10072 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

material to approximate the original

100-year floodplain. However, the manmade ground elevations of the tailings

pile at the Union Carbide site would not

be reestablished, which would increase

the area of the 100-year floodplain at the

processing site by approximately 7

acres. Remedial action at the North

Continent site would not increase the

size of the 100-year floodplain.

Historical and Cultural Resources

Two cultural resource sites, one near

the Union Carbide processing site and

the other near the Burro Canyon

disposal site, are not expected to be

affected by remedial action activities.

Both of these cultural resource sites

would be fenced and avoided during

remedial action, and the site near the

Union Carbide processing site would be

further protected by a barrier to shield

against dust, rocks, and exhaust fumes.

If any additional cultural resources are

identified during the remedial action

(e.g., subsurface resources), work would

stop in the area of the cultural

resources, and the appropriate state and

Federal agencies would be consulted to

determine the significance of and

protection for the resources. The Ute

Mountain, Southern, and Northern Ute

Tribes were also consulted to determine

whether the proposed remedial action

would impact any tribal cultural use

areas. No impacts were identified.

Land Use

The remedial action would result in

the temporary and permanent

disturbance of approximately 335 acres

of land. This would result in the

temporary and permanent loss of

grazing forage at the Slick Rock

processing sites, Burro Canyon disposal

site, and Dolores River and

Disappointment Valley borrow sites.

The DOE would mitigate the temporary

and permanent loss of grazing forage in

accordance with land-use agreements

negotiated with affected grazing lessees

and private landowners.

The final restricted Burro Canyon

disposal site would encompass

approximately 57 acres, and any future

use of this area would be precluded.

After remedial action, the Slick Rock

processing sites would be released for

any use consistent with existing landuse controls.

Six unpatented mining claims exist

within the proposed permanent

withdrawal area. The DOE would

compensate valid claim holders to the

extent required by law.

Socioeconomics

The remedial action impacts on

employment, housing, community

services, and the economy would be

minimal due to the short duration of the

remedial action and the relatively small

number of workers required. These

impacts would be expected to be

distributed among numerous nearby and

more distant communities;

consequently, no single community

would be affected substantially by the

remedial action. The wages and salaries

paid to remedial action workers and

expenditures for equipment, materials,

and supplies would have direct,

positive impacts on the economies of

San Miguel, Dolores, and Montezuma

Counties. The local economies also

would benefit indirectly as these wages,

salaries, and expenditures are respent

locally on other goods and services.

Direct and indirect expenditures would

generate tax revenues that would be

available to local and state government

use.

Transportation

The remedial action would increase

the traffic volume on County Roads S8,

T11 and State Highway 141. A portion

of County Road S8 would be relocated

to allow cleanup of the Union Carbide

processing site. These roads and

highway would be improved as

necessary, and other mitigative

measures (e.g., trained flag persons and

temporary warning signs) would be

implemented as required to mitigate the

potential traffic hazards. After remedial

action, these roads and highway would

be returned to their original locations

and conditions. The public would be

restricted from access to County Roads

S9 and 10R and a private disposal site

access road off T11 during remedial

action, which is expected to last 19

months.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

No Action Alternative

The no action alternative would

consist of leaving the contaminated

materials in their present conditions

and locations at the Slick Rock

processing sites. The contaminated

materials would continue to be exposed

to erosion, and eventual erosion of the

contaminated materials would result in

the transport of contaminants into the

Dolores River. The processing sites and

adjacent areas would remain unusable.

The contaminated materials would also

be susceptible to unauthorized removal

and use by humans, which could cause

more widespread contamination and

increased public health hazards. The no

action alternative is not a legal

alternative for the DOE and would not

satisfy the requirements of the UMTRCA

(PL 95–604).

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

The DOE’s analysis of disposal site

alternatives encompassed technical,

environmental, and cost factors, as well

as the risks associated with each

alternative. Alternatives evaluated but

rejected were 1) stabilization of the mill

tailings in place at the processing sites,

2) stabilization of the mill tailings at

other locations near the processing sites,

and 3) colocating the mill tailings at

other uranium mill tailings sites. The

first alternative was rejected because the

major portion of the tailings would be

stabilized in the flood plain of the

Dolores River and water resources

protection would be inadequate. The

second was rejected due to the other

sites’ proximity to ground water. The

third was rejected because the cost of

disposal would result in significant

increases in cost by a factor of two and

six, respectively, over the cost of

disposal at Burro Canyon.

Determination

Based on the information and

analyses in the EA, the DOE has

determined that the proposed remedial

action does not constitute a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of the NEPA.

Therefore, the preparation of an

environmental impact statement is not

required.

Signed in Albuquerque, New Mexico, this

27th day of January, 1995.

Bruce G. Twining,

Manager.

[FR Doc. 95–4428 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of Nuclear Energy

Nuclear Energy Financial Assistance

Program for University Reactor

Sharing

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice inviting grant

applications.

SUMMARY: The Office of Nuclear Energy

(NE), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE),

hereby announces that invitations have

been sent to all U.S. colleges and

universities with a licensed, operating

nuclear reactor that have an interest in

making their reactor facility available to

other educational institutions.

The objectives of the program are to

provide opportunities needed by

educational institutions, without these

facilities, for research, education and

training of their faculty and students in

the nuclear sciences and technology.

The grants are used to offset costs of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices 10073

materials, irradiation services, technical

services, etc., incurred by the host

university. Each grantee is responsible

for announcing the availability of the

reactor sharing program to other

educational institutions in their

geographical region.

DATES: The deadline date for

applications is March 24, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Four copies of the

application should be submitted to: U.S.

Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear

Energy, Office of Policy and

Management, Information and Contract

Management Branch, NE–133,

Washington, D.C. 20585.

The application should be signed on

the cover sheet by the person initiating

the application and by the

authenticating university official.

Telephone inquiries requesting

information concerning this solicitation

should be directed to Mr. E. G. Tourigny

(301) 903–3679.

Completed applications delivered by

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail, any

commercial mail delivery service, or

when handcarried by the applicant must

be submitted to: U.S. Department of

Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, Office

of Policy and Management, Information

and Contract Management Branch, NE–

133, 19901 Germantown Road,

Germantown, Maryland 20874.

Anyone interested in more detailed

information may write to the address

below:

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of

Nuclear Energy, Facilities Division,

Technical Support Branch, NE–443,

Washington, D.C. 20585 or call Area

Code 301–903–3679.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Reactor Sharing Program derives its

statutory authority from the Department

of Energy Organization Act, Public Law

95–91, which was enacted to provide for

the development of technologies and

processes to reduce total energy

consumption and enhance energy

production. The purpose of this

program is to increase the availability of

university nuclear reactor facilities to

nonreactor owning colleges or

universities and other educational

institutions—(user institutions). This is

accomplished by providing grants to

reactor-owning universities (host

institutions). These grants provide funds

against which reactor operating costs

may be charged when the facilities are

utilized by regionally affiliated user

institutions for student instruction or for

student or faculty research. Under this

program, allowable reactor operating

costs are restricted to the categories

delineated below under the heading,

Financial Arrangements.

The objectives of the program are to

strengthen nuclear science and

engineering instruction in the curricula

of the nonreactor owning colleges and

universities, as well as to provide

research opportunities and to enable the

application of nuclear analytical

techniques by faculty and students in

the sciences. University reactors are

extremely versatile neutron sources and

research facilities; thus the availability

of a nuclear reactor contributes

particularly and significantly to research

and educational opportunities at both

the graduate, undergraduate and

precollege levels. DOE anticipates that

approximately $500,000 will be

available from the Office of Nuclear

Energy for support of these activities

during Fiscal Year 1995.

In accordance with 10 CFR–

600.7(b)(1), eligibility for these grants is

restricted to U.S. colleges and

universities with nuclear reactor

facilities because they have a unique

opportunity to enable other institutions

to participate in important aspects of the

Nation’s nuclear science and

engineering educational programs.

Individual award amounts will be

determined by a DOE proposal review

panel and will be based on (1)

availability of the reactor to outside

users, (2) the type of reactor sharing

activities and the number of students

and/or faculty traditionally served by

the proposer, and (3) evidence of

interest on the part of potential user

institutions to utilize the proposer’s

facility during the proposed grant

period. DOE reserves the right to fund,

in whole or in part, any, all, or none of

the applications submitted in response

to this invitation. Negotiation, award,

and administration will be in

accordance with the DOE Financial

Assistance Policy.

General Information

Institutional Eligibility

Any educational institution within

the United States which operates a

research or training reactor is eligible to

submit a new award or renewal

application to participate in the

University Reactor Sharing Program. In

evaluating applications, preference is

given to institutions that can show an

affiliation with a substantial number of

regional educational institutions who

have indicated interest in using the

applicant’s reactor facility, or who have

used the facilities during the previous

grant year.

User Institutions

User institutions eligible for

participation in the program are

primarily educational institutions such

as universities and colleges, junior

colleges, technical and community

colleges, high schools and junior high

schools. User groups or individuals

affiliated with the host institution are

not eligible for assistance under this

program. Also excluded are research

activities undertaken by an educational

institution for which grant or contract

funding is provided by other sources.

The selection and scheduling of user

institution participants is the

responsibility of the host institution.

Scope of Program Projects

The projects may range from tours/

demonstrations, experiments,

workshops and seminars for middle and

high school groups to faculty research

projects and M.S./Ph.D. thesis or

dissertation research. Reactor utilization

may range from simple service

irradiations and analytical support to

basic research studies requiring the

facilities’ most sophisticated equipment.

Financial Arrangements

Duration of Grants

Funds for the University Reactor

Sharing Program will be provided

through an assistance grant with host

institutions. Charges may be made

against grant funds for services rendered

to user institutions. The terms of a grant

normally will be one year, subject to

modifications and renewals.

Reimbursable Costs

Costs for reimbursement are limited

to: (1) Payments for irradiation services

not to exceed the established, published

schedule of the host institution, (2)

payments for use of the reactor and

related facilities based upon established

rates of the host institution, (3) costs of

technical assistance furnished by the

host institution for conduct of studies

by a user institution, and (4) costs of

materials and supplies consumed in

user institution projects. Charges should

not be made to the grant for costs that

are already incurred as part of the

normal operating expenses of the

facility. Laboratory apparatus and

instrumentation are not eligible items

for reimbursement. Indirect or overhead

costs are not allowed. Costs for

individual or group travel or subsistence

are normally not allowed or encouraged;

exceptions are permitted, under unusual

circumstances, with the approval of the

project director.

Reports

An annual report summarizing

activities supported under the grant is

required from the host institution. This

report is due within 90 days after the
10074 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 36 / Thursday, February 23, 1995 / Notices

end of the grant period. The report

should contain specific information in

the format shown below.

University: lllllllllllllll

Project Director: lllllllllllll

Grant Number: lllllllllllll

Location: llllllllllllllll

Telephone Number: lllllllllll

Reactor Type: llllllllllllll

Power Level: llllllllllllll

Participating

institution

Principal investigator

No. of student/faculty involved Description of project/program

Reactor

sharing

support

XXXXX XXXXX (Indicate Academic Level) ............................................. (Thirty words or less) ..................................................... XXXX

It is requested that standard size (8 1⁄2

x 11) paper be used.

Application Preparation

An application should include at least

the following items.

1. A statement of the relative

availability of the reactor to outside

users.

2. An assessment on a regional basis

of the colleges, universities or

precollege institutions that can be

served by the proposing institution’s

reactor facility.

3. Evidence of interest on the part of

potential or former user institutions

which contain brief statements of

interest and plans for utilizing the

applicant’s reactor facility during the

proposed grant period.

4. Applications must include a

completed Standard Form 424,

‘‘Application for Federal Assistance’’; a

424A, ‘‘Budget Information’’; and 424B,

‘‘Assurances,’’ as well as the Drug-Free

Workplace, Debarred, and Lobbying

Certifications.

Terry R. Lash,

Director, Office of Nuclear Energy.

[FR Doc. 95–4429 Filed 2–22–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Office of the Secretary

Strategic Alignment Initiative; Notice of

Open Meeting

AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Open Meeting.

SUMMARY: The Steering Committee for

the Department of Energy (DOE)

Strategic Alignment Initiative, studying

the organizational structure and staffing

resources of the Department, will hold

an open meeting on March 1, 1995.

DATES: March 1, 1995, 8:30 a.m.—5:00

p.m., at the Omni Shoreham Hotel, 2500

Calvert St., N.W., Washington, DC, (202)

234–0700.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peter Richards or Howard Landon,

Strategic Alignment Team, (202) 673–

3804.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

December 1994, the Secretary of Energy

announced a four month effort to realign

the organizational structure, functions,

and financial and human resources of

the Department. Planning for this effort

began with the release of DOE’s

Strategic Plan in April 1994.

A team of DOE employees, is

reviewing the functions and activities of

the Department. The team will

recommend a more efficient

organizational structure that supports

the business lines identified in the

Strategic Plan. The review draws on

private sector experience to eliminate

low-priority work, reduce layers of

management, and streamline the

workforce.

The employee team will present

progress reports to the Steering

Committee at the March 1 meeting.

Tentative Agenda Items

• Opening Remarks—Secretary Hazel

O’Leary.

• Overview and Progress Reports.

• Public Comment Period.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Persons wishing

to speak should pre-register at the door.

Speakers will be accommodated on a

first-come basis to the extent time

allows. To ensure that as many persons

as possible have the opportunity to

speak, a time limitation may be used.

Archer L. Durham,

Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and

Administration.

[FR Doc. 95–4609 Filed 2–21–95; 1:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP95–102–001]

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation;

Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC

Gas Tariff

February 16, 1995.

Take notice that on February 13, 1995,

Texas Gas Transmission Corporation

(Texas Gas) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Tariff, First Revised Volume

No. 1, the following tariff sheets:

Effective February 1, 1995

Substitute Fifth Revised Seventh Revised

Sheet No. 10

Substitute Fifth Revised Fourth Revised

Sheet No. 11

Substitute Third Revised First Revised Sheet

No. 11.1

Substitute First Revised First Revised Sheet

No. 15

Substitute First Revised First Revised Sheet

No. 16

Effective March 1, 1995

Substitute Sixth Revised Seventh Revised

Sheet No. 10

Substitute Sixth Revised Fourth Revised

Sheet No. 11

Substitute Fourth Revised First Revised

Sheet No. 11.1

and;

a revised Statement in compliance with

the provisions in Docket No. RP95–102

as directed in the ‘‘Order Accepting and

Suspending Tariff Sheets Subject to

Refund and Conditions’’ issued January

27, 1995 (70 FERC 61,088).

Texas Gas states that the filing

contains a revised statement reflecting:

(1) The aggregate amount of Gas

Supply Realignment Costs incurred and

allocated to be collected during the

twelve-month period November 1, 1993,

through October 31, 1994, from Rate

Schedule IT; and

(2) The aggregate amount of Gas

Supply Realignment Costs deemed

collected during the same period by

Texas Gas under Rate Schedule IT, as

determined pursuant to Section 33.3(g)

of the General Terms and Conditions of

Texas Gas’s FERC Gas Tariff, First

Revised Volume No. 1.

Additionally, the filing reflects an

Interruptible Revenue Credit

Adjustment which proposes to reduce

base rates under Rate Schedules FT,

NNS, and SGT, effective February 1,

1995.

Texas Gas states that copies of the

instant filing are being mailed to Texas

Gas’s jurisdictional customers and

interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to protest said

filing should file a protest with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

825 North Capitol Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, in accordance

with § 385.211 of the Commission’s

Rules and Regulations. All such protests