Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices 13425

that the unit costs for separate GTCC

LLW disposal would be much higher

than is warranted by the low quantities

and potential hazards of the waste.

Therefore, the DOE initiated a program

reassessment activity to identify strategy

revisions that could effectively

minimize the potential adverse impacts

of GTCC LLW management and disposal

scenarios.

Relationship to the Department’s

Preliminary Environmental Impact

Statement (PEIS)

The PEIS does not address specific

management options for GTCC LLW, but

indicates that future options will be

developed. These stakeholder

workshops will begin the process of

identifying GTCC LLW management

options. The final management strategy

selected for GTCC LLW will be

addressed in supplemental National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

documentation to be consistent with the

PEIS.

Strategy Development

Two independent program

reassessment activities have been

performed under the DOE’s GTCC LLW

Management Program: (1) a

reassessment performed by EG&G Idaho,

Inc. (now Lockheed Idaho Technologies

Company) was based on proposed

resolutions for known programmatic

issues, and (2) a reassessment by Rogers

and Associates Engineering Corporation

postulated approaches for minimizing

adverse cost, environmental,

institutional, and safety impacts. The

results of both reassessment studies

have been used by DOE in the tentative

selection of a strategy for GTCC LLW

management and disposal. Copies of the

reassessment reports are available from

the DOE upon request.

The Department is evaluating the

feasibility of recovering radioactive

material, including sealed source

material, under the authority of the

Atomic Energy Act. DOE is considering

a recycle/reuse program for such

recovered material that the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) has

identified as material of public health

and safety concern. The Department has

recovered sealed sources in the past that

represented immediate threats to public

health and safety at the request of NRC.

Supplemental NEPA documentation

will be required. Depending on its

characteristics, any sealed source

material that is not recycled may be

added to the inventory of GTCC LLW for

disposal.

Strategy Options

(1) Pursue co-disposal of GTCC LLW

with spent nuclear fuel and high-level

waste in a geologic repository as the

preferred co-disposal option. The

repository will be an NRC-licensed

facility that the NRC deems acceptable

for GTCC LLW disposal, as well as for

spent nuclear fuel and High Level

Waste. Most of the projected GTCC LLW

will be generated by nuclear utilities,

and these utilities already have entered

into Standard Contracts for repository

disposal of their spent nuclear fuel and

certain nonfuel-bearing components.

Co-disposal of the remaining small

quantity of non-utility GTCC LLW in the

repository should also be feasible.

(2) Pursue co-disposal of GTCC LLW

with DOE Special Case Waste as an

alternative or supplemental co-disposal

option. Some GTCC LLW types may be

deemed unsuitable for repository

disposal. Therefore, an option for GTCC

LLW co-disposal with DOE Special Case

Waste will also be maintained. The term

Special Case Waste (SCW) denotes DOE

waste having characteristics similar to

those of GTCC LLW, and generally

lacking firm disposal plans. Progress in

developing this option will necessarily

be tied to the development of disposal

plans for DOE’s SCW inventory. There

is a regulatory issue to be resolved

where GTCC LLW requires licensed

disposal but SCW does not.

(3) Provide DOE storage capability for

small quantities of GTCC LLW that DOE

might accept for public health and

safety reasons. Nuclear utilities

generally have capability, and may

prefer, to provide onsite storage

capability for their GTCC LLW until

disposal capability becomes available.

However, some non-utility GTCC LLW

generators may be financially unable to

provide long-term storage for their

GTCC LLW. Therefore, DOE storage for

small amounts of GTCC LLW will be

provided as needed to mitigate potential

public health and safety issues. This

contingency storage may be provided in

conjunction with DOE’s near-term

acceptance program for sealed sources.

(4) Develop fee determination and

collection methods to recover DOE’s

costs for GTCC LLW management and

disposal. Cost recovery for DOE’s GTCC

LLW management and disposal services

is implied by the Act, and is required by

the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982,

as amended, for repository disposal.

Preliminary information on this subject

will be developed using the best

available assumptions regarding

probable methods for DOE storage,

treatment, and disposal.

(5) Develop waste acceptance criteria

for GTCC LLW co-disposal options.

Waste acceptance criteria will be

developed for the GTCC LLW codisposal scenarios under consideration.

These waste acceptance criteria are

dependent upon the performance

requirements that are imposed on the

disposal facility, and may also be

subject to constraints imposed by

disposal facility design and siting

considerations. Thus, the schedule for

developing waste acceptance criteria

will be tied to that of disposal facility

development.

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7,

1995.

Jill E. Lytle,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Waste

Management, Environmental Management.

[FR Doc. 95–6120 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DOE Response to Recommendation

94–3 of the Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board, Rocky Flats Seismic and

Systems Safety

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board published

Recommendation 94–3, concerning

Rocky Flats Seismic and Systems Safety,

in the Federal Register on October 4,

1994 (59 FR 50581). Section 315(e) of

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(e) requires

the Department of Energy to transmit an

implementation plan to the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board by

February 25, 1995, or submit a

notification of extension for an

additional 45 days. The Secretary’s

notification of extension for an

additional 45-days follows.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, data,

views, or arguments concerning the

Secretary’s notification to: Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625

Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700,

Washington, DC 20004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Thomas P. Grumbly, Assistant

Secretary for Environmental

Management, Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,

Washington, DC 20585.

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 24,

1995.

Mark B. Whitaker,

Departmental Representative to the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.

The Honorable John T. Conway,

Chairman, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite

700, Washington, DC 20004
13426 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 48 / Monday, March 13, 1995 / Notices

1The registration form referenced in this notice

is not being printed in the Federal Register. Copies

of the form were sent to those receiving this notice

in the mail.

Dear Mr. Conway: This is to advise you,

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286d(e), that the

Department of Energy will require an

additional 45 days to respond to the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Recommendation 94–3, regarding seismic

and systems safety at the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site.

The Department recently made some

management changes at the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site. Because of

these changes, and the need for the

development of acceptance criteria for safety

adequacy and systems for identifying facility

upgrades, more time is necessary to respond.

In addition, the Department believes that it

is necessary to integrate its response to

Recommendation 94–3 with

Recommendation 90–5, (Systematic

Evaluation Program). The Implementation

Plan for Recommendation 94–3 will be

provided to the Board by April 10, 1995.

Sincerely,

Hazel R. O’Leary.

[FR Doc. 95–6023 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–M

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

Notice of Cultural Resources Industry

Outreach Training Course

March 7, 1995.

The Office of Pipeline Regulation

(OPR) staff will convene another session

of its cultural resources compliance

training course. The one-day training

course will be held on May 3, 1995. The

session is being offered in conjunction

with the Society for American

Archaeology 60th Annual Meeting in

Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 3–7,

1995. However, attendance at the course

is independent of attendance at the

annual meeting for other purposes. We

are holding this course so that

additional members of the regulated

pipeline industry and interested

individuals and organizations can gain

an understanding of:

• How the Commission gives the

industry and the public an opportunity

to assist the Commission in meeting its

responsibilities under the National

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and

other historic preservation laws and

regulations; and

• What cultural resources information

the industry needs to file with the

Commission before and after the

Commission issues a certificate.

We encourage interested

organizations and the public to take

advantage of this course.

The course will include the following

topics:

• Objectives and requirements of the

Commission regarding compliance with

§ 106 of the NHPA and related historic

preservation laws;

• Guidance for reporting on cultural

resources investigations;

• Definition of cultural resources

terms used by the Commission in the

compliance process; and

• Efficient strategies for planning and

conducting cultural resources

investigations.

OPR’s training course will be held at

the Minneapolis Hilton and Towers,

1001 Marquette Avenue South,

Minneapolis, Minnesota. For hotel

reservations, call (612) 376–1000 and

identify yourself as an attendee of the

course offered in conjunction with the

Society for American Archaeology

Conference. Special hotel room rates are

available until April 11, 1995.

The OPR staff and Foster Wheeler

Environmental Corporation, the

Commission’s environmental support

contractor, will conduct the training.

There is no fee for the course, but you

must pre-register. A cultural resources

training session is also being planned

for Denver, Colorado in September

1995.

If you would like to attend the May

3, 1995 session, or indicate your

preference for other courses and

locations, please call the telephone

number listed below to obtain a preregistration form.1 Because space is

limited, please mail or fax the

registration form within 15 days of

publication of this notice to: Ms. Donna

Connor, Foster Wheeler Environmental

Corporation, 470 Atlantic Avenue,

Boston, MA 02210, Telephone: (617)

542–8805, FAX: (617) 695–1587.

You will receive confirmation of preregistration and additional information

before the Commission’s training

course.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6078 Filed 3–10–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. ER95–626–000 et al.]

PSI Energy Inc., et al.; Electric Rate

and Corporate Regulation Filings

March 6, 1995.

Take notice that the following filings

have been made with the Commission:

1. PSI Energy, Inc.

[Docket No. ER95–626–000]

Take notice that PSI Energy, Inc. (PSI)

on February 21, 1995, tendered for filing

proposed changes in its FERC Electric

Service Tariff, Original Volume No. 1

(15th Revision) and Original Volume

No. 2 (13th Revision), and its Electric

Rate Schedule FERC Nos. 233, 234, 241

and 256.

The proposed changes would increase

annual revenues from jurisdictional

sales and service by $7,414,000, based

on the twelve (12)-month period ending

December 31, 1995.

PSI has indicated that the filing of

new tariffs and rates has been mandated

by inadequate earnings on its

jurisdictional sales. The average rate of

return on such sales is, in its opinion,

inadequate to attract the capital required

by PSI to pay for necessary expansion of

its electric plant and increased

operating expenses. PSI also indicated

that the filing has been made to satisfy

the requirements of the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission in Docket Nos.

EC93–6–000, EC93–6–001 and ER94–

1015–000.

Copies of the filing were served upon

the Indiana Utility Regulatory

Commission, the City of Logansport,

Indiana, Jackson County Rural Electric

Membership Corporation, the Indiana

Municipal Power Agency, the Wabash

Valley Power Association, Inc., and the

Indiana municipalities of Brooklyn,

Coatesville, Dublin, Dunreith,

Hagerstown, Knightstown, Lewisville,

Montezuma, New Ross, Pittsboro,

Rockville, South Whitley, Spiceland,

Straughn, Thorton, Veedersburg and

Williamsport.

Comment date: March 20, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

2. Tucson Electric Power Co.

[Docket No. ER95–635–000]

Take notice that on February 22, 1995,

Tucson Electric Power Company

(Tucson), tendered for filing a Service

Agreement, effective as of January 23,

1995 (the Agreement) between Tucson

and Gulfstream Energy (Gulfstream).

The Agreement provides for the sale by

Tucson to Gulfstream of economy

energy from time to time at negotiated

rates in accordance with Service

Schedule A of Tucson’s Coordination

Tariff, Volume 1, Docket No. ER94–

1437–000. Tucson requests an effective

date of January 23, 1995, and therefore

requests any applicable waivers.

Copies of this filing have been served

upon all parties affected by this

proceeding.

Comment date: March 20, 1995, in

accordance with Standard Paragraph E

at the end of this notice.

3. Tucson Electric Power Co.

[Docket No. ER95–636–000]

Take notice that on February 22, 1995,

Tucson Electric Power Company