[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7439-7443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-02703]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Amended Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for Remediation of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone of
the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and Conduct Public Scoping Meetings
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Amended notice of intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its 2008
notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for cleanup of
Area IV, including the Energy Technology Engineering Center (ETEC), as
well as the Northern Buffer Zone of the Santa Susana Field Laboratory
(SSFL) (DOE/EIS-0402) in eastern Ventura County, California,
approximately 29 miles north of downtown Los Angeles. (DOE's operations
bordered the Northern Buffer Zone. DOE is responsible for soil cleanup
in Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone.) Since DOE's 2008 NOI,
extensive studies of the site for radiological and chemical
contamination have been ongoing and are nearing completion. DOE is
proposing a revised scope for the EIS due to the 2010 Administrative
Order on Consent (2010 AOC) that DOE and the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) signed for soil cleanup, and due to
information now available from site characterization. The scope of the
EIS would continue to include groundwater remediation consistent with
requirements in the 2007 Consent Order for Corrective Action (2007
Consent Order) issued by DTSC. This Amended NOI describes DOE's
proposed action and includes cleanup concepts developed by the local
community for remediation of SSFL Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone.
In the EIS, DOE will evaluate reasonable alternatives for disposition
of radiological facilities and support buildings, remediation of
contaminated soil and groundwater, and disposal of all resulting waste
at permitted facilities.
DOE is initiating a 30-day public scoping period, during which
public scoping meetings are planned for Calabasas and Simi Valley,
California. DOE invites comments from federal and state agencies, state
and local governments, Tribal Nations, natural resource trustees, the
general public, and other interested parties on the scope of the EIS.
DATES: The public scoping period will extend from the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register through March 10,
2014. DOE plans to hold public scoping meetings at the following dates,
times, and locations.
Simi Valley, California: Simi Valley City Council Chambers
in City Hall, 2929 Tapo Canyon Road, Simi Valley, on February 27, from
6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.; and
Agoura Hills/Calabasas, California: Community Center,
27040 Malibu Hills Road, Calabasas, on March 1, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30
p.m.
DOE will consider all comments received or postmarked by the end of
the scoping period. Comments submitted after that date will be
considered to the extent practicable. DOE will give equal consideration
to written comments and oral comments.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on the scope of the EIS should be sent to:
Ms. Stephanie Jennings, NEPA Document Manager, U.S. Department of
Energy, 4100 Guardian Street, Suite 160, Simi Valley, CA 93063 or by
fax: (855) 658-8695. Comments may also be submitted by email to SSFL_DOE_EIS@emcbc.doe.gov (use ``Scoping comments'' for the subject), or
on the ETEC Web site at http://www.etec.energy.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request further information about
the EIS or about the public scoping activities, or to be placed on the
EIS distribution list, use any of the methods listed under ADDRESSES.
For general information concerning the DOE NEPA process, contact
Carol Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (GC-
54), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0119, email to: AskNEPA@hq.doe.gov, telephone:
(202) 586-4600, leave a message at (800) 472-2756, or fax: (202) 586-
7031.
This Amended NOI will be available on the internet at: http://energy.gov/nepa. This Amended NOI and related information will also be
available on the internet at: http://www.etec.energy.gov, select the
``Characterization & Cleanup'' link on the toolbar, and then the
``Environmental Impact Statement'' link.
Additional information about the SSFL Area IV is available in the
following public reading rooms:
[[Page 7440]]
Simi Valley, California: Simi Valley Library, 2969 Tapo
Canyon Road, (805) 526-1735;
Woodland Hills, California: Platt Branch Library, 23600
Victory Blvd., (818) 340-9386;
Northridge, California: California State University
Northridge Oviatt Library, 2nd Floor, Room 265, (818) 677-2832; and
Chatsworth, California: State of California Department of
Toxic Substances Control, Regional Records Center, 9211 Oakdale Avenue,
(818) 717-6521 or -6522
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Site History. Located on 2,859 acres in the hills between the San
Fernando Valley and Simi Valley, CA, SSFL was established in 1947 by
North American Aviation (NAA) for the development and testing of liquid
propellant rocket engines, first for the U.S. Air Force and
subsequently for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). In 1955, NAA established the subdivision Atomics International
for the purpose of conducting energy research and testing small nuclear
reactors for the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), a predecessor agency
to DOE, and commercial clients in the western portion of SSFL, also
known as Area IV. Atomics International merged into Rocketdyne in 1984.
In 1996, the Boeing Company (Boeing) acquired part of Rocketdyne, and
with it SSFL.
SSFL is divided into four administrative areas and two contiguous
buffer zones north and south of the administrative areas. Area I
consists of about 714 acres, including 672 acres that are owned and
operated by Boeing and 42 acres that are owned by the Federal
Government and administered by NASA. Area II consists of about 410
acres that are owned by the Federal Government and administered by
NASA. Area III consists of about 120 acres that are owned and operated
by Boeing. Area IV consists of about 290 acres that are owned by Boeing
in which 90 acres have been leased by DOE and its predecessors for work
described below. Boeing also owns contiguous buffer zone areas of 1,143
acres to the south (Southern Buffer Zone) and 182 acres to the north
(Northern Buffer Zone). DOE has no responsibilities for the Southern
Buffer Zone as it adjoins SSFL Areas I, II, and III. DOE does have
responsibility for the cleanup of soils in the 290 acres of Area IV and
in the 182-acre Northern Buffer Zone. DOE shares responsibilities for
groundwater remediation as defined in the 2007 Consent Order. Not all
of the energy research conducted in Area IV was performed for DOE.
Boeing has responsibility for the decontamination and demolition of the
buildings it owns.
Starting in the mid-1950s, the AEC funded nuclear energy research
on a 90-acre parcel of SSFL Area IV leased from Atomics International.
ETEC was established by the AEC on this parcel in the early 1960s as a
``center of excellence'' for liquid metals technology. Boeing and its
predecessors operated ETEC on behalf of DOE. At ETEC, DOE also operated
10 small nuclear reactors built for various research activities. All
SSFL reactor operations ended in 1980, and nuclear research work was
completed in 1988. Cleanup of ETEC began in the 1960s and was
undertaken as unnecessary facilities were decommissioned.
Operation of the research facilities and reactors resulted in
localized radiological contamination of soil and groundwater, and the
concrete containment that surrounded the reactors became radioactive.
Leaks from liquid radioactive waste hold-up tanks contaminated
surrounding soil. Releases of hazardous and radioactive wastes into
leachfields contaminated groundwater. DOE has removed all nuclear
material from Area IV, and all but two of its reactor buildings, and
has performed cleanup of radioactive building materials and soil to DOE
standards established in the 1980s and 1990s.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cleanup standards used during that time were based on an
estimated exposure dose per DOE guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prior NEPA Review: In March 2003, DOE issued an Environmental
Assessment for Cleanup and Closure of the Energy Technology Engineering
Center (DOE/EA-1345). The purpose and need for agency action was based
on a DOE determination in 1996 that ETEC was surplus to DOE's needs and
that the site should be closed. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment (EA), DOE determined that an EIS was not
required and issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). DOE's
FONSI was challenged, and the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California's May 2, 2007, ruling in the case Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Department of Energy (Slip Op. 2007 WL
2349288 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2007)) held that DOE's decision to issue a
FONSI and conduct cleanup and closure on the basis of the EA was in
violation of NEPA. The court enjoined DOE from transferring control of
any portion of SSFL Area IV until DOE completes an EIS and issues a
Record of Decision pursuant to NEPA.
In accordance with Council on Environmental Quality and DOE NEPA
implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 and 10 CFR Part 1021,
respectively), DOE initiated this EIS in October 2007 by issuing an
Advance NOI (72 FR 58834; October 17, 2007). Public comments received
as a result of the publication of the Advance NOI aided in the
preparation of the 2008 NOI announcing DOE's intent to prepare an EIS
(73 FR 28437; May 16, 2008). DOE held scoping meetings in July 2008. A
summary of comments received during the 2008 scoping period is on the
ETEC Web site at http://www.etec.energy.gov. DOE did not issue a draft
EIS following issuance of the 2008 NOI.
The alternatives identified in the 2008 NOI were:
Alternative 1: No Action--Cessation of all DOE management
activities and oversight of SSFL Area IV
Alternative 2: No further cleanup or disposition of
buildings and no remediation of contaminated media at SSFL Area IV but
DOE would continue environmental monitoring and maintain security of
SSFL Area IV
Alternative 3: On-site containment of buildings, wastes,
and radiological and chemical contaminants at SSFL Area IV
Alternative 4: Off-site disposal of SSFL Area IV materials
Alternative 5: Combination of on-site disposal/off-site
disposal for SSFL Area IV
The 2008 Alternatives 1 and 2 were no action baseline scenarios. DOE
has determined that analysis of No Action Alternative 1 would not
benefit decisionmaking and, thus, proposes not to analyze it in the
EIS. DOE proposes that the No Action Alternative in the EIS be based on
the 2008 No Action Alternative 2. For the Action Alternatives
(Alternatives 3, 4, 5), DOE will continue to evaluate components of the
alternatives, insofar as they are consistent with applicable
requirements, and after consideration of scoping comments, will
determine how they best fit among the range of reasonable alternatives
to be analyzed in the EIS.
Recent History: DTSC issued the 2007 Consent Order to DOE, NASA,
and Boeing (as respondents) pursuant to its authority over hazardous
waste under the California Health and Safety Code section 25187. This
2007 Consent Order required the respondents to clean up all chemically-
contaminated soils and groundwater at SSFL to risk-based levels.
[[Page 7441]]
Also in 2007, DOE received requests from DTSC and some members of
the California congressional delegation to suspend the physical
demolition and removal of the facilities still remaining at ETEC,
except for those activities necessary to maintain the site in a safe
and stable configuration until completion of the EIS. DOE has honored
these requests and continued surveillance, maintenance, environmental
monitoring, and soil and groundwater characterization activities.
In the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110-161),
Congress, among other things, mandated that DOE use a portion of the
funding for ETEC to enter into an interagency agreement with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct a joint comprehensive
radioactive site characterization of Area IV and the Northern Buffer
Zone. Additionally, in 2009, EPA received $38 million in American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from DOE to expand site
characterization work. DOE slowed preparation of the EIS until the site
characterization could be completed, nevertheless gathering information
to support the EIS such as baseline data on traffic and noise. EPA
conducted its background and on-site radionuclide investigation of Area
IV and the Northern Buffer Zone from the summer of 2009 until the fall
of 2012. EPA's final data report for the Area IV and Northern Buffer
Zone radiological study was issued in December 2012. EPA's final data
report for the radiological study is available on the ETEC Web site at
http://www.etec.energy.gov.
In December 2010, DOE and DTSC signed the 2010 AOC for soil
cleanup. (http://www.etec.energy.gov/Char_Cleanup/AOC.html). The 2010
AOC supersedes the 2007 Consent Order relative to soil cleanup and
provides the process for DOE to complete soil characterization within
Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. The 2010 AOC also describes the
process for establishing soil cleanup standards for Area IV. The 2010
AOC stipulates that the soils contamination cleanup standard will be
local background concentrations or analytical detection limits.\2\ The
AOC provides a preference for on-site treatment to minimize
transportation of soils. The AOC specifies that soil cleanup be
completed in 2017. DOE recently completed the AOC-required soil
sampling, and its final data report for the Area IV/Northern Buffer
Zone chemical study will be issued in 2014. The results of the EPA soil
radiological characterization reports and the DOE chemical
characterization results will be incorporated into the EIS
environmental analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The soil cleanup standards (action levels) are to be listed
in a ``Look-up Table'' as not-to-exceed concentrations in the soil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In December 2012, EPA provided to DTSC its cleanup value
recommendations to be included in the Look-Up Table for radionuclides,
and DTSC released provisional radionuclide Look-Up Table values in
January 2013. DOE expects that the radionuclide values will be
finalized after a laboratory to test soil samples has been identified.
In June 2013, DTSC provided Look-Up Table values for 125 of the most
frequently observed chemicals at the site, out of over 400 chemicals;
values for those remaining chemicals are expected to be forthcoming.
Preliminary results of DOE's soil chemical investigation conducted
under the 2010 AOC and the radionuclide investigation conducted by EPA
indicate that soil volumes potentially to be remediated could range
from approximately 1 million to 1.7 million cubic yards of chemically
contaminated soil, including approximately 82,000 cubic yards of
radiologically contaminated soil. These estimates are based on
established engineering estimating procedures using available Area IV
soil sampling data and the site Geographic Information System (GIS) to
estimate rough-order-of-magnitude soil volumes based on the Look-up
Table values. These volume estimates assume expansion following
excavation. The estimates do not include any reductions due to limiting
the areas of cleanup for protection of biological species or
archaeological resources that are described in the 2010 AOC, or any on-
site soil treatment (e.g., phytoremediation and bioremediation). DOE's
ongoing groundwater characterization of Area IV and the Northern Buffer
Zone has identified two areas with solvent contamination, one area with
tritium contamination, and one location with strontium-90
contamination.
Groundwater investigation and cleanup are still governed by the
2007 Consent Order (the 2010 AOC identifies the provisions of the 2007
Order that are still applicable and incorporates them by reference).
The 2007 Consent Order and the 2010 AOC provide the option for DTSC to
require additional work to be conducted outside of SSFL Area IV to
assess air, soil, and water contamination, and to require remediation
should an area of off-site contamination be demonstrated to be
emanating from Area IV.
At this time, DTSC is preparing a program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), that will include cleanup actions for the entirety of SSFL,
including those to be conducted by Boeing, NASA, and DOE. DTSC
initiated scoping for the CEQA EIR in December 2013 and extended the
public comment period through February 10, 2014. Because DOE will be
preparing its EIS concurrently, DTSC and DOE plan to share information
in the development of both environmental documents.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
DOE needs to complete remediation of SSFL Area IV and the Northern
Buffer Zone to comply with applicable requirements for radiological and
hazardous contaminants. These requirements include regulations, orders,
and agreements, including the 2007 Consent Order, as applicable, and
the 2010 AOC. To this end, DOE needs to remove the remaining DOE
structures in Area IV of SSFL and clean up the affected environment in
Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone in a manner that is protective of
the environment and the health and safety of the public and workers.
DOE Proposed Action
DOE proposes to demolish remaining DOE-owned buildings and debris
and dispose of this waste off site. DOE also proposes to clean up Area
IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. Soil cleanup would be performed based
on soil concentrations listed in Look-Up Tables for chemicals and
radionuclides. Where possible, DOE proposes to use on-site treatment of
contaminated soils and natural attenuation \3\ to reduce volumes of
contaminated soil prior to transport and disposal off site of any soils
that cannot be otherwise treated and remain on site. In all remedial
actions, steps to protect biological and archaeological (cultural)
resources would be taken. Soil that cannot be treated on site would be
transported off site to permitted disposal facilities based on the type
of waste. Locations where soil excavation is performed would be
backfilled, recontoured, and stabilized with new vegetation. In the
EIS, DOE will analyze alternatives that can mitigate transportation
impacts to the adjacent communities to the extent practicable (e.g.,
new roadway). DOE proposes to address groundwater contamination through
a variety of mechanisms,
[[Page 7442]]
including pump and treat technology, chemically enhanced degradation,
and natural attenuation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Natural attenuation takes advantage of organisms and
physical properties in the soil to degrade contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives
DOE is in the early stages of identifying the range of reasonable
alternatives for analysis in the EIS. These alternatives will be
developed based on current requirements, including the 2010 AOC,
results from site characterization, public input received during
alternative development workshops held by DOE in 2012 and public
scoping comments.
Community-Developed Cleanup Concepts
Community members developed the cleanup concepts summarized below
during the 2012 public workshops held by DOE. The concepts are similar
in their focus on cleaning up and restoring Area IV and the Northern
Buffer Zone to a level that allows use of the site as open space for
wildlife or human enjoyment. Each concept calls for minimizing
transportation impacts. Preferred use of native plants and measures to
prevent spread of invasive, non-native plants are also common
components. The approaches to meeting these objectives are different
among the concepts. DOE invites comments during this scoping period on
these community-developed concepts, as well as other suggestions for
how to proceed with cleanup of Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone.
Because the community-based concepts have common elements, they may be
formulated into one or more action alternatives for analysis in the
EIS.
Concept 1: Minimize Environmental Disturbance--The focus of this
concept is cleaning up the environment in such a way as to minimize
damage to the existing ecosystem. Cleanup would be approached in a
holistic manner, looking to an end state such that Area IV could be
integrated with the entirety of SSFL and the surrounding environs as
potential national or state park and habitat linkage. Cleanup actions
would be intended to minimize the removal of soil and disturbance of
the local environment. Structures, except uncontaminated structures
that could be repurposed, and roads, would be removed. Preference would
be given to in situ and onsite treatment of contaminated soils,
materials and groundwater, and to recycling. Building materials would
need to be managed off site and would be disposed of or recycled as
close to the site as possible to minimize transportation impacts and
costs. Treated groundwater would be discharged on-site.
Concept 2: Risk-Based Prioritization--Under this concept, cleanup
would be prioritized based on the toxicity of the contaminants to
humans and biota, and the efficacy of cleanup methods. Schedule would
not be a driver. A cost-benefit analysis may be conducted under this
concept. Excavation would be minimized for both soil and groundwater,
on-site treatment methods would be preferred, and cleanup levels would
correlate to established EPA or California toxicity levels. Tritium
would be monitored and reduced through natural attenuation. The
existing Groundwater Extraction and Treatment System would be expanded
and groundwater would be removed and treated to prevent further
contaminant migration. Transportation impacts would be minimized by
managing truck routes and schedules, and using more efficient
technologies such as hybrid engines and alternative fuels. Protection
of endangered species and cultural resources would be emphasized.
Backfilling, recontouring, and cleanup impacts for the Northern Buffer
Zone, in particular, would be minimized. At transfer, the property
would be open space.
Concept 3: Schedule- and Background-Driven Cleanup--The focus of
this cleanup concept is meeting the AOC requirements, including the
schedule. Cleanup would be to background levels, with the vision for
final state as near natural as possible, for use as a wildlife
corridor. All contaminated structures would be removed for disposal;
uncontaminated foundations and pads would be removed if necessary to
facilitate soil sampling after the buildings have been removed. On-site
storage of demolition debris would be limited to 30 days. The
preferential order of treatment to meet the AOC background standard by
2017 would be in-situ treatment, on-site treatment, and excavation.
Tritium would be monitored and reduced through natural attenuation.
Metals recycling would be prohibited. Innovative methods for moving
materials off the site to minimize truck traffic on existing roadways
and associated impacts, such as using a modular conveyor system, or
improving an existing fire road are emphasized. Intermodal
transportation using ships, rail, and trucks is proposed for
transportation to off-site disposal facilities.
Concept 4: Green Cleanup--Under this concept, which emphasizes the
use of green cleanup technologies, a point-based system would be
developed to prioritize cleanup actions resulting in an open space land
use end state. Various methods, activities, and components of each
cleanup action would be given a point value based on factors such as
cost, efficacy, degree of disturbance, and vendor location
(specifically, preference for use of California-based companies).
Preference (and therefore more favorable point values) would be given
to eco-friendly technologies and locally based capabilities. Off-site
disposal would be minimized by on-site sorting, reuse, and recycling,
and special attention would be made to avoid contamination or
recontamination of waste. Activities, such as truck movement
scheduling, would be undertaken to maximize public safety during
transportation. Road infrastructure would be evaluated and improved as
needed. There are two variations under this concept for management of
existing structures. Under the building preservation variation,
structures with the potential for reuse would be retained. Under the
building demolition variation, all manmade structures would be removed
and disposed of without consideration for reuse.
No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, DOE would undertake no further
soil or groundwater cleanup or disposition of its buildings and
structures at SSFL Area IV and the Northern Buffer Zone. Removal of
buildings and structures not owned by DOE, environmental monitoring,
stormwater controls, and security would continue at SSFL Area IV and
the Northern Buffer Zone. As required under NEPA, this alternative is
to establish the baseline against which the environmental impacts from
other analyzed alternatives can be compared.
Preliminary Identification of Environmental Issues
DOE has tentatively identified the following preliminary list of
impact areas for evaluation in the EIS:
Health and safety of the general population and workers
from radiological and non-radiological releases, and cleanup
operations;
Transportation of radiological and non-radiological wastes
to disposal sites and clean replacement soil to SSFL;
Waste management;
Potential accidents;
Intentional destructive acts;
Air resources, including air quality, climate change, and
greenhouse gases;
Noise;
Surface water and groundwater;
Geology and soils;
Land use and visual resources;
Socioeconomics;
[[Page 7443]]
Biological resources (endangered and protected species,
floodplain, and wetlands);
Cultural, historic, and paleontological resources;
Native American resources;
Irretrievable and irreversible commitment of resources;
Potential disproportionately high and adverse effects on
low-income and minority populations (environmental justice); and
Cumulative impacts.
This list is not intended to be all inclusive or to imply any
predetermination of impacts. DOE invites interested parties to suggest
specific issues, including possible mitigation measures, within these
general categories, or other categories not included above, to be
considered in the EIS.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their
undertakings on historic properties. DOE is coordinating compliance
with Section 106 with the preparation of this EIS. Also, DOE is
initiating formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Public Participation and Scoping Process
DOE is issuing this Amended NOI to inform and solicit comments from
federal and state agencies, state and local governments, Tribes,
natural resource trustees, the general public, and other interested
parties on the scope of the EIS (e.g., environmental issues,
alternatives to be analyzed, and the potential environmental impacts
related to DOE's potential activities within Area IV and the Northern
Buffer Zone). DOE invites those agencies with jurisdiction by law or
special expertise to be cooperating agencies. Invitations to be a
cooperating agency have been sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
EPA--Region 9, NASA, California DTSC, and the Santa Ynez Band of
Chumash Indians.
This Amended NOI also announces scoping meetings to be held as
described under ``DATES''. The scoping meetings will offer an
opportunity for stakeholders to learn more about the proposed action
from DOE officials and to provide comments on the proposed scope of the
EIS. The first half hour of each meeting will consist of an open house,
allowing members of the public to interact with DOE representatives and
view materials on the scope of the EIS and known issues. After the open
house, a presiding officer, designated by DOE, will announce procedures
necessary for the conduct of the meeting. DOE officials will provide a
brief presentation explaining DOE's process for identifying reasonable
alternatives and potential environmental impacts to be analyzed in the
EIS. Following the presentation, the public will be given the
opportunity to provide comments orally. A court reporter will be
present to transcribe comments. The presiding officer will establish
the order of the speakers, and will ensure that everyone who wishes to
speak has a chance to do so. DOE may need to limit speakers to three to
five minutes initially, but will provide additional opportunities if
time allows. DOE is especially interested in learning from the public
any issues or alternatives that should be considered. Comment cards
will also be available for those who would prefer to submit written
comments. Persons who wish to speak may sign up to speak before each
meeting at the reception desk.
Next Steps
DOE expects to issue the Draft EIS in late 2014. DOE will hold a
45-day public comment period beginning with the publication of the
EPA's Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the Federal
Register and will hold at least one public hearing. DOE will separately
announce, in the Federal Register and local media, information on the
public hearing(s) schedule and location(s). Comments on the Draft EIS
will be considered and addressed in the Final EIS, which DOE
anticipates issuing in fall of 2015. DOE will issue a Record of
Decision no sooner than 30 days after EPA's NOA of the Final EIS in the
Federal Register.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 3, 2014.
David Huizenga,
Senior Advisor for Environmental Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-02703 Filed 2-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P