Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18155

contaminated waste generated during

the SNPS decommissioning has been

removed from the site.

The approved DP, as supplemented,

contained the SNPS Final Termination

Survey Plan (Plan). The Plan described

the methods used by the licensee to

demonstrate compliance with existing

NRC unrestricted release criteria. The

guidelines used by the licensee for

residual radioactivity at the SNPS are

consistent with the values provided in

Table 1, of Regulatory Guide 1.86,

which establishes acceptable residual

surface contamination levels. NRC

authorized alternative contamination

limits for iron-55 and tritium above

those specified in Regulatory Guide

1.86. These alternative criteria were

presented to the Commission in SECY

94–145 and increased the allowable

residual average and maximum total

residual beta activity levels for iron-55

and tritium from 5000 average total and

15,000 maximum total (fixed plus

removable) disintegrations per minute

(dpm)/100 square centimeters to

200,000 average total and 600,000

maximum total dpm/100 square

centimeters, respectively. This

permitted the licensee to safely retain

on site major portions of the reactor

bioshield wall that did not exceed the

gamma dose rate criterion or the surface

contamination limits for other isotopes,

but which would have required offsite

disposal under the original iron-55 and

tritium surface contamination limits of

Regulatory Guide 1.86. A concentration

limit for cobalt-60 in soil and other bulk

materials of 8 picocuries per gram was

also established. An average gamma

dose rate criterion of 5 uR per hour

above background, at a distance of 1

meter from indoor accessible surfaces,

was used. For outdoor surfaces,

individual gamma exposure rates are

not to exceed 10 uR per hour above

background at 1 meter.

The licensee implemented a phased

approach to its Final Termination

Surveys and completed final

radiological surveys in August 1994.

These survey measurements were

verified by the NRC contractor, ORISE.

The ORISE confirmatory surveys

confirmed that the licensee’s

measurements meet the existing criteria

for unrestricted release. Since the

existing unrestricted release criteria

have been met, there is no significant

radiological impact on the environment

from the release of the site.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does not affect non-radiological

plant effluents and has no other

environmental impact. Therefore, the

NRC staff concludes no significant nonradiological impacts are associated with

the proposed action.

In accordance with 10 CFR part 51,

the Commission has determined that the

issuance of this termination Order is

procedural in nature and will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment. The proposed

Order terminates the SNPS, Unit 1,

Facility License No. NPF–82.

Alternative to the Proposed Action

Since the NRC staff has concluded

that there are no environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action,

any alternative with equal or greater

environmental impacts need not be

evaluated.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

The licensee initiated the request for

termination of the SNPS License No.

NPF–82. The NRC staff reviewed the

request and representatives from ORISE

performed confirmatory surveys. The

staff consulted with the State of New

York regarding environmental impacts

of the proposed action, and the State did

not provide any comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

NRC has determined not to prepare an

environmental impact statement for the

proposed action. Based on the foregoing

environmental assessment, NRC has

concluded that the issuance of an Order

will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment.

For further details with respect to this

action, see: (1) The licensee’s request to

terminate the SNPC license presented in

letters dated June 27, 1991 (SNRC–

1818), and August 4, 1994 (LSNRC–

2178); (2) the Commission’s Order

approving decommissioning dated June

11, 1992; (3) the licensee’s Termination

Survey Final Report, Phase 1 (LSNRC–

2101), dated September 30, 1993; the

licensee’s Termination Survey Final

Report, Phase 2 (LSNRC–2144), dated

February 4, 1994; the licensee’s

Termination Survey Final Report, Phase

3 (LSNRC–2173), dated June 14, 1994;

the licensee’s Termination Survey Final

Report, Phase 4 (LSNRC–2184), dated

October 12, 1994; and (4) the ORISE

Final Confirmatory Reports dated July

1993, September 1994, and February

1995. These documents are available for

public inspection at the Commission’s

Public Document Room, the Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20555, and at the

Shoreham Wading River Public Library,

Route 25A, Shoreham, NY 11786.

Copies may be obtained upon request

addressed to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555, Attention: Director, Division

of Waste Management.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of April, 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–8705 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Decommissioning of the Depleted

Uranium Impact Area of the Jefferson

Proving Ground, Madison, IN; Notice of

Intent To Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement and To Conduct a

Scoping Process

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

conduct a scoping process for the EIS,

and conduct a scoping meeting.

SUMMARY: The NRC intends to prepare

an Environmental Impact Statement for

the decommissioning of the depleted

uranium (DU) impact area (the Delta

Impact Area) of the Jefferson Proving

Ground (JPG), Madison, Indiana. The

DU impact area was used by the U.S.

Army, during the period of 1983–1994,

to perform testing of DU projectiles and

munitions in accordance with NRC

License No. SUB–1435. The U.S. Army

has requested an exemption (under 10

CFR 40.14) from NRC requirements in

10 CFR 40.4 to allow termination of the

license with land use restrictions on the

Delta Impact Area. This notice is to

inform the public and any concerned

parties of NRC’s intent to prepare an EIS

in conjunction with this proposed

action and to conduct a scoping process

that will include a public scoping

meeting.

DATES: Written comments on matters

covered by this notice received by June

9, 1995 will be considered in

developing the scope of the EIS.

Comments received after this date will

be considered if it is practical to do so,

but the NRC is able to assure

consideration only for comments

received on or before this date. A public

scoping meeting will be held at the

Madison Junior High School cafetorium

located on 701 Eighth Street, Madison,

Indiana. The scoping meeting will be

held on April 26, 1995, from 7 to 10

p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

matters covered by this notice or the

scoping meeting should be sent to:

Rules Review and Directives Branch,
18156 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland 20852, between

7:45 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., on Federal

workdays.

The scoping meeting will be held on

April 26, 1995, at 7 p.m., in the

cafetorium of the Madison Junior High

School, 701 Eighth Street, Madison,

Indiana, 47250.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Boby Eid, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards, Washington, DC

20555, Telephone: (301) 415–5811.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC) has the statutory responsibility

under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended, for protection of public

health and safety and the environment

related to the use of source, byproduct,

and special nuclear material. Part of this

responsibility is to ensure safe and

timely decommissioning of the nuclear

facilities which NRC licenses. This

responsibility includes providing

guidance to licensees on how to plan for

and prepare their sites for

decommissioning.

Decommissioning, as defined in the

NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR 40.4, for

example, means to remove nuclear

facilities safely from service and to

reduce residual radioactivity to a level

that permits release of the property for

unrestricted use and termination of the

license. Once licensed activities have

ceased, licensees are required, in

existing NRC regulations, to

decommission their facilities so that

their licenses can be terminated and the

property can be released in accordance

with NRC requirements. Radioactive

materials in buildings, equipment, soil,

groundwater, and surface water

resulting from the licensed operation

need to be reduced to acceptably low

levels that allow the property to be

released. Licensees must then

demonstrate by a site radiological

survey that residual radioactive material

in all facilities and environmental

media has been properly reduced or

eliminated and that, except for any

residual radioactive material found to be

acceptable to remain at the site,

radioactive material has been

transferred to authorized recipients.

Confirmatory surveys are conducted by

NRC, where appropriate, to verify that

sites meet NRC radiological criteria for

decommissioning.

Need for Proposed Action

The Jefferson Proving Ground (JPG) is

currently listed in the NRC’s Site

Decommissioning Management Plan

(SDMP) because it contains a relatively

extensive amount of soil contaminated

with DU. In addition, the residual DU

contamination could potentially cause

contamination of groundwater and

surface water onsite. The JPG site covers

55,264 acres that were used to evaluate

and test ammunition and components

from 1941 to 1994. An extensive portion

of the site contains unexploded

ordnance (UXO) from testing. A portion

of the site was used, from 1983 to 1994,

for testing of depleted uranium (DU)

penetrators and DU munitions in

accordance with the NRC license

granted to the U.S. Department of the

Army, Jefferson Proving Ground, on

December 16, 1983. The Army received,

stored, and fired DU munitions at the

site. Approximately 100,000 kg of DU

penetrators were fired from three

positions designated J, 500 center, and

K5. The majority of DU penetrators

(89,000 kg) were fired from the 500

center position.

The DU impact area (Delta Impact

Area) is the area where DU penetrators,

or their fragments, eventually stopped

after being fired from one of the three

positions several miles down range.

This area constitutes approximately

3,000 acres located in the south-central

portion of JPG. In addition to the

penetrators, the area also contains

abundant UXOs from testing ordnance

that did not contain uranium. The DU

penetrators were fired at ‘‘soft’’ targets

(e.g., cloth) and eventually came to rest

on top of or in the soil. Some of the

penetrators are embedded in trees or

were deposited in streams on the site.

Many of the penetrators remained intact

and appear as straight or bent metal

rods. Some fraction of the penetrators

probably fragmented upon impact into

rocks, soil, and trees. The Army was

able to recover around 30,000 kg of the

fired DU. DU penetrators (un-fired and

recovered) were stored in buildings and

facilities at the site located south of JPG

firing line.

The Army is currently the owner of

the JPG site. However, in accordance

with the Defense Authorization

Amendments and Base Realignment and

Closure Act of 1988 (Public Law 100–

526), the Army is required to close JPG

no later than September 30, 1995.

As part of the mandatory closure of

JPG, the Army informed the NRC, in a

letter dated February 16, 1995, of its

intent to terminate that portion of the

license for all areas located south of JPG

firing line in a manner consistent with

the unrestricted reuse criteria in

accordance with 10 CFR 40.42. The

Army has performed remediation and

decontamination activities in buildings

and facilities south of the firing line and

has recently submitted a final

radiological survey report, which is

currently under review by NRC staff.

NRC intends to conduct a confirmatory

survey of that portion of the site prior

to removing it from the license and

releasing it for unrestricted use.

The Army also requested an

exemption (under 10 CFR 40.14) from

the requirements to allow termination of

the license and release of the DU impact

area with restrictions on future land use.

This request was based upon a potential

high risk due to the presence of high

concentrations of UXOs in the DU

impact area, the risks associated with

accidental detonation of the UXOs in

any remediation activity to recover the

DU penetrators, the high cost of

remediation, and the potential for

environmental damage. The Army and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) are currently discussing

potential inclusion of approximately

47,000 acres of JPG site into the

National Wildlife Refuge System, which

would encompass the Delta Impact Area

containing the DU penetrators. The

Army has indicated its belief that the

restricted termination of the Delta

Impact Area would be compatible with

the future use of the land as a wildlife

refuge.

The Army has performed

environmental monitoring of soil,

surface water, and groundwater in and

around the Delta Impact Area.

Environmental samples were collected

semi-annually or quarterly from such

environmental media. More recently,

the Army conducted a scoping survey of

the Delta Impact Area. The Army

removed DU penetrators that could be

safely detected and collected during the

scoping survey. Detailed

characterization (e.g., sampling and

radiological analysis) of subsurface soil

of the DU Impact Area was not

conducted due to a possible risk from

the UXOs.

The NRC has determined that

approval of the Army’s request would

constitute a major federal action and,

therefore, warrants preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

the NRC’s implementing requirements

in 10 CFR part 51. The Army’s request

for an exemption without any further

remediation or cleanup, may involve

radiological and non-radiological risks

to humans and the environment

resulting from direct exposure to DU
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18157

material on site or from subsequent

migration of DU via groundwater or

surface water. In addition, this action

may constitute an irretrievable

commitment of land resources

dedicated for specific use due to the

presence of DU contamination onsite.

An estimated 70,000 kg of DU is

currently present in the impact area.

The DU exists in and on the soil as

uranium metal or as contaminated soil.

The DU may also be leaching to some

extent from the penetrators and

migrating into soil around the

penetrators. The concentration of DU in

the soil is expected to exceed NRC’s

current criteria for allowing release of

sites for unrestricted use. These criteria

are listed in NRC’s SDMP Action Plan

(57 FR 13389; April 16, 1992). As

described in the 1992 Action Plan, the

criteria are applied on a site-specific

basis with emphasis on attaining

residual contamination levels that are as

low as is reasonably achievable

(ALARA). Further, potential

contamination of surface water and

groundwater cannot be excluded at this

stage. In order for the NRC to approve

termination of the license with land use

restrictions or other institutional

controls, the NRC must ensure that the

public and environment will be suitably

protected both now and in the future.

In addition to the issues discussed

above that fall under NRC’s jurisdiction,

there are other environmental issues

associated with the decommissioning of

JPG that are regulated by other agencies

(e.g., the Indiana State Department of

Environmental Management, the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)). EPA and the State of Indiana are

involved, for example, in overseeing the

investigation and potential remediation

of hazardous and non-radiological

contamination on site. The scoping

process and EIS will not only aid NRC

in reaching decisions about the

decommissioning of JPG, but should

also be useful to other agencies and

stakeholders involved or affected by

NRC decommissioning decisions.

Description of Proposed Action

The proposed action would involve

termination of the license and releasing

the Delta Impact Area with land use

restrictions, without performing any

additional remediation of contaminated

media. The impact area would be used,

at least for the foreseeable future, as a

wildlife refuge. Appropriate

institutional controls would be imposed

to ensure the durability of the land use

restrictions. These may involve a variety

of measures, such as environmental

monitoring, fencing, patrolling, and

posting the area.

Preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement

Under the NEPA, Federal agencies

must consider the effect of their actions

on the environment. Section 102(1) of

NEPA requires that the policies,

regulations, and public laws of the

United States be interpreted and

administered in accordance with the

policies set forth in NEPA. It is the

intent of NEPA to have Federal agencies

incorporate consideration of

environmental issues into their

decisionmaking processes. NRC

regulations implementing NEPA are

contained in 10 CFR part 51. To fulfill

NRC’s responsibilities under NEPA, the

NRC intends to prepare an EIS that will

analyze the environmental impacts of

the proposed action, as well as

environmental impacts of alternatives to

the proposed action and the costs

associated with both the proposed

action and the alternatives. All

reasonable alternatives to the proposed

action will be analyzed. The planned

scope of the EIS includes consideration

of radiological and non-radiological

(e.g., UXOs) impacts associated with the

alternative actions.

This notice announces the NRC’s

intent to prepare an EIS. The principal

intent of the EIS is to provide a

document describing environmental

consequences of the proposed action

and alternatives. The document will

inform the Agency’s decisionmakers in

reviewing the licensee’s remediation

proposal and request for an exemption

for the restricted release of the DU

impact area at JPG.

The Scoping Process

The Commission’s regulations in 10

CFR part 51 contain requirements for

conducting a scoping process prior to

preparation of an EIS. In accordance

with 10 CFR 51.26, whenever the NRC

determines that an EIS will be prepared

in connection with a proposed action,

NRC will publish a notice of intent in

the Fedeal Register stating that an EIS

will be prepared and will conduct an

appropriate scoping process. In

addition, this scoping process may

include a public scoping meeting. NRC

also describes, in 10 CFR 51.27, the

content of the notice of intent and

requires that the notice describes the

proposed action and also, to the extent

that sufficient information is available,

the possible alternatives. The notice of

intent should also describe the proposed

scoping process, including the role of

participants, whether written comments

will be accepted, and whether a public

scoping meeting will be held.

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.26 and

51.27, the proposed action and possible

alternative approaches are discussed

below. The role of participants in the

scoping process for this EIS includes the

following:

(1) Participants may attend and

provide oral or written comments on the

proposed action and possible

alternatives at the public scoping

meeting at the Madison Junior High

School cafetorium, 701 Eighth Street,

Madison, IN, on April 26, 1995, from 7

p.m. to 10 p.m.; and

(2) The Commission will also accept

written comments on the proposed

action and alternatives. Written

comments should be submitted by June

9, 1996, and should be sent to: Rules

Review and Directives Branch, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555. Hand deliver

comments to 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland between 7:45 a.m.

and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays.

According to 10 CFR 51.29, the

scoping process is to be used to address

the topics which follow. Participants

may make written comments, or verbal

comments at the scoping meeting, on

the following (current preliminary NRC

staff approaches with regard to each

topic are included for information):

(a) Define the Proposed Action To Be

the Subject of the EIS

The proposed action and alternatives

are: (1) Restricted release without

remediation, (2) Partial DU remediation,

(3) Complete DU remediation, and (4)

No Action. NRC will consider the

designated ‘‘No Action’’ alternative for

comparison with the other alternatives.

(b) Determine the Scope of the EIS and

the Significant Issues To Be Analyzed in

Depth

The NRC is proposing to analyze the

costs and impacts associated with the

proposed action and the proposed

alternative decommissioning

approaches. The following outline of the

EIS reflects the current NRC staff views

on the scope and major topics to be

dealt with in the EIS:

Proposed Outline: Environmental Impact

Statement:

Abstract

Executive Summary

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Purpose and Need for Proposed

Action

1.3 Description of Proposed Action

1.4 Approaches in Preparation of the

Draft EIS
18158 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices

1.5 Structure of the Draft EIS

2. Alternatives including the Proposed

Action

2.1 Factors Considered in Evaluating

Alternatives

2.2 Alternatives

2.3 Regulatory Compliance

3. Affected Environment

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Description of the JPG DU Impact

Area

3.3 Land Use

3.4 Geology/Seismicity

3.5 Meteorology and Hydrology

3.6 Ecology

3.7 Socioeconomic Characteristics

3.8 Radiation

3.9 UXOs

3.10 Cultural Resources

3.11 Other Environmental Features

4. Decommissioning Alternatives Analyzed

and Method of Approach for the Analysis

4.1 General Information on Approach and

Method of Analysis of Decommissioning

Alternatives

4.2 Alternatives Considered—Each of the

alternatives represents an alternative

decommissioning approach.

(a) Alternative 1, Restricted Release

without DU Remediation [Licensee’s

Proposed Action]. The Delta Impact Area

would be released with land use restrictions

compatible with the use of the area as a

wildlife refuge. The depleted uranium

contamination would be allowed to remain

on site in the Delta Impact Area in excess of

NRC’s radiological criteria for

decommissioning (e.g., 35 picoCuries DU per

gram of soil). Additional remediation of the

DU contamination would not be required.

Appropriate institutional controls would be

imposed to ensure the durability of the land

use restrictions. These may involve a variety

of measures, such as environmental

monitoring, fencing, patrolling, and posting

the area.

(b) Alternative 2, Partial DU Remediation.

The top one foot of the soil in the Delta

Impact Area would be remediated to remove

DU contamination in excess of NRC’s

radiological criteria for decommissioning.

Any radioactive waste generated in the

remediation would be disposed of at a

licensed disposal facility for low-level

radioactive waste. Institutional controls

would be imposed to restrict access to the

Delta Impact Area; these controls would be

compatible with the future intended use of

the area as a wildlife refuge, as described in

proposed action (i);

(c) Alternative 3, Complete DU

Remediation. The soil and other

environmental media (e.g., vegetation,

surface water) in the Delta Impact Area

would be remediated to remove DU

contamination in excess of NRC’s

radiological criteria for decommissioning.

Any radioactive waste generated in the

remediation would be disposed of at a

licensed disposal facility for low-level

radioactive waste. Institutional controls

would not be necessary to prevent

unacceptable radiological risks to the public

because the DU contamination would be

suitably reduced in accordance with NRC

requirements in the Delta Impact Area.

However, some controls may still be

necessary to protect against the hazards

associated with the UXOs;

(d) Alternative 4, No Action. The DU

contamination would be allowed to remain

onsite in its present configuration without

additional remediation or land use

restrictions. This alternative is being

included for the purpose of comparison

between the benefits and impacts associated

with the other alternatives.

4.3 Methods of Analysis of Alternatives

(a) Define a range of alternatives;

(b) Evaluate the alternatives with respect

to:

(1) The incremental impact to workers,

members of the public, and the

environment, both radiological and nonradiological, resulting from each

alternative, and

(2) The costs associated with each

regulatory alternative.

(c) Perform a comparative evaluation of the

alternatives based on the impacts and

costs of each alternative from 4.3(b).

5. Environmental Consequences, Monitoring,

and Mitigation

5.1 Remediation Consequences

5.2 Monitoring Programs

5.3 Mitigation Measures

5.4 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental

Impacts

5.5 Relationship between Short-Term

Uses of the Environment and Long-Term

Productivity

5.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable

Commitments of Resources

6. Costs and Benefits Associated with

Decommissioning Alternatives

6.1 General

6.2 Quantifiable Socioeconomic Impacts

6.3 The Benefit-Cost Summary

6.4 Staff Assessment

7. List of Preparers

8. List of Agencies, Organizations, and

Persons Receiving Copies of the Draft EIS

9. References

Appendix A—Reserved for Comments on

DEIS

Appendix B—Results of Scoping Process

(c) Identify and Eliminate From Detailed

Study Issues which Are Not Significant

or Peripheral, or Those Which Have

Been Covered by Prior Environmental

Review

The NRC has not yet eliminated any

nonsignificant issues. However, NRC is

considering elimination of the following

issues from the scope of this EIS

because they have previously analyzed

in a Generic Environmental Impact

Statement (GEIS) (NUREG–0586) and

included in an earlier rulemaking (53

FR 24018; June 28, 1988):

(i) Planning necessary to conduct

decommissioning operations in a safe

manner;

(ii) Assurance that sufficient funds are

available to pay for decommissioning;

(iii) The time period in which

decommissioning should be completed;

and

(iv) Whether facilities should not be

left abandoned, but instead be

remediated to appropriate levels.

In addition, requirements were

recently established in a separate

rulemaking regarding timeliness of

decommissioning for licensed facilities

regulated under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40,

and 70 (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994).

NRC also recently proposed establishing

radiological criteria for

decommissioning, which are supported

by a draft GEIS (NUREG–1496, 59 FR

43200, August 22, 1994).

(d) Identify any Environmental

Assessments of EISs Which Are Being or

Will Be Prepared That Are Related but

Are Not Part of the Scope of This EIS

An Environmental Assessment on the

timeliness of decommissioning has been

prepared as part of a separate

rulemaking on decommissioning

timeliness (59 FR 36026; July 15, 1994).

NRC is presently developing a GEIS

(NUREG–1496) to support the

rulemaking which will establish generic

radiological criteria for

decommissioning (59 FR 43200; August

22, 1994). In addition, NRC is presently

developing EISs for decommissioning

sites owned by the Shieldalloy

Metallurigical Corporation in

Cambridge, OH, and Newfield, NJ; and

Babcock and Wilcox Shallow Land

Disposal Area, Parks Township, PA.

The Army has prepared a Final

Environmental Impact Statement on the

transfer of JPG’s mission to Yuma

Proving Ground, near Yuma, AZ

(Closure of Jefferson Proving Ground,

Indiana and Realignment to Yuma

Proving Ground, Arizona—Environment

Impact Statement (September, 1991)). In

addition, the Army also prepared a Draft

EIS for Disposal and Reuse of JPG,

which was recently announced in the

Federal Register and is currently under

public review (60 FR 15542; March 24,

1995).

(e) Identify Other Environmental Review

or Consultation Requirements Related to

the Proposed Action

NRC will consult with other Federal,

state, and local agencies that have

jurisdiction over the decommissioning

of the JPG. For example, NRC has

already been coordinating its reviews of

decommissioning actions with EPA, the

State of Indiana, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, and other

governmental agencies. NRC anticipates

continued consultation with other
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 68 / Monday, April 10, 1995 / Notices 18159

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) (1988).

2Securities Exchange Act Release No. 35137

(December 22, 1994), 59 FR 67355.

3On October 6, 1993, the Commission adopted

Rule 15c6–1 under the Act, which establishes T+3

instead of T+5 as the standard settlement time

frame for most broker-dealer transactions. Securities

Exchange Act Release No. 33023 (October 6, 1993),

58 FR 52891. The rule becomes effective June 7,

1995. Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34952

(November 9, 1994), 59 FR 59137.

4The transition from five day settlement to three

day settlement will occur over a four day period.

Friday, June 2, will be the last trading day with five

business day settlement. Monday, June 5, and

Tuesday, June 6, will be trading days with four

business day settlement. Wednesday, June 7, will be

the first trading day with three business day

settlement. As a result, trades from June 2 and June

5 will settle on Friday, June 9. Trades from June 6

and June 7 will settle on Monday, June 12.

5 12 CFR 200.1–200.19 (1994), as amended, 59 FR

53565 (October 25, 1994).

agencies, as appropriate, during the

development of the EIS.

(f) Indicate the Relationship Between

the Timing of the Preparation of

Environmental Analysis and the

Commission’s Tentative Planning and

Decision Making Schedule

NRC intends to prepare and issue for

public comment a draft EIS in early

1996. The comment period would be for

90 days. The final EIS is scheduled for

publication in the late 1996. This

schedule may be impacted by the

availability and adequacy of information

about the site. Subsequent to

completion of the final EIS, the NRC

would review and act on a license

amendment from the licensee requesting

authorization for decommissioning the

site. This could include review of the

decommissioning plan as required in 10

CFR 40.42(c)(2), depending upon the

outcome of the EIS.

(g) Describe the Means by Which the EIS

Will Be Prepared

NRC will prepare the draft EIS

according to the requirements in 10 CFR

Part 51. Specifically, in accordance with

10 CFR 51.71, the draft EIS will

consider comments submitted to NRC as

part of the scoping process and will

include a preliminary analysis which

considers and balances the

environmental and other effects of the

proposed action and the alternatives

available for reducing or avoiding

adverse environmental and other effects,

as well as any benefits of the proposed

action, including the environmental,

economic, technical, and other benefits.

The EIS will be prepared by the NRC

staff. NRC may rely, to some extent, on

the other NEPA documents prepared by

the Army in support of the transfer of

the JPG mission and the intended reuse

of JPG after closure. NRC may also seek

some technical assistance from one or

more contractors (e.g., a national

laboratory), if there is a need for such

support. In addition, NRC anticipates

requesting specific information from the

licensee to support preparation of the

EIS (e.g., available environmental

monitoring data, risk assessment for the

DU contamination, and UXO risks and

costs for remediation). Any information

received from the licensee related to the

EIS will be available for public review,

unless the information is protected from

public disclosure in accordance with

NRC requirements in 10 CFR 2.790.

In the scoping process, participants

are invited to speak or submit written

comments, as noted above, on any or all

of the areas described above. In

accordance with 10 CFR 51.29, at the

conclusion of the scoping process, NRC

will prepare a concise summary of the

determinations and conclusions

reached, including the significant issues

identified, and will send a copy to each

participant in the scoping process as

well as place this information in the

NRC’s Public Document Room.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day

of April 1995.

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission,

Michael F. Weber,

Chief, Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning

Projects Branch, Division of Waste

Management, Office of Nuclear Material

Safety and Safeguards.

[FR Doc. 95–8704 Filed 4–7–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION

[Release No. 34–35558; File No. SR–CBOE–

94–40]

Self-Regulatory Organizations;

Chicago Board Options Exchange,

Inc.; Order Approving Proposed Rule

Change Relating to the Three Business

Day Settlement of Securities

Transactions

March 31, 1995.

On November 7, 1994, the Chicago

Board Options Exchange, Incorporated

(‘‘CBOE’’) filed with the Securities and

Exchange Commission (‘‘Commission’’)

a proposed rule change pursuant to

Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934 (‘‘Act’’).1 The

proposed rule change will amend

CBOE’s rules to provide for three

business day settlement of securities

transactions. The Commission

published notice of the proposed rule

change in the Federal Register on

December 29, 1994 to solicit comment

from interested persons.2 No comments

were received. This order approves the

proposal.

I. Description

On June 7, 1995, the standard

settlement time frame for most

securities transactions will be shortened

from five business days after the trade

date (‘‘T+5’’) to three business days after

the trade date (‘‘T+3’’).3 The proposal

amends certain provisions of CBOE’s

rules consistent with a T+3 settlement

cycle. These amendments will become

effective on the same date as Rule 15c6–

1.4

The proposed rule change will amend

Chapter XXX (Stocks, Warrants and

Other Securities) and Chapter XXXI

(Approval of Securities for Original

Listing) to reflect a three business day

settlement cycle. The settlement time

frame for regular way transactions for

stocks and warrants contained in Rules

30.12 (a)(3), 30.31(a), and 31.40 will be

amended to refer to the three business

day settlement standard. Rules

30.12(a)(4) and 30.31(a)(iii) will be

amended to provide that seller’s option

trades may not settle in less than four

business days. Rule 30.31(b), concerning

bids and offers in rights to subscribe,

will be amended to eliminate the

reference to the fourth and fifth business

day preceding the final day for

subscription. Rule 30.34(b) and (c) will

be amended to change references to the

five final business days for trading in

warrants and the fifth business day

preceding the expiration of a class of

warrants to the three final business days

and the third business day. Rule

12.3(b)(1)(C)(1)(iv), concerning the

margin requirements for a call option

contract, also will be amended to refer

to the third business day prior the date

on which a right to exchange or convert

expires.

Rules 30.32(a), 31.22(f), and 31.42

contain provisions setting forth ex-rights

or ex-dividend dates (i.e., the dates

when stocks trade without rights or

dividends). All references to

transactions in stocks being ex-dividend

or ex-rights on the fourth business day

preceding the record date will be

changed to the second business day

preceding the record date. For

transactions when the record date

occurs on a day other than a business

day, the stock will be traded ex-divided

on ex-rights on the third preceding

business day rather than on the fifth

preceding business day.

Four rules dealing with customer

margin requirements also will be

amended. Consistent with Regulation

T,5 Rules 21.25(a), 23.13(a), 24.11(a),