1848 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Notices 

Del Norte County, California,’’ evaluated 

the impacts on the human environment 

of our authorization of incidental Level 

B harassment resulting from the 

specified activity in the specified 

geographic region. At that time, we 

concluded that issuance of an IHA 

November 1 through April 30, annually 

would not significantly affect the 

quality of the human environment and 

issued a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) for the 2010 EA 

regarding the Society’s activities. In 

conjunction with the Society’s 2012 

application, we have again reviewed the 

2010 EA and determined that there are 

no new direct, indirect or cumulative 

impacts to the human and natural 

environment associated with the IHA 

requiring evaluation in a supplemental 

EA and we, therefore, intend to 

preliminarily reaffirm the 2010 FONSI. 

An electronic copy of the EA and the 

FONSI for this activity is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES). 

Helen M. Golde, 

Acting Office Director, Office of Protected 

Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00202 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army 

Intent To Grant an Exclusive License 

of a U.S. Government-Owned Invention 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with 35 U.S.C. 

209(e), and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i) and 37 

CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is 

made of the intent to grant an exclusive, 

revocable license to the invention 

claimed in U.S. Patent No. 6,316,197, 

entitled ‘‘Method of Diagnosing of 

Exposure to Toxic Agents by Measuring 

Distinct Pattern in the Levels of 

Expression of Specific Genes,’’ issued 

on November 13, 2001, and foreign 

rights to Cascade Biotherapeutics, Inc., 

with its principal place of business at 

4938 Hampden Lane #319, Bethesda, 

Maryland 20814–2914. 

ADDRESSES: Commander, U.S. Army 

Medical Research and Materiel 

Command, ATTN: Command Judge 

Advocate, MCMR–JA, 504 Scott Street, 

Fort Detrick, MD 21702–5012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

licensing issues, Dr. Paul Mele, Office of 

Research & Technology Applications, 

(301) 619–6664. For patent issues, Ms. 

Elizabeth Arwine, Patent Attorney, (301) 

619–7808; both at telefax (301) 619– 

5034. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Anyone 

wishing to object to grant of this license 

can file written objections along with 

supporting evidence, if any, within 15 

days from the date of this publication. 

Written objections are to be filed with 

the Command Judge Advocate (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00226 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Plutonium-238 Production for 

Radioisotope Power Systems for 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and National Security 

Missions 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare a 

Supplement Analysis; Notice of 

Cancellation of an Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) issued the Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

Accomplishing Expanded Civilian 

Nuclear Energy Research and 

Development and Isotope Production 

Missions in the United States, Including 

the Role of the Fast Flux Test Facility 

(Nuclear Infrastructure or NI PEIS) in 

December 2000 to evaluate alternatives 

for enhancement of DOE’s nuclear 

infrastructure. After considering the 

analysis in the NI PEIS and other 

relevant factors, DOE decided to 

reestablish domestic production of 

plutonium-238 (Pu-238) for radioisotope 

power systems (RPSs) to support the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) and national 

security missions. Although a Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the NI PEIS was 

published in January 2001, DOE has not 

implemented the decision to date. That 

decision included using the Advanced 

Test Reactor at the Idaho National 

Laboratory (INL) and the High Flux 

Isotope Reactor at the Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory (ORNL) in 

Tennessee to irradiate neptunium-237 

(Np-237) targets; using the 

Radiochemical Engineering 

Development Center at ORNL to 

fabricate Np-237 targets and isolate Pu238; utilizing TA-55 at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory in New Mexico to 

purify and encapsulate Pu-238; and, 

using existing facilities at INL to 

assemble and test the RPSs. Subsequent 

to the decision, DOE issued the draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear 

Operations Related to Production of 

Radioisotope Power Systems (Draft 

Consolidation EIS) in 2005 to 

consolidate the nuclear operations 

related to RPSs at a single site. DOE is 

now proposing to implement that earlier 

decision based on the NI PEIS and 

cancel the Consolidation EIS. Prior to 

proceeding with implementation of that 

earlier decision, DOE will prepare a 

Supplement Analysis (SA) in 

accordance with DOE’s National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Implementing Procedures to determine 

whether a supplement to the NI PEIS or 

a new EIS should be prepared, or that 

no additional NEPA review is 

warranted. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on the Pu–238 

Production Program, please contact: Ms. 

Alice Caponiti, Program Director for 

Infrastructure Capabilities, Office of 

Space and Defense Power Systems (NE– 

75), Office of Nuclear Energy, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone 301–903–6062, 

alice.caponiti@nuclear.energy.gov. 

For information on NEPA analysis for 

Pu-238 production, please contact: Dr. 

Rajendra Sharma, NEPA Compliance 

Officer, Office of Nuclear Energy (NE– 

31), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone 301–903–2899, 

rajendra.sharma@nuclear.energy.gov. 

For general information on the DOE 

NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol 

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–54), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Ave. SW., Washington, 

DC 20585, Phone 202–586–4600; leave a 

message at 1–800–472–2756; facsimile 

202–586–7031; or send email to: 

asknepa@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the authority of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, DOE’s missions 

include: (1) Producing isotopes for 

research and applications in medicine 

and industry; (2) meeting nuclear 

material needs of other Federal 

agencies; and (3) conducting research 

and development activities for civilian 

use of nuclear power. As part of these 

responsibilities, DOE and its 

predecessor agencies have supplied Pu238 for U.S. space programs and 

national security missions for more than 

five decades. NASA uses RPSs, which 

are fueled by Pu-238, as the source of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Notices 1849 

electric power and heat for deep space 

missions. Nuclear reactors and chemical 

processing facilities at DOE’s Savannah 

River Site (SRS) historically produced 

Pu-238. However, the relevant nuclear 

reactors and the chemical processing 

facilities and capabilities in F-Canyon 

and H-Canyon at SRS have been shut 

down or are no longer available. Lacking 

any source of domestic production of 

Pu-238, DOE signed a 5-year contract in 

1992 to purchase up to 10 kilograms (22 

pounds) of Pu-238 per year from Russia, 

not to exceed 40 kilograms (88 pounds) 

total. This purchase agreement was 

executed through a series of contracts 

and extensions. Purchases were 

suspended in 2009 due to a 

restructuring of the Russian nuclear 

industry and a need to establish a new 

contracting arrangement. Although DOE 

plans to pursue a new agreement under 

new terms with Russia, this process 

could delay any delivery of Pu-238 by 

three or more years, and such an 

arrangement will always be a risk to 

NASA missions. As discussed in detail 

in Section 1.2.2 of the NI PEIS, updated 

mission guidance from NASA at the 

time the NI PEIS was prepared indicated 

that the U.S. inventory of Pu-238 

reserved for U.S. space missions was 

likely to be depleted by 2005. Therefore, 

DOE needed to review the adequacy of 

its nuclear infrastructure to meet 

NASA’s demands for Pu-238-fueled 

RPSs. 

Partially in response to this on-going 

need for Pu-238, DOE evaluated 

potential enhancements to its nuclear 

infrastructure that would allow it to 

meet its responsibilities under the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for the 

foreseeable future in the NI PEIS (DOE/ 

EIS–0310), which was issued on 

December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78484). The 

NI PEIS evaluated the potential 

environmental impacts that could result 

from implementation of reasonable 

alternatives and options that were 

considered for enhancement of DOE’s 

nuclear infrastructure. After considering 

the potential environmental impacts, 

costs, public comments, 

nonproliferation issues, and 

programmatic factors, DOE selected the 

Preferred Alternative identified in the 

Final NI PEIS (Alternative 2, Option 7) 

to reestablish domestic production of 

Pu-238 to support U.S. space 

exploration and national security 

missions. For this purpose, the 

Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) in Idaho 

and the High Flux Isotope Reactor 

(HFIR) at ORNL in Tennessee were to be 

used to irradiate neptunium-237 (Np237) targets; this use would not interfere 

with the primary missions of ATR and 

HFIR. The Radiochemical Engineering 

Development Center (REDC) at ORNL 

was selected for fabricating targets and 

isolating Pu-238 from the irradiated 

targets to produce up to five kilograms 

of Pu-238 per year. The decision also 

allowed for continued purchase of Pu238 from Russia to meet near-term space 

mission requirements while 

reestablishing domestic production 

capabilities. The NI PEIS ROD was 

published on January 26, 2001 (66 FR 

7877). 

In the ROD, DOE had decided to 

transport Np-237, after conversion to 

neptunium oxide (NpO2), from SRS to 

REDC at ORNL for target fabrication. 

After the September 11, 2001, terrorist 

attack, DOE required additional security 

and safeguards for special nuclear 

materials (SNMs). Np-237 is considered 

an SNM. REDC did not meet 

requirements for storage of SNMs and it 

would have required costly upgrades to 

qualify for safe, secure storage of NpO2. 

Two alternative locations which met the 

requirements for safe storage of NpO2

were identified, one at each of the 

DOE’s Oak Ridge and Idaho sites. DOE 

prepared an SA (DOE/EIS–0310–SA–01) 

for the proposed change of storage 

location of NpO2 from REDC to the Y– 

12 National Security Complex at the 

Oak Ridge site and/or Argonne National 

Laboratory-West (renamed Materials 

and Fuels Complex [MFC]) at the INL 

site in Idaho to determine whether a 

supplement to the NI PEIS would be 

necessary. DOE determined that no 

additional NEPA documentation was 

necessary and amended its ROD (69 FR 

50180, August 13, 2004) to change the 

NpO2 storage location from REDC to the 

MFC at INL. Consistent with this 

decision, NpO2 for use as target material 

for production of Pu-238 has been 

transported from SRS to INL and is now 

stored at MFC. 

Proposed Consolidation 

By the end of fiscal year 2004, DOE 

had taken no other action or incurred 

any expenses to implement the NI PEIS 

ROD related to production of Pu-238. 

On November 16, 2004, DOE published 

a Notice of Intent to Prepare 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Proposed Consolidation of Nuclear 

Operations Related to Production of 

Radioisotope Power Systems (69 FR 

67139). At the time, DOE’s ongoing and 

planned-to-be-established RPS-related 

production operations were located at 

three DOE sites in Idaho, New Mexico, 

and Tennessee, requiring the transport 

of radioactive material that could be 

avoided by consolidation of these 

activities at a single, highly secure DOE 

site. The proposed consolidation of 

these operations, which included 

production, purification, and 

encapsulation of Pu-238, would be 

consistent with DOE’s approach on 

consolidating nuclear materials to 

enhance security of nuclear materials 

and reduce risks associated with their 

transport. The existing and planned 

operations related to RPS production in 

November 2004 were as follows: Np237, used in preparation of targets as the 

feed material for Pu-238 production, 

was to be transported from SRS to INL 

for storage per amendment to the NI 

PEIS ROD (the shipment is now 

complete and Np-237 is currently stored 

at INL); the production capability was 

planned to be established at ORNL 

according to the NI PEIS ROD where the 

targets would be fabricated in REDC, 

irradiated at ATR in Idaho 

(supplemented by HFIR in Oak Ridge) 

and then processed in REDC to recover 

Pu-238; Pu-238 was then to have been 

transported to LANL; Pu-238 was to be 

purified and encapsulated at LANL and 

transported to INL; and RPS assembly 

and test operations were to be 

conducted as ongoing operations at INL 

in existing facilities. 

Under the preferred alternative 

identified in the Draft Consolidation EIS 

(DOE/EIS–0373), DOE proposed to 

consolidate all activities related to RPS 

production within the secure area at 

INL. New construction for the Pu-238 

production, purification, and 

encapsulation part of the infrastructure 

was proposed due to the very limited 

capability of existing facilities in the 

secure area. No new construction was 

required for the assembly and test 

operations that were already being 

located in the secure area at INL. The 

consolidation of the RPS production 

infrastructure would have included the 

following activities: (1) Np-237 would 

be stored at the INL as already decided; 

(2) Pu-238 production capability 

(including Np-237 target fabrication and 

processing) would be established at INL 

with ATR serving as the primary 

irradiation facility, and HFIR would be 

used only as a back-up facility if 

necessary; (3) Pu-238 operations carried 

out at LANL would be transferred to INL 

and (4) the existing facility, the Space 

and Security Power Systems Facility, at 

INL would continue to be established 

and maintained for RPS assembly and 

test operations as already planned. DOE 

proposed to use existing facilities for the 

production of Pu-238 during the time 

period required for the new facilities at 

INL to become operational. This period 

between 2007 and 2011 was referred to 

in the Consolidation EIS as the ‘‘bridge’’ 

period. The Notice of Availability for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1850 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Notices 

the Draft Consolidation EIS was 

published on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 

38132). 

In response to public comments, DOE 

explored other locations and facilities 

for the ‘‘bridge’’ alternative, in addition 

to those analyzed in the Draft 

Consolidation EIS. While review of 

other reasonable alternatives at DOE 

sites was in progress, it became evident 

that refurbishment of existing facilities 

to make them suitable for the bridge 

period would not be cost effective. In 

addition, the escalating cost estimate of 

proposed new construction at INL did 

not favor the proposed consolidation. 

Therefore, DOE postponed issuance of 

the Final Consolidation EIS while the 

program reanalyzed its approach to Pu– 

238 production, with or without 

consolidation. On the basis of this 

reanalysis, DOE now believes that 

consolidation is no longer a reasonable 

alternative due to very high cost of 

refurbishment of facilities for the bridge 

period and for proposed new 

construction at the consolidation site. 

Therefore, the Consolidation EIS is 

hereby cancelled. 

Next Steps 

In order to restart Pu-238 production, 

implementation of the decision made in 

the NI PEIS ROD offers the optimum 

approach. Since the NI PEIS ROD was 

issued nearly 12 years ago, DOE will 

prepare an SA in accordance with 

DOE’s NEPA Implementing Procedures 

at 10 CFR 1021.314 prior to 

implementing that decision. There are 

no changes to the proposed action as 

analyzed in the NI PEIS. If there are 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns, DOE will prepare a 

supplemental EIS in accordance with 10 

CFR 1021.314 and the Council on 

Environmental Quality Regulations at 

40 CFR 1502.9. Otherwise, DOE may 

determine that the 2001 decision can be 

implemented without further NEPA 

documentation. DOE’s determination 

will be announced in the Federal 

Register and the SA and the 

determination will be available to the 

public and posted on the DOE NEPA 

Web site. Copies of the determination 

and SA will be provided upon written 

request and will be available for 

inspection in the appropriate DOE 

public reading room(s) or other 

appropriate location(s) for a reasonable 

period of time. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 2, 

2013. 

Peter B. Lyons, 

Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00239 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Docket No. CP13–31–000] 

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; 

Notice of Application for Abandonment 

Take notice that on December 19, 

2012, Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP 

(Gulf South), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 

2800, Houston, TX 77046, filed in 

Docket No. CP13–31–000, an 

application pursuant to sections 157.7 

and 157.18 of the Commission’s 

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 

(NGA) as amended. Gulf South seeks 

authority to abandon the Magnolia Gas 

Storage Facility (Magnolia Facility) at 

the Napoleonville salt dome in 

Assumption Parish, Louisiana, and the 

storage services provided from that 

facility, all as more fully set forth in the 

application on file with the Commission 

and open to public inspection. Gulf 

South also seeks Commission authority 

to idle the facilities remaining at the 

Magnolia Facility which were 

constructed and placed into natural gas 

service in 2003, but are not proposed for 

refunctionalization as transmission 

facilities in Docket No. CP13–12–000. 

These facilities will remain physically 

in place and held for future use. 

The filing may also be viewed on the 

Web at http://www.ferc.gov using the 

‘‘eLibrary’’ link. Enter the docket 

number excluding the last three digits in 

the docket number field to access the 

document. For assistance, please contact 

FERC Online Support at 

FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll 

free at (866) 208–3676, or TTY, contact 

(202) 502–8659. 

Any questions concerning this 

application may be directed to Michael 

E. McMahon, Senior Vice President and 

General Counsel; J. Kyle Stephens, Vice 

President, Regulatory Affairs; or M.L. 

Gutierrez, Director, Regulatory Affairs, 

at Boardwalk Pipeline Partners, LP, 9 

Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, 

TX 77046, telephone (713) 479–8252, 

fax (713) 479–1745 or email: 

Mike.McMahon@bwpmlp.com, 

Kyle.Stephens@bwpmlp.com or 

Nell.Gutierrez@bwpmlp.com. 

There are two ways to become 

involved in the Commission’s review of 

this project. First, any person wishing to 

obtain legal status by becoming a party 

to the proceedings for this project 

should, before the comment date of this 

notice, file with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to 

intervene in accordance with the 

requirements of the Commission’s Rules 

of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 

385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations 

under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A 

person obtaining party status will be 

placed on the service list maintained by 

the Secretary of the Commission and 

will receive copies of all documents 

filed by the applicant and by all other 

parties. A party must submit 14 copies 

of filings made with the Commission 

and must mail a copy to the applicant 

and to every other party in the 

proceeding. Only parties to the 

proceeding can ask for court review of 

Commission orders in the proceeding. 

Persons who wish to comment only 

on the environmental review of this 

project should submit an original and 

two copies of their comments to the 

Secretary of the Commission. 

Environmental commenter’s will be 

placed on the Commission’s 

environmental mailing list, will receive 

copies of the environmental documents, 

and will be notified of meetings 

associated with the Commission’s 

environmental review process. 

Environmental commenter’s will not be 

required to serve copies of filed 

documents on all other parties. 

However, the non-party commentary, 

will not receive copies of all documents 

filed by other parties or issued by the 

Commission (except for the mailing of 

environmental documents issued by the 

Commission) and will not have the right 

to seek court review of the 

Commission’s final order. 

The Commission strongly encourages 

electronic filings of comments, protests 

and interventions in lieu of paper using 

the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at http:// 

www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file 

electronically should submit an original 

and 7 copies of the protest or 

intervention to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street 

NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern 

Time on January 24, 2013. 

Dated: January 3, 2013. 

Kimberly D. Bose, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00264 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6717–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with