Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices 29745

place all or part of the system in standby

condition. Under the proposed

‘‘standby’’ alternative, portions of the

River Water System could be placed in

a variety of conditions. For example,

surplus portions of the River Water

System could be shut down and

deactivated. Those portions of the River

Water System that are deactivated

would not be capable of being restarted.

However, other portions of the River

Water System could be placed in a

‘‘layup’’ condition in order to support

potential future missions. In the layup

condition, equipment would be shut

down, but preserved so that restart

would be possible.

Alternatively, some portions of the

River Water System could be placed in

a higher state of readiness than in

‘‘layup’’ condition; such portions of the

River Water System could be restarted

in a relatively short period of time.

Short term cost savings would be

minimal, but this condition would

allow DOE to maintain a great degree of

flexibility. Unlike the ‘‘shutdown and

deactivate’’ alternative described below,

the River Water System could be

available to mitigate or even reverse the

impacts of the proposed action, if

deemed necessary.

Two alternatives to the proposed

action are under consideration. The first

alternative is to continue current River

Water System operation (this is the noaction alternative). Under this

alternative, the River Water System

would continue to provide water to

maintain L Lake and Par Pond water

levels. The second alternative is to shut

down and deactivate the entire River

Water System. Under this alternative,

alternative water sources (such as from

ground water) would be needed to

provide for minor non-reactor cooling

requirements (air conditioning, small

equipment cooling, etc.) The cessation

of river water input to L Lake would

result in the gradual disappearance of

the lake and its return to original creek

conditions over the next several years.

Preliminary Identification of

Environmental and Other Issues

The Department has identified the

following issues for analysis for

proposed and alternative actions in the

EIS. Additional issues may be identified

as a result of the scoping process.

(1) Public and Worker Safety and

Health Risk Assessment: radiological

and nonradiological impacts of the

proposed action and alternatives,

including projected effects on workers

and the public from expected and

potential conditions.

(2) Impacts from releases to air, water,

and soil.

(3) Impacts to plants, animals, and

habitat, including impacts to wetlands,

and threatened or endangered species

and their habitat.

(4) The consumption of natural

resources and energy including water,

natural gas, and electricity.

(5) Socioeconomic impacts to affected

communities from operation labor

forces and support services in the SRS

area.

(6) Environmental justice:

disproportionately high and adverse

human health or environmental effects

on minority and low-income

populations.

(7) Impacts to cultural resources such

as historic, archaeological, scientific, or

culturally important sites.

(8) Status of compliance with all

applicable Federal, state, and local

statutes and regulations; required

Federal and state environmental

consultations and notifications; and

DOE Orders on waste management,

waste minimization initiatives, and

environmental protection.

(9) Cumulative impacts from the

proposed action and other past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable actions at

the Savannah River Site.

(10) Potential irreversible and

irretrievable commitments of resources.

Related NEPA Documentation

Completed and ongoing

environmental reviews may affect the

scope of this EIS. Background

information and documents, listed

below, on past, present, and future

activities at the Savannah River Site are

available in DOE public reading rooms.

Continued Operation of K-, L-, and PReactors (DOE/EIS–0147, 1990).

Interim Management of Nuclear

Materials (DOE/EIS–0220, 1995).

L-Reactor Operation (DOE/EIS–0108,

1984).

Environmental Assessment for the

Natural Fluctuation of Water Level in

Par Pond and Reduced Water Flow in

Steel Creek Below L-Lake at the

Savannah River Site (DOE/EA–1070,

1995).

Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel

Management (DOE/EIS–0203, 1995).

Proposed Nuclear Weapons

Nonproliferation Policy Concerning

Foreign Research Reactor Spent

Nuclear Fuel (DOE/EIS–0218, 1996).

Savannah River Site Waste Management

(DOE/EIS–0217, 1995).

Please direct written comments

assisting DOE in identifying significant

environmental issues and defining the

appropriate scope of the EIS to Mr.

Andrew R. Grainger at the address

indicated above. DOE also invites

agencies, organizations, and the general

public to present oral comments

pertinent to the preparation of this EIS

at the public scoping meeting on the

date indicated above. Organizations and

individuals wishing to participate in the

public meeting can call 1–800–242–

8269 between 8:30 AM and 5:00 PM

(Eastern time zone) Monday through

Friday, or submit their requests to Mr.

Grainger at the address indicated above.

DOE requests that anyone who wishes

to speak at the scoping meeting

preregister by contacting Mr. Grainger,

either by phone or in writing.

Preregistration should occur at least two

days before the designated meeting.

Persons who have not preregistered to

speak may register at the meeting and

will be called on to speak as time

permits. In addition, DOE will accept

comments electronically via voice mail

or facsimile transmission by calling 1–

800–242–8269. DOE is committed to

providing opportunities for the

involvement of interested individuals

and groups in this and other DOE

planning activities; consequently, DOE

will give equal consideration to all

comments.

Issued in Washington, D.C., this 5th day of

June, 1996.

Peter N. Brush,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary

Environment, Safety and Health.

[FR Doc. 96–14896 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. CP96–539–000]

Columbia Gulf Transmission

Company; Notice of Request Under

Blanket Authorization

June 6, 1996.

Take notice that on May 23, 1996,

Columbia Gulf Transmission Company

(Columbia Gulf), 2603 Augusta STE 125,

Houston, Texas 77057–5637, filed in

Docket No. CP96–539–000 a request

pursuant to Sections 157.205 and

157.211 of the Commission’s

Regulations under the Natural Gas Act

(18 CFR 157.205, 157.211) for

authorization to establish a new

interconnection in Louisiana, under

Columbia Gulf’s blanket certification

issued in Docket No. CP83–496–000

pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas

Act, all as more fully set forth in the

request that is on file with the

Commission and open to public

inspection.

Columbia Gulf proposes to construct

and operate a new interconnection point
29746 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Notices

with Central Louisiana Electric

Company, Inc. (CLECO) for providing

transportation services. The new point

will be located in St. Mary Parish,

Louisiana and was requested by CLECO

to serve the Teche Power Plant. The

estimated quantities of natural gas to be

delivered will be 85,000 Dth/day–12.6

Bcf/annually. The cost is approximately

$186,000 with CLECO reimbursing

Columbia Gulf 100% of the total actual

construction cost. The services provided

through the interconnection will be on

an interruptible basis and will not affect

Columbia Gulf’s peak day and annual

deliveries and the total volumes

delivered will not exceed total volumes

authorized prior to this request.

Columbia Gulf states that this new

interconnection is not prohibited by its

existing tariff and that it has sufficient

capacity to accomplish deliveries

without detriment or disadvantage to

other customers.

Any person or the Commission’s staff

may, within 45 days after issuance of

the instant notice by the Commission,

file pursuant to Rule 214 of the

Commission’s Procedural Rules (18 CFR

385.214) a motion to intervene or notice

of intervention and pursuant to Section

157.205 of the Regulations under the

Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a

protest to the request. If no protest is

filed within the time allowed therefor,

the proposed activity shall be deemed to

be authorized effective the day after the

time allowed for filing a protest. If a

protest is filed and not withdrawn

within 30 days after the time allowed

for filing a protest, the instant request

shall be treated as an application for

authorization pursuant to Section 7 of

the Natural Gas Act.

Lindwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14837 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–267–000]

Gas Research Institute; Notice of

Annual Application

June 6, 1996.

Take notice that on June 5, 1996, Gas

Research Institute (GRI) filed an

application requesting advance approval

of its 1997–2001 Five-Year Research,

Development and Demonstration

(RD&D) Plan and 1997 RD&D Program,

and the funding of its RD&D activities

for 1997, pursuant to the Natural Gas

Act and the Commission’s Regulations,

particularly 18 CFR 154.401.

In its application, GRI requests

approval of a total obligations budget of

$170.4 million in 1997, a decrease of

$4.4 million from the $174.8 million

approved for GRI’s amended 1996

obligations budget. During the twelve

months ending December 31, 1997, GRI

intends to collect $179.9 million

through jurisdictional rates and charges,

and disburse $176.2 million.

GRI also proposes to modify its

current funding mechanism by: (i) Not

following the 50/50 demand/commodity

balancing provisions so that current

surcharges may be used in 1997; and (ii)

limiting refunds to amounts collected in

excess of the annualized funding

requirement for its 1997 RD&D program.

GRI proposes to fund its 1997 RD&D

Program through the following

surcharges: (1) A demand/reservation

surcharge on two-part rates of 26.0 cents

per Dth per Month for ‘‘high load-factor

customers’’; (2) a demand/reservation

surcharge on two-part rates of 16.0 cents

per Dth per month for ‘‘low load-factor

customers’’; (3) a volumetric

commodity/usage surcharge of 0.88

cents for firm services involving twopart rates and for one-part interruptible

rates; (4) a special ‘‘small customer’’

surcharge of 2.0 cents per Dth; and (5)

a surcharge of 1.74 cents per Dth per

month for one-part, firm service outside

the ‘‘small customer’’ class.

GRI has not filed detailed information

on its 1998 RD&D Program. According

to GRI, downsizing of its 1996 RD&D

Program is yet to be fully implemented

and issues pertaining to funding

stability are still outstanding; for this

reason GRI requests that is 1997

proposal be approved on its own merit,

rather than as part of a two-year

program.

The Commission Staff will analyze

GRI’s application and prepare a

Commission Staff Report. This Staff

Report will be served on all parties and

filed with the Commission as a public

document by July 31, 1996. Comments

on the Staff Report by all parties, except

GRI, must filed with the Commission on

or before August 14, 1996. GRI’s reply

comments must be filed on or before

August 28, 1996.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest GRI’s application, except for GRI

members and state regulatory

commissions, who are automatically

permitted to participate in the instant

proceedings as intervenors, should file a

motion to intervene or protest with

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426, in accordance with Rules 214

and 211 of the Commission’s Rules of

Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.214

and 385.11. All protests, motions to

intervene and comments should be filed

on or before June 20, 1996. All

comments and protests will be

considered by the Commission in

determining the appropriate action to be

taken, but will not serve to make

protestants parties to this proceeding.

Any person wishing to become a party,

other than a GRI member or a state

regulatory commission, must file with

the Commission and are available for

public inspection.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14829 Filed 6–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP96–264–000]

K N Interstate Gas Transmission Co.;

Notice of Account No. 858 Filing

June 6, 1996.

Take notice that on June 3, 1996, K N

Interstate Gas Transmission Co. (KNI)

made its annual Account No. 858

tracker filing in the above captioned

docket.

KNI states that the filing revises KNI’s

Account No. 858 rate component and

details, for the months April 1, 1995

through March 1996, its actual Account

No. 858 cost recovery and incurrence.

KNI states that copies of the filing

were served upon KNI’s jurisdictional

customers, interested public bodies, and

all parties to the proceedings.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

make any protest with reference to this

filing should file a motion to intervene

or protest with the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

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

accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of

the Commission’s Rules of Practice and

Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214).

All such motions or protests must be

filed as provided in Section 154.210 of

the Commission’s Regulations. All

protests filed with the Commission will

be considered by it in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make the protestants parties

to the proceeding. Any person wishing

to become a party to a proceeding or to

participate as a party in any hearing

therein must file a petition to intervene

in accordance with the Commission’s

Rules. Copies of this filing are on file

with the Commission and are available

for public inspection.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–14831 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M