41810 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 150 /Wednesday, August 5, 1998 / Notices

and Hopewell Townships, Mercer

County, New Jersey, to replace an

existing deteriorating pipeline stream

crossing. The new steel pipeline

crossing will be 14 inches in diameter

and approximately 250 feet long, and

will be excavated four feet under the

existing stream bed, at a point

approximately 1,500 feet west of the

intersection of Jacobs Creek and Bear

Tavern Roads. The pipeline crossing is

part of maintenance work on the

applicant’s interstate petroleum

pipeline system.

Documents relating to these items

may be examined at the Commission’s

offices. Preliminary dockets are

available in single copies upon request.

Please contact Thomas L. Brand at (609)

883–9500 ext. 221 concerning docketrelated questions. Persons wishing to

testify at this hearing are requested to

register with the Secretary at (609) 883–

9500 ext. 203 prior to the hearing.

Dated: July 28, 1998

Susan M. Weisman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–20846 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. EA–115–A]

Application To Export Electric Energy;

Enron Power Marketing, Inc.

AGENCY: Office of Fossil Energy, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of Application.

SUMMARY: Enron Power Marketing, Inc.

has applied for renewal of its authority

to transmit electric energy from the

United States to Canada.

DATES: Comments, protests or requests

to intervene must be submitted on or

before September 4, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments, protests or

requests to intervene should be

addressed as follows: Office of Coal &

Power Im/Ex (FE–27), Office of Fossil

Energy, U.S. Department of Energy,

1000 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20585–0350 (FAX 202–

287–5736).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Russell (Program Office) 202–586–

9624 or Michael Skinker (Program

Attorney) 202–586–6667.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Exports of

electricity from the United States to a

foreign country are regulated and

require authorization under section

202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA)

(16 U.S.C. 824a(e)).

On September 26, 1996, the Office of

Fossil Energy (FE) of the Department of

Energy (DOE) authorized Enron Power

Marketing, Inc. (Enron) to transmit

electric energy from the United States to

Canada as a power marketer using the

electric transmission facilities of Basin

Electric Corporation, Bonneville Power

Administration, Citizens Utilities,

Detroit Edison Company, Eastern Maine

Electric Cooperative, Joint Owners of

the Highgate Project, Maine Electric

Power Company, Maine Public Service

Company, Minnesota Power Company,

Minnkota Power, New York Power

Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power

Company, Northern States Power, and

Vermont Electric Transmission

Company. The term of the authorization

was for a period of two years and will

expire on September 26, 1998. On July

23, 1998, Enron filed an application

with FE for renewal of this export

authority and requested that the Order

be issued for a 5-year term.

DOE notes that the circumstances

described in this application are

virtually identical to those for which

export authority had previously been

granted in FE Order EA–115.

Consequently, DOE believes that it has

adequately satisfied its responsibilities

under the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969 through the

documentation of a categorical

exclusion in the FE Docket EA–115

proceeding.

Procedural Matters

Any person desiring to become a

party to this proceeding or to be heard

by filing comments or protests to this

application should file a petition to

intervene, comment or protest at the

address provided above in accordance

with §§ 385.211 or 385.214 of the

FERC’s Rules of Practice and Procedures

(18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Fifteen

copies of each petition and protest

should be filed with the DOE on or

before the date listed above.

Comments on Enron’s request to

export to Canada should be clearly

marked with Docket EA–115–A.

Additional copies are to be filed directly

with David B. Ward, Ward & Anderson,

P.C., 1000 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW,

Suite 503, Washington, DC 20007 and

Christi L. Nicolay, Enron Corp., 1400

Smith Street, Houston, TX 77251–1188.

Copies of this application will be

made available, upon request, for public

inspection and copying at the address

provided above.

Issued in Washington, DC on July 29, 1998.

Anthony J. Como,

Manager, Electric Power Regulation, Office

of Coal and Power Im/Ex, Office of Coal and

Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.

[FR Doc. 98–20892 Filed 8–4–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Record of Decision for the Department

of Energy’s Waste Management

Program: Treatment of Nonwastewater Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Record of decision.

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy’s

(DOE) Final Waste Management

Programmatic Environmental Impact

Statement (WM PEIS) (May 1997)

analyzed alternatives for the annual

treatment of approximately 3,440 metric

tons of non-wastewater hazardous waste

that is currently being transported to

commercial facilities for treatment. DOE

has decided to continue to use off-site

facilities for the treatment of major

portions of the non-wastewater

hazardous waste generated at DOE sites,

based in part on analyses in the WM

PEIS. The Oak Ridge Reservation (ORR)

in Tennessee and the Savannah River

Site (SRS) in South Carolina will treat

some of their own non-wastewater

hazardous waste on-site, where capacity

is available in existing facilities and

where this is economically favorable.

This decision does not involve any

transfers of non-wastewater hazardous

waste among DOE sites.

This decision differs slightly in two

respects from the Preferred Alternative

(the No Action Alternative) identified in

the WM PEIS. First, in the Preferred

Alternative (and all other alternatives

analyzed), DOE’s Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL) was assumed to treat

some of its own non-wastewater

hazardous waste on site. However, all

non-wastewater hazardous waste at

INEEL is currently treated at off-site

facilities, and DOE’s decision is to

continue this practice for the site.

Second, the Preferred Alternative did

not assume any on-site treatment at

SRS. However, treatment of nonwastewater hazardous waste at SRS was

analyzed in the Decentralized

Alternative (as was on-site treatment of

non-wastewater hazardous waste at

ORR). Since publication of the WM

PEIS, the Consolidated Incineration

Facility has become available at SRS for

the treatment of some of the site’s nonwastewater hazardous wastes. Use of