Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices 1095

Department of the Navy

Record of Decision for a Dry Storage

Container System for the Management

of Naval Spent Nuclear Fuel

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2) of

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) of 1969; the Council on

Environmental Quality regulations

implementing NEPA procedures, 40

CFR Parts 1500–1508; and Chief of

Naval Operations Environmental and

Natural Resources Program Manual,

OPNAV Instruction 5090.1B; the

Department of the Navy announces its

decision to implement the preferred

alternative (dual-purpose canisters)

identified in the final Environmental

Impact Statement for a Container

System for the Management of Naval

Spent Nuclear Fuel (EIS) dated

November 1996. The Department of

Energy (DOE), which participated as a

cooperating agency, formally adopted

the final EIS on October 9, 1996

(designated as DOE/EIS–0251) (61 FR

59435) and has concurred in this Record

of Decision. The DOE was a cooperating

agency because the DOE, under the

Nuclear Waste Policy Act, is responsible

for the ultimate disposition of all spent

nuclear fuel, including civilian and

military. The DOE is also responsible for

the facilities at the Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory (INEL) where

naval spent nuclear fuel is currently

stored. The Navy will utilize a dualpurpose canister system for the

management of naval spent nuclear fuel

and the management of naval special

case low-level radioactive waste. A

dual-purpose canister system will be

used for the loading, dry storage,

transport, and possible disposal of naval

spent nuclear fuel following

examination at the INEL. This Record of

Decision neither decides nor presumes

that naval special case waste will be

shipped to a geologic repository or a

centralized interim storage site as naval

spent nuclear fuel.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final EIS and

other information related to this Record

of Decision are available in the public

reading rooms and libraries identified in

the Federal Register notice that

announced the availability of the Final

EIS (61 FR 59423). For further

information on the Navy’s utilization of

a dry storage container system for naval

spent nuclear fuel, or to receive a copy

of the final EIS, contact William Knoll,

Department of the Navy, Code NAVSEA

08U, 2531 Jefferson Davis Highway,

Arlington, VA 22242–5160, (703) 603–

6126. For information on the DOE’s

NEPA process, please contact Carol M.

Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA

Policy and Assistance (EH–42), U.S.

Department of Energy, 1000

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586–4600

or leave a message at 1–800–472–2756.

Introduction

More than 40% of the Navy’s

principal combatants are nuclear

powered. Since 1955, U.S. nuclear

powered warships have steamed safely

more than one hundred million miles

and accumulated over 4,700 reactor

years of safe operation. Continued

operation of the Navy’s nuclear powered

warships remains a vital element of the

Navy’s ability to fulfill its national

security mission in support of our

nation’s defense.

The Navy creates spent nuclear fuel

through the operation of its nuclear

powered warships and training reactors.

When a warship is refueled for

continued service or is defueled because

it is being inactivated, its spent nuclear

fuel is removed at a shipyard. Similarly,

naval spent nuclear fuel is removed

from afloat and land-based training

reactors when they are refueled or

deactivated. In all cases, the naval spent

nuclear fuel is transported to the INEL

in southeastern Idaho where it is

examined at the Expended Core Facility

(ECF) located at the Naval Reactors

Facility (NRF). This examination is

essential to verify the performance of

current naval nuclear fuel and to

support the design of naval fuel with

longer lifetimes. After examination, the

naval spent nuclear fuel is transferred to

the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant

(ICPP) for storage in water pools

pending final disposition. Currently,

there are approximately 13 metric tons

of heavy metal of naval spent nuclear

fuel at the INEL. A total of

approximately 65 metric tons of naval

spent nuclear fuel will exist by the year

2035.

The Navy is committed to ensuring

that post-examination naval spent

nuclear fuel is managed in a fashion

which (1) facilitates ultimate safe

shipment to a permanent geologic

repository or centralized interim storage

site outside the State of Idaho;

(2) protects the Idaho environment

while being temporarily stored at the

INEL;

(3) is consistent with the DOE

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and INEL Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management

Programs Final Environmental Impact

Statement (April 1995); and

(4) complies with the court ordered

agreement among the State of Idaho, the

DOE, and the Navy, which is discussed

in this Record of Decision under Legal

and Regulatory Considerations.

Until a geologic repository or

centralized interim storage site outside

the State of Idaho (discussed in Section

2.8.2 of the final EIS) is available, the

Navy is committed to a number of

actions to ensure uninterrupted

operation of the Navy’s nuclear powered

fleet. These include transfer of all naval

spent nuclear fuel at the INEL out of wet

storage facilities into dry storage,

completion of a Dry Cell expansion

project at the ECF, completion of Hot

Cell facility upgrades at the ECF,

construction of an ECF dry storage

container loading station, and

performance of certain environmental

restoration work at the NRF. The high

integrity and rugged nature of naval

spent nuclear fuel make it exceptionally

well suited for safe transport, storage,

and ultimate disposal after service. The

Navy must make a decision on the type

of dry storage container system now in

order to support planning required to

meet its commitment as discussed in

this Record of Decision under Legal and

Regulatory Considerations for dry

storing naval spent nuclear fuel and

ultimately shipping it out of the State of

Idaho.

Alternatives Considered

The Navy considered six alternative

dry storage container systems for the

loading, storage, transport, and possible

disposal of post-examination naval

spent nuclear fuel and the management

of special case waste. The alternatives

may use either of the existing dry

storage containers or of dry storage

containers that could be produced by

manufacturers of such equipment.

Because of differences in configurations

of naval spent nuclear fuel assemblies,

all of the alternatives require containers

to have internal baskets designed for

specific naval spent nuclear fuel types.

Two time frames were used for

analyses. For complete system

operations, 1996–2035, a time period of

40 years is used. For analyses

concerning transportation to a spent

nuclear fuel repository and handling of

post-examination naval spent nuclear

fuel at the INEL, the period 2010 to 2035

(25 years) was used because a repository

would be expected to begin accepting

spent nuclear fuel before 2010. The

actual date that a repository would

begin accepting spent nuclear fuel

would have minimal impact on the

results presented in the final EIS and

would not change the number of

shipments to be made.

There is also the possibility that a

centralized storage site may be

designated for interim storage of civilian
1096 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices

spent nuclear fuel until a repository is

available. If such a centralized interim

storage site were opened and if naval

spent nuclear fuel were allowed by law

to be stored there, transportation of

naval spent nuclear fuel might begin

before 2010. A range of transportation

routes was analyzed in the EIS. As such,

the transportation analyses are suitable

for comparison of the impacts

associated with transportation to a

centralized interim storage site among

alternatives.

A brief description of the six

alternatives follows:

(1) No-Action Alterative—Use of

existing technology to handle, store, and

subsequently transport naval spent

nuclear fuel to a geologic repository or

a centralized interim storage site using

the Navy M–140 transportation cask.

Prior to shipment to a repository or

centralized interim storage site, naval

spent nuclear fuel would be managed at

the INEL in water pools or commercially

available dry storage containers, then

loaded into M–140 transportation casks.

At a repository, the naval spent nuclear

fuel would be unloaded from the M–140

transportation casks and placed in a

geologic repository’s surface facilities

for loading into disposal containers.

Following unloading, the M–140

transportation casks would be returned

to the INEL for reuse. Because existing

M–140 transportation casks are needed

to maintain scheduled fleet refuelings

and defuelings, approximately 24

additional M–140 transportation casks

would have to be manufactured to

handle the shipment of about 425 cask

loads of naval spent nuclear fuel to a

repository between 2010 and 2035. Two

hundred and twenty-five dry storage

containers would be required for use at

the INEL, and 300 disposal containers

would be required under this

alternative. For the management of

special case waste, up to 30 additional

dry storage containers, four additional

M–140 transportation casks, and 60

additional disposal containers would be

needed.

(2) Current Technology/

Supplemented by High Capacity Rail

Alternative—This alternative uses the

same storage methods and M–140

transportation casks described in the noaction alternative, but with redesigned

internal structures for the M–140 cask to

accommodate a larger amount of naval

spent nuclear fuel per cask, thus

reducing the total number of shipments

required. For the purpose of analysis,

the EIS assumes that approximately 24

additional M–140 transportation casks

would be needed in order to expedite

shipment of approximately 325

containers of naval spent nuclear fuel by

rail to a repository or centralized

interim storage site. One hundred and

fifty dry storage containers would be

required for use at the INEL, and 300

disposal containers would be required

under this alternative. For the

management of special case waste, up to

26 additional dry storage containers,

four additional M–140 transportation

casks, and 60 additional disposal

containers would be needed.

(3) Transportable Storage Cask

Alternative—This alternative uses an

existing, commercially available

transportable storage cask for storage at

the INEL as well as for transportation to

a repository or centralized interim

storage site. At a repository, individual

assemblies of naval spent nuclear fuel

would be unloaded from the casks and

placed in surface facilities for loading

into disposal containers. The unloaded

transportable storage casks would be

returned to the INEL for further storage

and transport. Approximately 325

shipments of the reusable transportable

storage cask (150 casks required) would

be necessary for the shipment of all

naval spent nuclear fuel and 300

containers would be required for

disposal. For the management of special

case waste, up to 21 additional storage

casks and 60 additional disposal

containers would be needed.

(4) Dual-Purpose Canister

Alternative—This alternative uses an

existing, commercially available

canister and overpack system for storage

at the INEL and shipment of naval spent

nuclear fuel to a geologic repository or

centralized interim storage site. At a

repository, the naval spent nuclear fuel

would be unloaded from the canisters

and placed in surface facilities for

loading into disposal containers.

Approximately 300 canisters would be

required for dry storage and shipment of

naval spent nuclear fuel by rail to a

repository or centralized interim storage

site. In addition, 150 dry storage

overpacks for use at the INEL, 15

transportation overpacks, and 300

disposal containers would be required.

For the management of special case

waste, up to 45 additional canisters, 23

additional storage overpacks, three

additional transportation overpacks, and

60 additional disposal containers would

be needed.

(5) Multi-Purpose Canister

Alternative—This alternative uses about

300 large (125-ton) multi-purpose

canisters for storage, transportation, and

disposal of naval spent nuclear fuel,

without repackaging or further handling

of individual spent nuclear fuel

assemblies. In addition to the sealed

metal canisters, specialized casks or

overpacks would be required for

different stages of the process, including

150 dry storage overpacks for use at the

INEL, 15 transportation overpacks for

transporting naval spent nuclear fuel to

a geologic repository or centralized

interim storage site, and 300 disposal

overpacks for disposal in a repository.

For the management of special case

waste, up to 60 additional canisters, 30

additional storage overpacks, three

additional transportation overpacks, and

60 additional disposal overpacks would

be needed.

(6) Small Multi-Purpose Canister

Alternative—This alternative uses about

500 smaller (75 ton) multi-purpose

canisters, rather than large multipurpose canisters. The small multipurpose canisters would be similar in

design, operations, and function to the

large multi-purpose canisters, but would

offer a lower weight and size alternative

for transportation and handling at a

geologic repository or centralized

interim storage site. Two hundred and

twenty-five dry storage overpacks for

use at the INEL, 25 transportation

overpacks for transporting naval spent

nuclear fuel to a geologic repository or

centralized interim storage site, and 500

disposal overpacks for disposal in a

repository would be required. For the

management of special case waste, up to

85 additional canisters, 39 additional

storage overpacks, five additional

transportation overpacks, and 85

additional disposal overpacks would be

needed.

Decisions

The Navy announces its decision to

use a dual-purpose canister system for

the management of post-examination

naval spent nuclear fuel and special

case low-level radioactive waste. The

primary benefits of a dual-purpose

canister system are efficiencies in

container manufacturing and fuel

reloading operations and potential

further reduction in radiation exposure.

A dual-purpose canister system will

allow the safe storage and shipment of

naval spent nuclear fuel for ultimate

disposition. The system might also be

found to be acceptable for disposal

purposes once the disposal

requirements for a geologic repository

have been formulated and finalized,

making it functionally equivalent to a

multi-purpose canister system.

The Navy evaluated each of the

alternatives to a set of criteria in order

to select a preferred alternative. The

results of that evaluation are

summarized briefly below.

There was no obvious preference for

any dry storage container system based

on public comments. Further, all of the

alternative dry storage container
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices 1097

systems technically support the storage,

shipment, and disposal of naval spent

nuclear fuel.

The Department of the Navy’s

analysis of the environmental and

public health impacts from the

following would be small and would

differ little among alternatives: the

manufacture of any of the dry storage

container systems; the operations of

handling, storage, transportation and

unloading at a repository; and the

construction of facilities. All

alternatives are considered comparable

and indistinguishable under this

criterion, thus, there is no

environmentally preferred alternative.

Cost comparisons were based on

procurement costs for equipment, as

well as handling, storage, transportation

and container disposal costs. Under this

criterion, the dual-purpose canister

system has a medium comparative cost.

The multi-purpose canister has the

lowest comparative cost, in part because

the fuel assemblies would only be

handled one time, but since no multipurpose canisters currently exist the

cost comparison is somewhat

conjectural. If the dual-purpose canister

alternative meets the repository design

criteria for disposal packages when

those criteria are established, fuel

assemblies would be handled once

instead of twice, and the cost would

decrease such that it would be

comparable with the multi-purpose

canister. There is a high probability that

a dual-purpose canister system for naval

spent nuclear fuel can be produced

successfully and economically because

it is similar to currently available

systems for civilian spent fuel.

To evaluate operational efficiency, the

Navy evaluated the processes which

must be performed for any of the

alternatives, including: loading fuel into

dry storage containers, unloading fuel

from dry storage containers for

shipment, off-site transport, and loading

or reloading fuel at a geologic repository

surface facility for ultimate disposal.

Each of these general operations may be

performed once, multiple times, or not

at all, depending on the system

implemented. Each of the alternatives

can be categorized as either a cask or a

canister system based on whether the

naval spent nuclear fuel would be

transferred from storage for shipment as

collections of individual fuel assemblies

(cask) or as a unit inside a sealed

package (canister).

It was concluded from the process

evaluation that multi-purpose canister

systems would be the most efficient

systems when considering the handling

of fuel. Individual fuel assemblies

would not have to be unloaded from the

canisters once they had been loaded for

the multi-purpose canister alternatives.

The individual fuel assemblies would

be handled only one time: during the

initial loading of the canister. The most

inefficient systems from this standpoint

are the No-Action and the Current

Technology/Rail Alternatives because

individual fuel assemblies must be

handled three times, once for each

packaging operation.

For the dual-purpose canister system,

the individual fuel assemblies would be

loaded into a canister prior to storage.

The canister would not need to be

reopened prior to packaging the canister

for transportation. It is possible that at

a geologic repository the individual fuel

assemblies may need to be handled in

the process of packing disposal

containers. However, if the canisters

meet repository disposal criteria when

these criteria are established, the dualpurpose canister system would be

functionally equivalent to a multipurpose canister system in that the

individual fuel assemblies would be

handled only once. Although handling

fuel is routinely accomplished safely

without impact on human health or the

environment, doing it multiple times is

inefficient, and incurs additional

occupational radiation exposure and

some risk.

With respect to regulatory and

disposal criteria impacts, the only

anticipated changes that may affect the

selected alternative are in the area of

repository disposal regulations. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

is expected to issue revised draft

standards (40 CFR part 197) for a

geologic repository in 1997. The Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) plans to

issue changes to its repository disposal

regulations (10 CFR part 60) to establish

design criteria within one year of the

issue of the EPA standards.

Based on the uncertainties and far

term nature of the disposal regulations,

there are no discernible advantages or

disadvantages associated with any of the

alternatives based on potential impact of

disposal regulations. No changes

affecting this evaluation in the storage

and transportation regulations are

anticipated and all of the alternatives

would meet the current regulations.

The Navy anticipates that final waste

acceptance criteria for a geologic

repository will not be established for at

least five years. As a result there is some

uncertainty in implementing a multipurpose canister system at this time.

The Navy cannot wait five years for the

establishment of waste criteria plus any

additional time required to develop a

multi-purpose canister based on such

criteria in order to meet its commitment

as discussed in this Record of Decision

under Legal and Regulatory

Considerations. If a multi-purpose

canister is not compatible with geologic

repository criteria, the fuel canisters

may need to be opened and the

individual fuel assemblies handled and

placed into acceptable disposal

containers. In this event the multipurpose canister system would

essentially become a dual-purpose

canister system.

The Navy also considered the

direction of industry and

standardization in selecting an

alternative. In implementing a dry

storage container system for the

management of naval spent nuclear fuel,

there is an advantage in utilizing a

system compatible with the systems in

use or planned for use by operators of

reactors which commercially generate

electricity. All spent nuclear fuel,

commercial and naval, is destined for

the same geologic repository or could be

destined for the same centralized

interim storage site if such a site were

opened and naval spent nuclear fuel

were allowed by law to be stored there.

Naval spent nuclear fuel containers will

represent only about one to four percent

of the total number of containers that

would be shipped to a repository or

centralized interim storage facility.

Therefore, to the extent that the most

widely used systems for commercial

spent nuclear fuel drive any repository

design or acceptance criteria, it is

considered prudent to utilize a system

which is similar to the systems being

used or planned for use by commercial

electric utilities. Other advantages to

using the same system or one similar to

that which the commercial utilities have

recently licensed through the NRC

include prior completion of extensive

technical reviews, prior completion of

peer and public review, and some

proven applications which may be in

operation.

The majority of the new spent nuclear

fuel storage systems being designed or

in review by the NRC are dual-purpose

systems with different overpacks for

storage and transport. The 125-ton

multi-purpose canister, the 75-ton

multi-purpose canister, the

transportable storage cask and the dualpurpose canister system were all found

to reflect current industry direction. The

No-Action and the Current Technology/

Rail Alternatives do not.

Finally, the Navy looked at technical

uncertainties and risks. There are no

substantial technical uncertainties

associated with the loading of naval

nuclear spent fuel into dry storage

containers, the storage of the containers

at the INEL, or the transportation off-site
1098 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices

to a geologic repository. All of the

alternatives assume the use of dry

storage containers which will meet the

storage requirements of 10 CFR part 72

and the transportation requirements of

10 CFR part 71. Several licensed

systems are currently in use and other

new systems are in the review cycle for

NRC approval for use.

As discussed in this Record of

Decision under Legal and Regulatory

Considerations, the Navy must select a

dry storage container system now to

support completion of its commitments

for dry storing naval spent nuclear fuel.

Thus, the Navy cannot wait a minimum

of five years anticipated for the

establishment of waste criteria plus any

additional time required to develop a

multi-purpose canister based on such

criteria. Dual-purpose canisters

represent the best system given the need

to make a decision now and their

favorable comparison to the other

alternatives considering cost,

operational efficiency, industry trends,

regulatory acceptance, and the other

criteria discussed above.

Mitigation

The strictly controlled conduct of

operations associated with the DOE and

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program

spent fuel management activities are

mitigation measures integral to the

selected alternative. The DOE and the

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program have

directives and regulations for conduct of

spent nuclear fuel management

operations. All government spent fuel

shipments must comply with the DOE

and Department of Transportation

regulations. The DOE and the Navy have

adopted stringent controls for

minimizing occupational and public

radiation exposure. The policy of these

programs is to reduce radiation

exposures to as low as reasonably

achievable (ALARA). Singly and

collectively, these measures avoid,

reduce, or eliminate any potentially

adverse environmental impacts from

spent nuclear fuel management

activities, including those associated

with containerization. The Navy and the

DOE have not identified a need for

additional mitigation measures.

Legal and Regulatory Considerations

The Record of Decision for the DOE

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management and Idaho National

Engineering Laboratory Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management

Programs Final Environmental Impact

Statement was issued on June 1, 1995

(60 FR 28680). On October 17, 1995, the

federal District Court entered a Consent

Order that resolved all issues related to

the EIS raised by the State of Idaho and

the Governor of Idaho. The Consent

Order incorporated as requirements all

of the terms and conditions of the

parties’ Settlement Agreement,

including a reduction in the number of

spent nuclear fuel shipments coming to

the State of Idaho.

All proposed actions by the Navy will

be in full compliance with the

requirements of the Consent Order/

settlement agreement among the State of

Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the DOE. The

settlement agreement included an

obligation of the Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program to fund a dry

storage container loading station at ECF,

expending no less than $20 million on

that project by October 2000. This

Record of Decision is consistent with

that obligation. The settlement

agreement also obligates the DOE to

commence moving spent nuclear fuel

currently in water pool storage into dry

storage by July 1, 2003.

In addition to the Consent Order,

Chapter 8 of the final EIS identifies the

major applicable laws and regulations

which the Department of the Navy is

mandated to comply with in the

fabrication and utilization of a dry

storage container system for the

management of naval spent nuclear fuel.

Public Involvement

On October 24, 1994, the DOE

published a Notice of Intent in the

Federal Register (59 FR 53442) to

prepare an EIS for a multi-purpose

canister system for the management of

civilian spent nuclear fuel. As part of

the public scoping process, the scope of

the EIS for the multi-purpose canister

system was broadened to include naval

spent nuclear fuel. This determination

was included in the Implementation

Plan whose availability was announced

in the Federal Register on August 30,

1995 (60 FR 45147). However, the DOE

halted its proposal to fabricate and

deploy a multi-purpose canister based

system and ceased preparation of that

EIS.

On December 7, 1995 the Department

of the Navy published a notice in the

Federal Register (60 FR 62828)

assuming the lead responsibility for an

Environmental Impact Statement

evaluating dry storage container systems

for the management of naval spent

nuclear fuel. The Department of the

Navy assumed the lead responsibility

from the DOE and narrowed the focus

of the EIS to include only naval spent

nuclear fuel. Despite the narrowing of

the focus to only naval spent nuclear

fuel and the change in lead agency, the

range of dry storage container

alternatives being considered did not

change. Thus the EIS did not require

another scoping process. The DOE

became a cooperating agency rather than

the lead agency in the preparation of

that EIS.

On May 1, 1996, the Navy distributed

the Draft EIS. The Notice of Availability

of the Draft EIS was announced in the

Federal Register on May 14, 1996 along

with the locations and dates of public

hearings (61 FR 24293). The Draft EIS

was widely distributed to public

officials, tribal officials, and state

agencies in the areas of potential

interest, as well as to individuals

requesting the document. The public

comment period for the EIS was

originally scheduled to be 45 days, but

a 15-day extension was granted based

on a request from the State of Nevada.

During the public comment period, six

public hearings were held and both

written and oral comments were

received. Oral and written comments

were received from 51 parties,

representing: federal, state, and local

agencies and officials; special interest

groups; and individuals.

Although no substantive changes to

the Draft EIS were needed as a result of

public comments, several clarifications

and editorial changes were made in

response to comments. For example, the

Final EIS was modified to clearly state

that the effect of a terrorist attack or an

act of sabotage is expected to be

conservatively bounded by the limiting

accidents already discussed. The

discussion of transportation routes used

in the analysis was expanded to explain

their application. In addition, the EIS

was modified to enhance the reader’s

ability to use the results of analyses to

evaluate the possibility that any of the

alternatives might have a

disproportionately high and adverse

impact on minority or low-income

populations.

A new Chapter 11 was added to the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

in which each comment was reprinted

in its entirety, followed immediately by

individual responses to each of the

major points. The EPA formally

announced the availability of the final

EIS on November 22, 1996 (61 FR

59435). The Navy also announced the

availability of the final EIS on

November 22, 1996 (61 FR 59423).

Approval

This Record of Decision constitutes

the Department of the Navy’s final

action with regard to selection of a dry

storage container system for the

management of post-examination naval

spent nuclear fuel and naval special

case low-level radioactive waste. This

Record of Decision does not constitute
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 5 / Wednesday, January 8, 1997 / Notices 1099

final action for location(s) for dry

loading naval spent nuclear fuel which

is currently stored at the ICPP or which

will be stored at ICPP prior to

establishment of a dry storage facility, or

for location(s) for temporary dry storage

of naval spent nuclear fuel at the INEL.

Those actions will be the subject of an

upcoming Record of Decision.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 26th day

of December 1996.

Richard Danzig,

Acting Secretary of the Navy.

Alvin L. Alm,

Assistant Secretary for Environmental

Management U.S. Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–411 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Notice of Wetlands Involvement for

Environmental Remediation at

Argonne National Laboratory-East

AGENCY: Chicago Operations Office,

DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Wetlands

Involvement.

SUMMARY: DOE proposes to conduct a

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA) corrective-action program

and other environmental remediation

activities at contaminated sites at

Argonne National Laboratory-East

(ANL–E). Two of the contaminated sites

include small wetlands. In accordance

with DOE regulations for compliance

with floodplain and wetlands

environmental review requirements (10

CFR 1022), DOE will prepare a wetlands

assessment for this proposed action. The

wetlands assessment will be included in

the environmental assessment being

prepared for the proposed project in

accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act.

DATES: Comments are due to the address

below no later than January 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to: Dr. W. S. White, NEPA

Compliance Officer, U.S. Department of

Energy, Chicago Operations Office, 9800

S. Cass Avenue, Argonne, IL 60439.

(630) 252–2101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Further information on this proposed

action and wetlands assessment can be

obtained from Donna Green, Document

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy,

Argonne Group, 9800 S. Cass Avenue,

Argonne, IL 60439. (630) 252–2264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed action would involve two

small palustrine emergent wetlands.

One of the wetlands is 0.004 hectares

(0.0016 acres); the other is 0.036

hectares (0.015 acres). Contaminant

hazards at these wetlands would be

reduced by excavation, containment, or

phytoremediation.

Issued in Chicago, IL on December 18,

1996.

Dr. W. S. White,

NEPA Compliance Officer, Chicago

Operations Office, Department of Energy.

[FR Doc. 97–392 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[FERC–423]

Agency Information Collection Under

Review by the Office of Management

and Budget

January 3, 1997.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of request submitted for

review to the Office of Management and

Budget.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission)

has submitted the energy information

collection listed in this notice to the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under provisions of

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–13). Any interested person

may file comments on the collection of

information directly with OMB and

should address a copy of those

comments to the Commission, as

explained below. The Commission

received public comments from two

entities in response to an earlier Federal

Register notice of August 12, 1996 (61

FR 41779) and has replied to these

comments in its submission to OMB.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before February 7, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Address comments to Office

of Management and Budget, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Attention: Federal Energy Commission

Desk Officer, 726 Jackson Place N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20503. A copy of the

comments should also be sent to Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission,

Division of Information Services,

Attention: Mr. Michael Miller, 888 First

Street N.E., Washington D.C. 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Miller may be reached by

telephone at (202) 208–1415 and by email at mmiller@ferc.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Description

The energy information collection

submitted to OMB for review contains:

1. Collection of Information: FERC

Form No. 423, ‘‘Monthly Report of Cost

and Quality of Fuels for Electric Plants’’.

2. Sponsor: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

3. Control No.: 1902–0024. The

Commission is now requesting that

OMB approve a three year extension of

these mandatory collection

requirements.

4. Necessity of Collection of

Information: Submission of the

information is necessary to enable the

Commission to carry out its

responsibilities in implementing

provisions of the Federal Power Act

(FPA) as amended by the Public Utility

Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA). The

Commission uses the information

reported on FERC Form No. 423 to

conduct fuel reviews under Section 205

(a) and (e) of the FPA, and to prepare

expert testimony in electric utility rate

cases filed with the Commission. The

Form 423 data provides the only

effective means for assessing the

potential impact of new developments

on the future utility fuel supply

patterns. The Commission’s staff

compare delivered fuel costs for utilities

receiving like fuels of similar quality;

detect consistently high cost patterns or

irregularities indicative of possible

uneconomic fuel purchase practices;

evaluate the economic effect of unusual

fuel purchases practices, such as buying

fuel from affiliate fuel sources, as

opposed to selecting buyers by

competitive bids, and investigate a

broad range of fuel costs and fuel

purchase practice issues raised in

contested rate proceedings.

5. Respondent Description: The

respondent universe currently

comprises approximately 230 public

utilities.

6. Estimated Burden: 17,112 total

burden hours, 228 respondents, 713

responses annually, 2.0 hours per

response (average).

Statutory Authority: Section 205, of the

Federal Power Act, as amended by Section

208 of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies

Act. (49 Stat. 851; 16 U.S.C. 824d).

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–376 Filed 1–7–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M