Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices 25655

through the public review process, the

Department of Energy has determined

that the Electrometallurgical Treatment

Research and Demonstration Project in

the Fuel Conditioning Facility at

Argonne National Laboratory - West

does not constitute a major Federal

action significantly affecting the quality

of the human environment within the

meaning of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969. Therefore, an

environmental impact statement is not

required.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 15th day

of May 1996.

Terry R. Lash,

Director Office of Nuclear Energy, Science

and Technology U.S. Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 96–12861 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for the Plutonium Finishing Plant

Stabilization, Hanford Site, Richland,

Benton County, Washington

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of

Energy (DOE), Richland Operations

Office, announces the availability of the

Plutonium Finishing Plant Stabilization

Final Environmental Impact Statement

(DOE/EIS–0244–F). The Final

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

was prepared pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969, the Council on Environmental

Quality Regulations for Implementing

the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40

Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts

1500–1508), and DOE’s Implementing

Procedures (10 CFR Part 1021). The

continued presence of relatively large

quantities of chemically reactive

materials in their present form and

location within the Plutonium Finishing

Plant (PFP) Facility poses an

unacceptable long-term risk to workers,

the public, and the environment. DOE

has identified the need to expeditiously

and safely reduce radiation exposure to

workers and the risk to the public;

reduce future resources needed to safely

manage the facility; and remove,

stabilize, store, and manage plutonium,

pending DOE’s future use and

disposition decisions.

DOE’s preferred alternative is removal

of readily retrievable plutonium bearing

material in hold-up at the PFP Facility

and stabilization of these and other

plutonium-bearing materials at the PFP

Facility through the following four

treatment processes: 1) ion exchange,

vertical calcination and thermal

stabilization of solutions; 2) thermal

stabilization of oxides, fluorides, and

process residues in a continuous

furnace; 3) repackaging of metals and

alloys; and 4) pyrolysis of polycubes

and combustibles. In addition, DOE is

evaluating other alternatives for

stabilizing or immobilizing these

materials as well as a ‘‘no action’’

alternative.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Requests for copies or questions

concerning the PFP Stabilization EIS

should be directed to: Mr. Ben F.

Burton, U.S. Department of Energy,

Richland Operations Office, Attn: PFP

Stabilization EIS, P.O. Box 550, MSIN

B1–42, Richland, Washington 99352,

(888) 946–3700.

For general information on DOE’s EIS

process and other matters related to

NEPA, please contact: Ms. Carol

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue,

S.W.,Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

4600 or (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background, Purpose and Need for

Agency Action. In the late 1980s, the

halt in the production of weapons-grade

plutonium froze the existing PFP

Facility manufacturing pipeline in a

state that was unsuited for long-term

storage. On January 24, 1994, the

Secretary of Energy commissioned a

comprehensive assessment to identify

and prioritize the environmental, safety,

and health vulnerabilities that arise

from the storage of plutonium in DOE

facilities and determine which are the

most dangerous and urgent. The DOEwide assessment, commonly referred to

as The Plutonium Vulnerability Study,

identified environmental, safety, and

health vulnerabilities at the PFP

Facility. These included storage of

unstable forms of plutonium, a potential

for criticality accidents, and seismic

weaknesses.

Scoping. A Notice of Intent to prepare

the EIS and hold public scoping

meetings in Spokane, Richland, and

Bellevue, Washington, and Hood River

and Portland, Oregon, was published by

DOE in the Federal Register on October

27, 1994. A subsequent Notice of Intent

was published by DOE in the Federal

Register on November 23, 1994,

announcing additional meetings in

Portland, Oregon, and Seattle,

Washington. The Notice of Intent

invited oral and written comments and

suggestions on the proposed scope of

the EIS, including environmental issues

and alternatives, and invited public

participation in the NEPA process.

Overall, scoping comments were

received that assisted in identifying

major issues for subsequent in-depth

analysis in the Draft EIS. As a result of

the scoping process, an Implementation

Plan for the PFP Stabilization EIS was

developed to provide guidance for

preparing the Draft EIS and record the

results of the scoping process.

Public Hearing. On December 5, 1995,

a Notice of Availability was published

in the Federal Register (60 FR 62244)

which formally announced the release

and availability of the Draft EIS. The

public hearing date, time, and location

were also published and public

comment was requested. A public

meeting on the Draft EIS. The public

hearing date, time, and location were

also published and public comment was

requested. A public meeting on the Draft

EIS was held in Pasco, Washington, on

January 11, 1996. While the comment

period officially ended on January 23,

1996, DOE accepted comments through

February 15, 1996. Both oral and written

comments were received during the

comment period.

Notice of Limited Reopening of Public

Comment Period. On May 3, 1996, a

Notice of Limited Reopening of Public

Comment Period was published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 19914) which

formally announced the release and

availability of a supplementary

alternative which involves

immobilization of a portion of the

inventory of the plutonium-bearing

materials in cement at the PFP Facility.

Comments on the analysis of potential

impacts described in the supplementary

information have been solicited during

a 21-day comment period that will end

May 24, 1996. Comments received will

be considered in the preparation of the

Record of Decision.

AVAILABILITY OF FINALS EIS: Copies of

the Final EIS have been distributed to

Federal, state, and local officials and

agencies, as well as organizations and

individuals known to be interested in or

affected by the proposed project.

Additional copies may be obtained by

contacting Mr. Burton as provided in

the section of this notice entitled

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Copies of the Final EIS, including

appendices and reference material will

be available for public review at the

locations listed below. Comments

received in response to this Federal

Register notice will be considered in the

preparation of the Record of Decision.

U.S. Department of Energy,

Headquarters, Freedom of Information

Reading Room, Forrestal Building,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–

3142
25656 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Notices

U.S. DOE Public Reading Room,

Washington State University, TriCities Branch, 100 Sprout Road,

Richland, WA 99352, (509) 376–8583,

Government Publications, University of

Washington, Suzzallo Library, Box

352900, 15th Avenue NE., and

Campus Parkway, Seattle, WA 98185–

2900, (206) 543–1937

Gonzaga University, Foley Center, East

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–

4735.

You may also receive a copy of the

Final EIS by calling the Hanford

Cleanup Hotline toll-free at 1–800–321–

2008.

Signed in Richland, Washington, this 10th

day of May 1996, for the United States

Department of Energy.

John D. Wagoner,

Manager, Richland Operations Office.

[FR Doc. 96–12824 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Floodplain Statement of Findings for

Remedial Action at the Ventron Site

and Adjacent Harbor Sediment in

Essex County, Massachusetts

AGENCY: Former Sites Restoration

Division, Department of Energy (DOE).

SUBJECT: Floodplain statement of

findings.

SUMMARY: This is a Floodplain

Statement of Findings prepared in

accordance with 10 CFR Part 1022,

Compliance with Floodplain/Wetlands

Environmental Review Requirements.

DOE proposes to remediate sediment

and soil with elevated levels of

uranium-238 from the 100-year

floodplain of the Bass and Danvers

Rivers and from the floodplain buffer

zone adjacent to the 100-year floodplain

at the Ventron site in Essex County,

Massachusetts. DOE prepared a

Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment

describing the effects, alternatives, and

measures designed to avoid or minimize

potential harm to or within the affected

floodplain. DOE would endeavor to

allow 15 days of public review after

publication of the Statement of Findings

before implementation of the proposed

action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS

PROPOSED ACTION OR TO COMMENT ON THE

ACTION, CONTACT: Mr. Jim Kopotic,

Ventron Site Manager, Former Sites

Restoration Division, U.S. Department

of Energy, P.O. Box 2001, Oak Ridge, TN

37831–8541, Phone: (423) 576–4991,

FAX: (423) 576–0956.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON GENERAL

DOE FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS,

CONTACT: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director,

Office of NEPA Oversight, EH–42, U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586–4600

or (800) 472–2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

Floodplain Statement of Findings

prepared in accordance with 10 CFR

Part 1022. A Notice of Floodplain and

Wetland Involvement was published in

the Federal Register (Vol. 61, pp.

11621–11622) on March 21, 1996, and a

Floodplain and Wetlands Assessment

was incorporated in the engineering

evaluation and cost analysis prepared

for the Ventron site. DOE proposes to

remediate sediment and soil with

elevated levels of uranium-238 that are

located in the 100-year floodplain of the

Bass and Danvers Rivers and the 100-yr

floodplain buffer zone adjacent to the

floodplain at the Ventron site in Essex

County, Massachusetts. The entire

Ventron site is also within the

Massachusetts coastal zone. The

proposed action would be in a

floodplain because levels of uranium238 in some sediment and soil in the

floodplain at the site exceed guidelines

for residual radioactivity and future use

without radiological restrictions of the

site. DOE has structured potential

cleanup options by affected media:

harbor sediments and on-site soil and

furnace ash. Alternative actions

considered for harbor sediments are no

action or, complete removal of harbor

sediment with levels of uranium-238

over 50 pCi/g. Alternative actions

considered for on-site soil and furnace

ash also include no action or, complete

removal of on-site soil and furnace ash

with levels of uranium-238 over 50 pCi/

g. Access to sediment and soil may

require decontamination and demolition

of structures at the site. There is no

practicable alternative to the proposed

action. The proposed action would

conform to applicable state and local

floodplain protection standards.

The following steps would be taken to

minimize potential harm to or within

the affected floodplain:

1. The design and performance of

excavation activities would incorporate

standard best management practices in

accordance with U.S. Department of

Agriculture Natural Resource

Conservation Service (formerly the Soil

Conservation Service) methods, or the

equivalent, to control erosion and

siltation from excavations.

2. Remediation operations would

confine the areas of sediment and soil

disturbance to the minimum necessary

for successful completion of the project.

3. Care would be exercised to provide

minimum practicable exposure of

sediment and soil to erosion.

4. All erosion and sediment barriers

would remain in place until the

excavation is successfully stabilized by

applicable measures.

5. Disturbed sediment and soil in or

adjacent to the floodplain, waterways,

wetlands, coastal zone, and areas

subject to tidal action and excavations

would be stabilized or otherwise

protected to prevent off-site migration,

as conditions warrant, in accordance

with Massachusetts soil erosion and

sediment control standards or their

equivalent.

6. DOE would not dispose waste

rubble, sediment, or soil in the floodway

or within the tidal zone. Waste mulch

not serving to control erosion or

sediment would also not be disposed of

in channels or on waterway banks.

7. Remediation would not obstruct

any streams or tidal areas and all

streams and tidal zones would retain

their original capacity for storing

floodwaters. The proposed action would

not impede flow or increase flooding.

8. All areas excavated in or adjacent

to the floodplain, wetlands, the

Massachusetts coastal zone, and areas

subject to tidal action would be restored

to grade by the current owner, Morton

International, as required, and the

proposed activities would not subject

lives or property to any increased risk

of flooding.

9. DOE would not use areas within

the floodplain for temporary or

permanent storage of excavated

sediment, soil, or demolition rubble;

however, some areas within the

floodplain and wetland buffer zone, and

the Massachusetts coastal zone may be

used for temporary storage of excavated

materials with appropriate measures in

place to properly contain excavated

materials.

10. The proposed action would

conform to applicable state and local

floodplain, wetland, and coastal zone

protection standards and would be

consistent with Massachusetts’ coastal

zone management policies.

11. The proposed action would not

result in the destruction of any

floodplain or wetland and would be

consistent with the President’s policy of

‘‘no net loss’’ of wetlands in the United

States and Executive Orders 11988 and

11990.

DOE will endeavor to allow 15 days

of public review after publication of the

Statement of Findings before

implementation of the proposed action.