’s safe storage criteria.

Each responsible field office would

evaluate which end state would be more

cost-effective for each quantity, batch or

category of plutonium-bearing residues.

The performance factors for costeffectiveness include worker exposure,

waste generation, and cost. In addition,

commentors during the public hearing

requested that DOE consider an

alternative of disposing of plutonium

bearing material as waste.

Following an analysis using this draft

policy, an in consideration of comments

received during the public hearing on

the Draft EIS, DOE has concluded that

it may be cost-effective to immobilize

up to 280 kg (617 lb) of the plutoniumbearing materials at the PFP Facility,

and transport it to Hanford Site solid

waste management facilities for storage.

The EIS is therefore being revised to

include an evaluation of the

environmental impacts associated with

this alternative. The following

information describes the proposed

immobilization alternative and

identifies the associated potential

environmental impacts. It is organized

as follows:

I. Process Description

II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts

A. Health Effects

B. Air Quality

C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Capacity

D. Transportation

III. Alternatives for Immobilization

IV. Availability of the Immobilization

Alternative

I. Process Description

The current inventory of plutonium at

the PFP Facility includes up to 280 kg

(617 lb) of plutonium in concentrations

less than 50 weight percent that DOE

has identified as potentially being

suitable for immobilization. This

inventory includes oxides, process

residues, and miscellaneous/other

combustibles. The bulk of this material

is stored in the PFP Facility vaults.

These plutonium-bearing materials

would be immobilized within

gloveboxes at the PFP Facility. A

cement system was selected as a

reasonable method to represent the

potential immobilization options

because: (1) the ingredients are

inexpensive, safe, and readily available;

(2) the equipment needs are simple; (3)

the final waste form has proven stability

and meets the waste acceptance criteria

for the Hanford site solid waste

management facilities; (4) it has been

used extensively at the Hanford Site for

immobilizing wastes; and (5) impacts

from its use should be similar to those

incurred for any other reasonable

immobilization technique.

Equipment for the immobilization

process would be identified and sized

based on the follow special

considerations: (1) waste and cement

feeding equipment that would control

feed rates; (2) cooling equipment to

maintain a low temperature for the

cement-waste-water mixture to

minimize water vapor in the glovebox;

and (3) reuse of containers when

possible.

The plutonium-bearing material

would be mixed with cement, and the

mixture would be placed within

nominal 3.4-liter (0.9 gallon) containers.

The containers would remain in the

glovebox and allowed to cure. Curing

hardens the mixture and fixes the

plutonium into the cemented matrix.

After curing, a lid would be placed over

the container. Once three containers

were readied in this manner, they

would be removed from the glovebox

and packaged.

The containers would be packaged in

accordance with the waste acceptance

criteria for the Hanford Site solid waste

management facilities. Packaging would

include a 15.25-cm (6-in) diameter pipe

container in 55-gallon drum

configuration. The pipe container in

drum configuration was selected as the

preferred packaging technique

compared to other packaging methods

because it results in the fewest number

of total drums and will, therefore, result

in less exposure to workers. The pipe

container in drum configuration would

enable three steel encased, cemented

waste containers to be placed in each

drum. The maximum allowable limit for

plutonium in each pipe container in

drum configuration is 200 g (0.44 lb).

Up to 1,600 drums of waste with a

nominal plutonium content of 170 g

(0.37 lb) per drum would be generated

by this alternative.

Following packaging, the drums

would be managed as transuranic or

radioactive mixed waste. All waste

drums would be transferred from the

PFP Facility to Hanford site solid waste

management facilities for continued

onsite storage.

II. Anticipated Environmental Impacts

Impacts from the alternative for

immobilizing plutonium-bearing

materials were evaluated in terms of the

following elements: health effects; air

quality; waste treatment, storage, and

disposal capacity; and transportation.
19916 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices

A. Health Effects

Health effects to PFP Facility workers,

other Hanford Site workers, and

members of the public from exposure to

ionizing radiation would result from

implementing the immobilization

alternative. Both normal operations and

accident conditions would contribute to

radiation exposures. Conservative

estimates of the possible consequences

from the immobilization activities were

quantified in terms of dose and latent

cancer fatalities probabilities. Tables 1

and 2 tabulate these possible

consequences.

TABLE 1.—ANTICIPATED HEALTH EFFECTS FROM ROUTINE RELEASES

Exposed individual or population Dose received

Latent cancer

fatality probability

PFP Facility Workers ....................................................................................................................... 80 person-rem 0.03

Hypothetical Maximally Exposed Individual (Hanford Site Worker) ................................................ 1.2×10–4 rem 5.0×10–8

Hanford Site Workers ....................................................................................................................... 6.2×10–4 person-rem 2.5×10–7

Hypothetical Maximally Exposed Individual (Off-site Public) ........................................................... 2.3×10–5 rem 1.1×10–8

General Public (352,500 people) ..................................................................................................... 2.2 person-rem 1.1×10–3

TABLE 2.—ANTICIPATED HEALTH EFFECTS FROM ACCIDENT RELEASES

Hypothetical maximally exposed individual Dose received

Latent cancer

fatality probability

PFP Facility Worker ......................................................................................................................... 210 rem 8.4×10–2

Hanford Site Worker ........................................................................................................................ 1.6×10–4 rem 6.5×10–8

Off-site Individual ............................................................................................................................. 5.7×10–5 rem 2.9×10–8

B. Air Quality

Implementing the immobilization

alternative would not result in

appreciable impacts to air quality. High

efficiency particulate air filters in use at

the PFP Facility would minimize the

amount of contaminants that would be

discharged to the atmosphere. Although

most expected air contaminants would

be trapped by these filters, some fine

particulates, referred to as PM10

(particulates less than 10 microns in

size) would be emitted. The total

estimated release of respirable particles

from the immobilization alternative is

7.1 x 10–10 g/sec (1.6×10–12 lb/sec). The

maximum downwind contaminant

concentrations projected by an

Environmental Protection Agencyapproved computer model and the

ambient air standards are provided in

Table 3. The contaminant levels

anticipated from the immobilization

alternative are significantly lower than

the regulatory ambient air standard.

TABLE 3.—PROJECTED MAXIMUM

GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS

OF PARTICULATE AIR CONTAMINANTS

Air contaminant

Maximum

average

concentrationa

(μg/m3)

Background

concentrationb

(μg/m3)

Ambient

air

standard

(μg/m3)

PM10 (24-

hr) .......... 1.9×10–9 81 150

TABLE 3.—PROJECTED MAXIMUM

GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS

OF PARTICULATE AIR CONTAMINANTS—Continued

Air contaminant

Maximum

average

concentrationa

(μg/m3)

Background

concentrationb

(μg/m3)

Ambient

air

standard

(μg/m3)

PM10 (Annual) ....... 3.9×10–10 27 50

Notes: a. Modeled maximum ground-level

concentrations occurred at 630 m from the

stack.

b. Background concentrations for PM10

taken from 1987 data (Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1991, Air Quality Impact Analysis,

PNL–7681, Pacific Northwest Laboratory,

Richland, Washington)

C. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal

Capacity

Implementing the immobilization

alternative would also result in impacts

to treatment, storage, and disposal

capacity. Hanford site solid waste

management facilities that would

receive the 1,600 drums anticipated to

be generated as a result of the

immobilization alternate include the

Low Level Burial Grounds, Transuranic

Waste Storage and Assay Facility,

Central Waste Complex, and the Waste

Receiving and Processing Facility. The

available capacity at these facilities for

managing low-level radioactive and

mixed waste is considered sufficient.

The available capacity for managing

transuranic and transuranic mixed

waste is currently being evaluated. This

information will be available in the

Final EIS.

D. Transportation

Finally, implementing the

immobilization alternative would result

in transportation impacts. Over a 6 to 12

month period, up to 90 truck trips

would result from the shipment of the

immobilized materials from the PFP

Facility to Hanford Site solid waste

management facilities. This corresponds

to an average of 7 to 15 trips per month.

These trips would be short in distance

(2 km [1.2 miles] or less) and would be

made during off-peak hours. Compared

with the current volume of vehicular

traffic on nearby Hanford Site transport

roadways, the additional truck trips

would not be expected to adversely

impact the existing or future Hanford

Site transportation system.

III. Alternatives for Immobilization

Cementation using a pipe container in

drum configuration was selected

because of its ability to satisfy packaging

and immobilization requirements based

on worker safety and economic

considerations. A cement system was

selected because it would meet

acceptance criteria for Hanford Site

solid waste management facilities; the

ingredients are inexpensive, safe, and

readily available; equipment

requirements can be very simple; the

final form has proven stability; and the

method has been used extensively at the

Hanford Site for immobilizing

transuranic materials.
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 1996 / Notices 19917

In contrast, immobilizing of materials

in a glass (i.e., vitrification) or a ceramic

matrix was not considered desirable

because of the cost, specialized

equipment required, lack of such

equipment on the Hanford Site, and lack

of site experience. These factors would

result in delays in implementing these

alternatives. The lack of site experience

and anticipated delays would result in

additional health and safety risks.

Another alternative would be to mix

the plutonium with uranium to produce

a mixed oxide fuel suitable for energy

production in a nuclear power reactor.

Because of the relatively small quantity

of plutonium material being considered,

it was not considered reasonable to

develop the technology at Hanford to

support this alternative.

IV. Availability of the Immobilization

Alternative

Copies of the proposed

immobilization alternative may be

reviewed at the following locations, or

may be obtained by calling DOE at 1–

888–946–3700:

U.S. Department of Energy, Headquarters,

Freedom of Information Reading Room,

Forrestall Building, 1000 Independence

Ave. SW., Room 1E–0190, Washington, DC

20585, 202/586–3142

DOE Public Reading Room, Washington State

University, Tri Cities Branch, 100 Sprout

Road, Richland, WA 99352, 509/376–8583

University of Washington, Suzzallo Library,

Government Publications, 15th Ave N.E.

and Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA 98185,

206/543–1937

Gonzaga University, Foley Center, E. 502

Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99258, 509/

324–5931

Portland State University, Branford Price

Millar Library, SW Harrison and Park,

Portland, OR 97207, 503/725–3690

Signed in Richland, Washington, this 25th

day of April, 1996 for the United States

Department of Energy.

Paul F.X. Dunigan, Jr.,

NEPA Compliance Officer, Richland

Operations Office.

[FR Doc. 96–11034 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Notice of Wetlands Involvement for

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 Near Paducah, KY

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of wetlands involvement.

SUMMARY: DOE proposes to renovate

existing storage yards and construct a

new storage yard to accommodate

restacking of approximately 19,000 steel

cylinders containing uranium

hexafluoride at the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant (PGDP) in McCracken

County, Kentucky. Construction of the

new storage yard would result in the

loss (filling) of less than one acre of

wetlands. In accordance with 10 CFR

Part 1022, DOE will prepare a wetlands

assessment and will perform the

proposed action in a manner so as to

avoid or minimize potential harm to or

within the affected wetlands.

DATES: Comments are due to the address

below no later than May 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Mr. Jimmie C. Hodges,

Paducah Site Manager, U. S. Department

of Energy, 5600 Hobbs Road, Paducah,

KY 42001. Phone (502) 441–6800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Further information on the proposed

action and wetlands assessment can be

obtained from Mr. Jimmie C. Hodges,

Paducah Site Manager (see ADDRESSES

above). Information on general DOE

wetlands environmental review

requirements is available from: Ms.

Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of

NEPA Policy and Assistance (EH–25),

U. S. Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585. Phone (202)

586–4600 or (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PGDP is

an operational uranium enrichment

facility owned by DOE and operated by

the United States Enrichment

Corporation. A consequence of the

uranium enrichment process is the

accumulation of depleted uranium

hexafluoride (UF6). Depleted UF6, a

solid at ambient temperatures, is stored

in large steel cylinders weighing up to

14 tons each. DOE is responsible for

approximately 32,200 cylinders of UF6

stored at PGDP. Storage conditions are

suboptimal and have resulted in

accelerated corrosion of cylinders and

have increased the potential for a

release of hazardous substances.

Consequently, DOE has proposed

refurbishment of certain existing yards

and construction of a new storage yard

(C–745–T).

The C–745–T yard would consist of a

concrete pad occupying approximately

43,200 m2 (450,000 ft2). The initial

construction activities in the storage

yard would consist of clearing and

grubbing the area and stripping the

topsoil. After this excavation, a storm

water drainage system would be

installed. The excavated area would be

filled with soil and gravel to achieve the

desired design elevation. A concrete pad

would be constructed on top of the fill.

The proposed site for the C–745–T

cylinder storage yard is immediately

south of existing cylinder yards at the

southern end of the plant. Of available

sites, DOE considers the proposed site

to best meet siting criteria. A different

site was initially proposed but was

discovered to encompass approximately

1.8 hectares (4.5 acres) of wetlands. In

order to minimize impacts to wetlands

in accordance with Executive Order

11990, ‘‘Protection of Wetlands,’’ and 10

CFR Part 1022, DOE’s ‘‘Compliance

With Floodplain/Wetlands

Environmental Review Requirements,’’

DOE selected the current proposed site.

Six small, isolated wetlands are

present at the proposed C–745–T yard

site. These wetlands are classified as

palustrine emergent, palustrine scrub/

shrub, and palustrine forested,

according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service wetland classification system.

Palustrine wetlands in the vicinity of

PGDP are those less than 8 hectares (20

acres) in surface area with a water depth

less than 2 m (6.6 ft) during low water.

Emergent vegetation is erect, rooted,

non-woody; scrub/shrub vegetation is

woody not exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in

height; and forested vegetation is

woody, exceeding 6 m (20 ft) in height.

The total area of wetlands directly

impacted by the proposed action would

be 0.32 hectare (0.8 acre). Under the

worst case scenario, an additional 0.12

hectare (0.3 acre) of wetlands could be

impacted by (1) construction equipment

accessing the area or materials and

equipment staged in wetland areas, if

proper precautions (best management

practices) are not followed, or (2)

diversion of flow away from a manmade drainage ditch which contains

wetlands.

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022,

DOE will prepare a wetlands assessment

for the proposed action. The wetlands

assessment will be included in the

environmental assessment (EA) being

prepared for the proposed action in

accordance with the requirements of the

National Environmental Policy Act.

Issued in Oak Ridge, Tennessee on April 1,

1996.

James L. Elmore,

Alternate NEPA Compliance Officer.

[FR Doc. 96–11033 Filed 5–2–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Morgantown Energy Technology

Center; Research Opportunity

Announcement (ROA) Applied

Research and Development

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy

(DOE), Morgantown Energy Technology

Center.