Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 1709 

project should be addressed to CAPT 

Colleen Petullo, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency/U.S. Public Health 

Service, OSWER/ERT, PO Box 93478, 

Las Vegas, NV 89193–3478, (702) 784–

8004. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

MARSAME provides information on 

planning, conducting, evaluating, and 

documenting environmental 

radiological surveys for demonstrating 

compliance with measurable action 

levels applied to materials and 

equipment. MARSAME, when finalized, 

will be a multi-agency consensus 

document and a supplement to the 

Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site 

Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). 

MARSAME was developed 

collaboratively over the past five years 

by the technical staffs of the four 

Federal agencies having authority for 

control of radioactive materials: DoD, 

DOE, EPA, and NRC (60 FR 12555; 

March 7, 1995). For a time, staff from 

the Department of Homeland Security 

participated in the development of 

MARSAME. Contractors to the DOE, 

EPA, and NRC, and members of the 

public have been present during the 

open meetings of the MARSAME work 

group. MARSAME’s objective is to 

describe standardized and consistent 

approaches for surveys, which provide 

a high degree of assurance that 

established action levels can be 

measured and an appropriate 

disposition of materials or equipment 

can be technically defended. The 

techniques, methodologies, and 

philosophies that form the bases of this 

manual were developed to be consistent 

with current Federal limits, guidelines, 

and procedures. 

Although Federal agency personnel 

are involved in the preparation of this 

document, the manual does not 

represent the official position of any 

participating agency at this time. An 

earlier draft of the document has been 

reviewed within the Federal agencies. 

Comments were received and comments 

from the review that reflected a 

technical error or flaw in logic or 

information flow were addressed. The 

other comments from the Federal 

agencies will be addressed along with 

the public comments. The public review 

is a necessary step in the development 

of a final multi-agency consensus 

document. The document will also 

receive formal technical peer review. 

The draft has not been approved by the 

participating agencies for use in part or 

in whole and should not be used, cited, 

or quoted except for the purposes of 

providing comments as requested. 

Reviewers are requested to focus on 

technical accuracy, and 

understandability. Reviewers are also 

requested to address five questions 

while reviewing MARSAME: 

(1) Does MARSAME provide a 

practical and implementable approach 

to performing radiation measurements 

of materials and equipment? Are there 

any major drawbacks to the proposed 

methods? 

(2) Is MARSAME technically 

accurate? 

(3) Does MARSAME provide benefits 

that are not available using current 

methods? What is the value of 

MARSAME in comparison with other 

currently available alternatives? 

(4) What are the costs associated with 

MARSAME in comparison with other 

currently available alternatives? 

(5) Is the information in MARSAME 

understandable and presented in a 

logical sequence? How can the 

presentation of material be modified to 

improve the understandability of the 

manual? 

Comments may be submitted as 

proposed modified text, or as a 

discussion. Comments should be 

accompanied by supporting bases, 

rationale, or data. To ensure efficient 

and complete comment resolution, 

commenters are requested to reference 

the page number and the line number of 

MARSAME to which the comment 

applies. Enter only the beginning page 

and line number, even if your comment 

applies to a number of pages or lines to 

follow. 

Comments corresponding to an entire 

chapter, an entire section, or an entire 

table should be referenced to the line 

number for the title of the chapter 

(always line number 1), section, or table. 

Comments on footnotes should be 

referenced to the line in the main text 

where the footnote is indicated. 

Comments on figures should be 

referenced to the page on which the 

figure appears. Figures do not have line 

numbers. The figure number should be 

included in the text of the comment. 

Comments on the entire manual should 

be referenced to the title page. 

Title: Draft Multi-Agency Radiation′ 

Survey and Assessment of Materials and 

Equipment Manual. 

For the Department of Defense, dated this 

19th day of December, 2006. 

Alex Beehler, 

Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Environment, Safety and Occupational 

Health). 

For the U.S. Department of Energy, dated 

this 1st day of January 2007. 

Andrew C. Lawrence, 

Director, Office of Nuclear Safety and 

Environment, Office of Health, Safety and 

Security. 

For the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, dated this 19th day of December 

2006. 

Elizabeth Cotsworth, 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, dated this 28th day of 

December 2006. 

James T. Wiggins, 

Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 

Research. 

[FR Doc. 07–118 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive 

Patent License; Emerald Coast 

Technology Group, LLC 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

hereby gives notice of its intent to grant 

to Emerald Coast Technology Group, 

LLC, a revocable, non-assignable, 

exclusive license to practice in the 

United States, the Government-owned 

invention described in U.S. Patent No. 

6,893,540: HIGH TEMPERATURE 

PELTIER EFFECT WATER DISTILLER 

issued May 17, 2005, Navy Case No. 

82,363. 

DATES: Anyone wishing to object to the 

grant of this license has fifteen (15) days 

from the date of this notice to file 

written objections along with 

supporting evidence, if any. 

ADDRESSES: Written objections are to be 

filed with Naval Surface Warfare Center 

Panama City, 110 Vernon Avenue, Code 

CP0L, Panama City, FL 32407–7001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

James Shepherd, Patent Counsel, Naval 

Surface Warfare Center Panama City, 

110 Vernon Avenue, Panama City, FL 

32407–7001, telephone 

james.t.shepherd@navy.mil. 

(Authority: 35 U.S.C. 207, 37 CFR Part 404) 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
1710 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 9 / Tuesday, January 16, 2007 / Notices 

Dated: December 19, 2006. 

M. A. Harvison, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 07–115 Filed 1–12–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–M 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Notice of Availability of the 

Supplement to the Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for the Gilberton 

Coal-to-Clean Fuels and Power Project 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of availability. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) announces the availability 

for public comment of a Supplement to 

the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Gilberton Coal-toClean Fuels and Power Project (DOE/ 

EIS–0357D–S1), prepared in response to 

comments on the original Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

issued in December 2005. This 

Supplement corrects information 

regarding carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emissions from the proposed Gilberton 

plant, provides information on the 

feasibility of carbon sequestration for 

the CO2 emissions from the Gilberton 

plant, and presents additional 

information regarding CO2-related 

cumulative impacts. 

It should be noted that the 

Supplement contains only those 

sections affected by comments related to 

CO2 emissions and sequestration, and 

DOE is inviting comments only on those 

sections. Comments on the original 

Draft EIS need not be resubmitted. 

DATES: DOE invites the public to 

comment on the Supplement to the 

Draft EIS during the public comment 

period, which ends February 27, 2007. 

DOE will consider all comments 

postmarked or received during the 

public comment period in preparing the 

Final EIS, and will consider late 

comments to the extent practicable. 

DOE will consider and respond to all 

comments submitted on the original 

Draft EIS in preparing the Final EIS. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for information 

about this Supplement to the Draft EIS 

or to receive a copy of the Supplement 

or the Draft EIS should be directed to: 

Janice L. Bell, NEPA Document 

Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, 

National Energy Technology Laboratory, 

M/S 58–247A, P.O. Box 10940, 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236. Additional 

information about the Supplement or 

the Draft EIS may also be requested by 

telephone at: (412) 386–4512, or toll-free 

at: 1–866–576–8240. 

The Supplement to the Draft EIS will 

be available at http://www.eh.doe.gov/ 

nepa. The original Draft EIS is available 

at the same Internet address. Copies of 

the Supplement to the Draft EIS are also 

available for review at the locations 

listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this Notice. 

Written comments on the Supplement 

to the Draft EIS can be mailed to Janice 

L. Bell, NEPA Document Manager, at the 

address noted above. Written comments 

may also be submitted by fax to: (412) 

386–4806, or submitted electronically 

to: jbell@netl.doe.gov. In addition, oral 

comments on the Supplement to the 

Draft EIS can be provided by calling the 

toll-free telephone number: 1–866–576–

8240. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information regarding the DOE 

NEPA process, please contact: Ms. Carol 

M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance (GC–20), U.S. 

Department of Energy, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585, Telephone: 

(202) 586–4600, or leave a message at: 

(800) 472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Department prepared this 

Supplement to the Draft EIS in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations that implement the 

procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR 

parts 1500–1508), and the DOE 

procedures implementing NEPA (10 

CFR part 1021). 

In the original Draft EIS, issued in 

December 2005, DOE’s proposed action 

(and preferred alternative) is to provide 

cost-shared funding to design, construct, 

and operate a new plant to demonstrate 

coproduction of 41 MW of electricity, 

steam, and over 5,000 barrels-per-day of 

ultra-clean liquid hydrocarbon products 

(primarily diesel fuel and naphtha). The 

demonstration plant would use a 

gasifier to convert coal waste to 

synthesis gas, which would be conveyed 

to Fischer-Tropsch (F–T) liquefaction 

facilities for production of liquid fuels 

and to a combined-cycle power plant. 

The demonstration facilities, to be 

constructed in Gilberton, Schuylkill 

County, Pennsylvania, would process 

up to 4,700 tons per day of coal waste 

(anthracite culm). The potential 

environmental impacts of this action are 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS 

also analyzed the No Action Alternative, 

under which DOE would not provide 

cost-shared funding to demonstrate the 

commercial-scale integration of coal 

gasification and F–T synthesis 

technology to produce electricity, steam 

and liquid fuels. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, it is reasonably foreseeable 

that no new activity would occur. 

Among the public comments received 

on the Draft EIS were those from the 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC) regarding how the Draft EIS 

addressed CO2 emissions. The NRDC 

comments expressed concern about the 

potential impacts on global warming 

and questioned the accuracy of the 

annual rate of CO2 emissions reported in 

the Draft EIS. The comments also 

requested DOE to enhance the analysis 

of potential CO2-related cumulative 

impacts, further explore the feasibility 

of CO2 sequestration, and provide a 

public comment opportunity on the 

revised sections of the EIS. DOE also 

received similar comments on CO2

emissions and carbon sequestration 

from other organizations and 

individuals: the Coalition of Concerned 

Coal Region Citizens; the Mid-Atlantic 

Environmental Law Center; the Citizens 

for Pennsylvania’s Future; Mike Ewall; 

Edward and Helen Sluzis; and James 

Kotcon. 

In considering the comments received 

on the Draft EIS, DOE determined that 

the annual rate of CO2 emissions 

reported in the Draft EIS included only 

the quantity of CO2 that would be 

emitted directly. The reported quantity 

did not include a larger quantity of CO2

in a concentrated stream exiting the gas 

cleanup system. While it was previously 

anticipated that the concentrated CO2

stream would be sold as a byproduct, 

the industrial participant has informed 

DOE that the commercial sale of the CO2

would not occur in the foreseeable 

future. Therefore, all of the CO2 would 

be emitted to the atmosphere. DOE has 

prepared the Supplement to clarify the 

total emissions rate accordingly. DOE 

has also enhanced the discussion of 

cumulative impacts and the feasibility 

of carbon sequestration. 

Availability of the Supplement to the 

Draft EIS 

Copies of this Supplement to the Draft 

EIS have been distributed to Members of 

Congress, Federal, State, and local 

officials, and agencies, organizations 

and individuals who may be interested 

or affected. To obtain copies of the 

Supplement and the original Draft EIS, 

see ADDRESSES above. The Supplement 

and the Draft EIS are also available in 

the public reading rooms of the 

following public libraries: Frackville 

Free Public Library, 56 N. Lehigh 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES