Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices 33909

indefinitely. Since there is some

residual radioactivity with very long

half lives such as nickel-59 in the

defueled reactor plant, this alternative

would leave this radioactivity at the

Windsor Site indefinitely.

4. Other Alternatives Considered

These alternatives include permanent

on-site disposal. Such on-site disposal

could involve building an entombment

structure over the S1C Prototype reactor

plant or developing a below ground

disposal area at the Windsor Site.

Another alternative would be to remove

the S1C Prototype reactor plant as a

single large reactor compartment

package for offsite disposal. Each of

these alternatives was considered but

eliminated from detailed analysis.

Public Hearing

The purpose of the hearing is to

receive comments on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement. The

meeting will be chaired by a presiding

officer and will not be conducted as an

evidentiary hearing; speakers will not be

cross-examined, although the presiding

officer and Naval Reactors

representatives present may ask

clarifying questions of those who

provide oral comments. To ensure that

everyone has an adequate opportunity

to speak, five minutes will be allotted

for each speaker. Depending on the

number of persons requesting to speak,

the presiding officer may allow more

time for elected officials, or speakers

representing multiple parties, or

organizations. Persons wishing to speak

on behalf of organizations should

identify the organization. Persons

wishing to speak may either notify Mr.

Overton in writing at the address below

or register at the meeting. As time

permits, individuals who have spoken

subject to the five minute rule will be

afforded additional speaking time.

Written comments also will be accepted

at the meeting.

Availability of Copies of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement

Copies of the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement are being distributed

to interested Federal, State, and local

agencies, and to individuals who have

expressed interest. Copies of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement and its

supporting references are available for

inspection at the Windsor Public

Library at 323 Broad Street, Windsor,

CT 06095. Copies of the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement may

be requested from Mr. Overton at the

above phone number.

Issued at Arlington, VA this 20th day of

June 1996.

B. DeMars,

Admiral, U.S. Navy, Director, Naval Nuclear

Propulsion Program.

[FR Doc. 96–16680 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Storage and Disposition of WeaponsUsable Fissile Materials—

Nonproliferation and Arms Control

Assessment

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of intent; request for

public comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy

intends to conduct a Nuclear

Nonproliferation and Arms Control

Assessment of the weapons-usable

fissile materials storage and disposition

alternatives contained in the Storage

and Disposition of Weapons-Usable

Fissile Materials Draft Programmatic

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft

PEIS) (February 1996, DOE/EIS–0229–

D). While not conducted as part of the

formal National Environmental Policy

Act process, the study will be performed

to provide the fullest possible public

involvement in the Department’s

consideration of weapons-usable fissile

materials storage and plutonium

disposition. The Assessment will be

considered in identifying preferred

alternatives for storage of weaponsusable fissile materials and disposition

of plutonium. The goals of the proposed

Assessment will be to help identify the

nuclear nonproliferation and arms

control benefits and vulnerabilities

associated with each of the storage and

disposition alternatives considered in

the Draft PEIS and identify potential

steps to maximize nonproliferation and

arms control benefits and mitigate any

vulnerabilities associated with the

various alternatives.

DATES: All comments on the outline are

due by August 9, 1996 and those

received by that time will be considered

by DOE in drafting the nonproliferation

and arms control assessment. Comments

received after that date will be

considered by DOE to the extent

practicable.

Meetings will be held in following

locations:

July 23, 1996, 2:00pm–4:30pm (local

time), University of Texas at Austin,

Texas Union, North Entrance, 3.304,

Quadrangle Room, 24th and

Guadalupe, Austin, Texas 78712.

July 25, 1996, 2:00pm–4:30pm (local

time), Stanford University, Galvez

House Conference Room, 320 Galvez

Street, Stanford, CA 94305.

July 29, 1996, 2:00pm–4:30pm (local

time), Northwestern University,

Norris Student Center, Louis South,

2nd Floor, 1999 South Campus Drive,

Evanston, IL 60208.

July 31, 1996, 2:00pm–4:30pm (local

time), Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Stratton Student Center,

Mezzanine Lounge, 3rd Floor, 84

Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA

02139.

August 1, 1996, 2:00pm–4:30pm,

Department of Energy Headquarters,

Forrestal Building, Room 1E245,

Washington, DC 20585.

ADDRESSES: The Department of Energy

invites interested agencies,

organizations, and the general public to

provide oral and/or written comments

on the outline of the proposed

Nonproliferation and Arms Control

Assessment as set forth in this Notice.

Written and oral comments will be

accepted at the public meetings to be

held at the times and locations listed

above. Persons desiring to participate in

the meetings are requested to preregister by calling the toll-free number

listed no later than one week prior to

the meeting.

Written comments on the outline,

requests for the President’s

Nonproliferation and Export Control

Policy Statement, the National Academy

of Sciences report, or the Draft

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement should be sent to: Mr. Jon B.

Wolfsthal, Office of Arms Control and

Nonproliferation (NN–42), Attn.:

Assessment, U.S. Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Ave, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20585–0001. Electronic

mail comments can be sent to

Jon.Wolfsthal@HQ.DOE.GOV.

Comments are due by August 9, 1996.

Persons wanting additional

information or to pre-register for any of

the public meetings can do so by calling

1–800–835–8009. Additional

information can be obtained by visiting

the Office of Nonproliferation and

National Security’s world wide web

homepage at HTTP:/

WWW.NN.DOE.GOV/NN/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: There are

a number of reasons behind the

Department’s effort to identify and

implement safe, secure and timely

storage and disposition of these

weapons-usable materials. Many of

these reasons relate to U.S. efforts to

prevent the spread of nuclear weapons

to additional nations or sub-national

groups, and to encourage safe and

secure storage and disposition of

weapons-usable materials by other

countries. Identifying the various

implications for these goals presented
33910 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices

by the alternatives being evaluated by

the Department is the central goal of the

proposed Assessment.

The end of the Cold War and the eastwest confrontation have significantly

affected the way in which the United

States and other countries approach the

management of weapons-usable fissile

materials (primarily highly enriched

uranium (HEU) and plutonium). The

reductions of nuclear weapons agreed to

by the United States and Russia in

bilateral treaties and through other

initiatives has reduced U.S. national

security requirements for fissile

materials and, as a result, substantial

amounts of weapons-usable fissile

materials have been declared surplus to

U.S. defense needs, and decisions about

the storage of all weapons-usable fissile

materials and the disposition of

plutonium will therefore be required.

The national policy, as outlined by the

President on September 27, 1993 (White

House Press Release), is to seek to

eliminate where possible the

accumulation of stockpiles of HEU and

plutonium, and to ensure that where

these materials already exist they are

subject to the highest standards of

safety, security and international

accountability.

In addition, the President in

September 1993 initiated a

comprehensive review of long-term

options for plutonium disposition,

taking into account technical,

nonproliferation, environmental,

budgetary and economic considerations.

The proposed Nonproliferation and

Arms Control Assessment represents a

vital part of that review.

In early 1994, the National Academy

of Sciences published a report,

Management and Disposition of Excess

Weapons Plutonium. This study,

commissioned by the President’s

National Security Council, provides

information regarding management and

disposition of surplus nuclear materials,

in particular plutonium.

In the United States, weapons-usable

fissile nuclear materials are currently

stored at several DOE sites, including

the Pantex Plant (Amarillo, Texas), the

Hanford Site (Richland, Washington),

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

(Idaho Falls, Idaho), the Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site

(Golden, Colorado), the Savannah River

Site (Aiken, South Carolina), Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory

(Livermore, California), Los Alamos

National Laboratory (Los Alamos, New

Mexico), and the Oak Ridge Reservation

(Oak Ridge, Tennessee).

Recent nuclear arms reduction

agreements and pledges, along with

Presidential decisions concerning what

stocks of nuclear materials are surplus

to national defense and defense-related

program needs, will largely determine

how much material will be available for

disposition, and when.

The outline will be used to draft a

Nonproliferation and Arms Control

Assessment, which will then be

reviewed and commented on by a panel

of experts. This panel, which will be

convened as a sub-committee of the

Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board

(SEAB), will include members of the

SEAB and other experts and will be

chaired by a SEAB member. The

comments by the SEAB panel will be

incorporated into the draft assessment,

which will then be published and made

available for public comment and

additional public meetings in the fall.

Following those meetings and

comments, a final assessment will be

prepared and published by the end of

1996.

Alternatives Considered

The Department is evaluating the

following reasonable long-term storage

alternatives: (1) Upgrade or replacement

of current Plutonium and HEU storage

facilities at multiple DOE sites, (2)

consolidation of Plutonium at a single

DOE site, and (3) collocation of

Plutonium and HEU at a single DOE

site. The six candidate storage sites are:

the Hanford Site, Washington; the Idaho

National Engineering Laboratory (INEL),

Idaho; the Nevada Test Site (NTS),

Nevada; the Oak Ridge Reservation

(ORR), Tennessee; the Pantex Plant,

Texas; and the Savannah River Site

(SRS), South Carolina. For disposition,

the Draft PEIS analyzes broader,

programmatic strategies and

technologies. The reasonable

disposition alternatives fall into three

categories: (1) The Deep Borehole

Category consisting of two

alternatives—Direct Disposition, and

Immobilized Disposition; (2) the

Immobilization Category consisting of

three alternatives—Vitrification,

Ceramic Immobilization, and

Electrometallurgical Treatment; and (3)

the Reactor Category consisting of four

alternatives—Existing Light Water

Reactors (LWRs), Evolutionary LWRs,

Partially Completed LWRs, and the

Canadian Deuterium Uranium (CANDU)

Reactor. In addition, No Action

Alternatives are analyzed, in which no

change in storage and/or no disposition

would occur.

The outline and the subsequent study

will review the nonproliferation and

arms control implications of the

reasonable alternatives under

evaluation, assess the relative

nonproliferation and arms control

benefits and vulnerabilities of each

alternative, and identify potential steps

that could be taken to maximize the

associated benefits and to minimize the

associated liabilities. The report will be

used in conjunction with environmental

impact analyses, analyses of the cost,

schedule and technical viability

assessments of each option, other

reports and public comments in making

a final decision on how to store

weapons-usable fissile materials and

dispose of surplus plutonium.

Dated: June 26, 1996.

Kenneth N. Luongo,

Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Energy

for Nonproliferation Policy and Director,

Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation,

Outline for Nonproliferation and Arms

Control Assessment of Weapons-Usable

Fissile Material Storage and Disposition

Alternatives

(A) Introduction and Summary

I. Current situation and upcoming

developments

II. Need for action

(a) Internal U.S. management of

materials

(b) International imperatives/

objectives

III. Background and previous studies

IV. Alternatives under consideration

V. Main nonproliferation considerations

(Summary)

(a) Technical factors

(b) Policy factors

(B) Policy Factors

I. Relevant policy documents

(a) Relevant Presidential Decision

Directives and statements

(b) US/Russian & P–8 summit

statements

(c) Other documents and guidance

II. International initiatives/cooperation

(C) Long-Term Storage of Fissile

Materials

I. Description of four main storage

alternatives (contained in Draft

PEIS)

(a) Upgrade facilities at multiple sites

(separate/multiple HEU and Pu

Storage sites)

(b) Consolidation of Plutonium

storage

(c) Collocation of Plutonium and

Highly enriched uranium storage

(d) No action

II. Nonproliferation and arms control

analysis of four main storage

alternatives

(a) Nonproliferation and arms controlrelated benefits

—Technical

—Policy

(b)—Nonproliferation and arms
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 127 / Monday, July 1, 1996 / Notices 33911

control liabilities/vulnerabilities

—Technical

— Policy

III. Identify/Recommend steps to

maximize positive and reduce

negative impacts of main storage

options

(D) Disposition Options for Surplus

Plutonium

I. Description and analysis of four

groups of alternatives (See Figure 1

for factors to be considered)

(a) Reactor Options (US and/or

European MOX fabrication)

Evolutionary LWRs

Partially Completed LWRs

Existing LWRs

Candu Reactor in Canada

(b) Immobilization

Vitrification

Ceramic Immobilization

Electrometalurgical Treatment

(c) Deep Borehole Review

Direct Disposition

Immobilized Disposition

(d) No Action

II. Nonproliferation analysis of three

main categories of options (See

Figure I).

(a) Nonproliferation and arms control

benefits

Technical

Policy

(b) Nonproliferation and arms control

liabilities/vulnerabilities

Technical

Policy

III. Identify/Recommend steps to

maximize benefits and reduce any

negative nonproliferation impacts

of options

(E) General Recommendations/

Conclusions

(The Assessment will not rank the

alternatives based on nonproliferation

criteria, but will recommend possible

ways to maximize benefits or mitigate

any negative nonproliferation

implications associated with particular

alternatives.)

FIGURE 1.—TECHNICAL/POLICY FACTORS AND MITIGATING STEPS

Technical factors Policy factors Mitigating steps

TIME LINES

—Time to Start

—Time to Finish

RISK OF DIVERSION IN PROCESS

—Material form and attractiveness

—Material security and accounting

—Transport security

—Process through-put

—Other process issues

—Material inventories

—Number of facilities and sites

—Bilateral and international monitoring

—Political and security conditions in countries involved

Impacts on foreign programs and activities

Impact on current and future U.S. policy

Impacts on nonproliferation agreements and

regimes

Political implementability

Impacts on current and future fissile material

related negotiations

Impact on future dismantlement activities

Safeguards and Security

International monitoring and access

Implementation variations

Stated justifications

Bilateral or multilateral agreements or PAGE

arrangements

RISK OF RE-USE IN WEAPONS

—Final material form and attractiveness

—Physical access to material

—Cost, time and observability of recovery

—Bilateral and international monitoring.

[FR Doc. 96–16679 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

[Docket No. RP96–282–000]

Algonquin Gas Transmission

Company; Notice of Proposed

Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 20, 1996,

Algonquin Gas Transmission Company

(Algonquin) tendered for filing as part of

its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised

Volume No. 1, the following revised

tariff sheets, with a proposed effective

date of July 20, 1996:

Twenty-eighth Revised Sheet No. 20A

Original Sheet No. 93C

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 700

Third Revised Sheet No. 701

Second Revised Sheet No. 702

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 703

Algonquin states that the purpose of

this filing is to flow through

$177,225.78 of take-or-pay charges

billed to Algonquin by National Fuel

Gas Supply Corporation under the

revised allocation methodology.

Algonquin requests that the

Commission grant any waiver that may

be necessary to place these tariff sheets

into effect on the date requested.

Algonquin states that copies of this

filing were mailed to all customers of

Algonquin and interested state

commissions.

Any person desiring to be heard or to

protest this filing should file a motion

to intervene or protest with the Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888

First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

in accordance with 385.214 and 385.211

of the Commission’s Rules and

Regulations. All such motions or

protests must be filed as provided in

§ 154.210 of the Commission’s

Regulations. Protests will be considered

by the Commission in determining the

appropriate action to be taken, but will

not serve to make protestants parties to

the proceeding. Any person wishing to

become a party must file a motion to

intervene. Copies of this filing are on

file with the Commission and are

available for public inspection in the

Public Reference Room.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–16631 Filed 6–28–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Docket No. RP90–95–012]

Colorado Interstate Gas Company;

Notice of Compliance Filing

June 25, 1996.

Take notice that on June 21, 1996,

Colorado Interstate Gas Company (CIG),

tendered for filing a semiannual

compliance filing consisting of work

papers detailing accrued interest

payments made by CIG to its affected

customers related to the unused portion