60508 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

points); Evaluation plan (20 points); 

Budget and cost-effectiveness (10 

points); and Priorities (20 points). 

VI. Award Administration Information 

1. Award Notices: If your application 

is successful, we notify your U.S. 

Representative and U.S. Senators and 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may also notify you 

informally. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: At the end of your 

project period, you must submit a final 

performance report, including financial 

information, as directed by the 

Secretary. If you receive a multi-year 

award, you must submit an annual 

performance report that provides the 

most current performance and financial 

expenditure information as specified by 

the Secretary in 34 CFR 75.118. 

Grantees are required to use the 

electronic data instrument Evaluation of 

Exchange, Language, International, and 

Area Studies (EELIAS) to complete the 

final report. 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Ed McDermott, International Education 

Programs Service, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street, NW., suite 

6082, Washington, DC 20006–8521. 

Telephone: (202) 502–7636 or by e-mail: 

ed.mcdermott@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

format (e.g., Braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed in this section. 

VIII. Other Information 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You may view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1–

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: October 13, 2005. 

Sally L. Stroup, 

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 05–20784 Filed 10–13–05; 4:03 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Revision to the Record of Decision for 

the Department of Energy’s Waste 

Management Program 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Revision to record of decision. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE), pursuant to 10 CFR 1021.315, is 

revising the Record of Decision for the 

Department of Energy’s Waste 

Management Program: Treatment and 

Storage of Transuranic Waste, issued on 

January 20, 1998 (63 FR 3629) and 

revised previously on December 29, 

2000 (65 FR 82985) and July 13, 2001 

(66 FR 38646). On September 6, 2002 

(67 FR 56989) and June 30, 2004 (69 FR 

39446) the Department decided to send 

the waste from Battelle Columbus 

Laboratory West Jefferson site to the 

Hanford Site. The Department has now 

decided to transfer approximately 37 

cubic meters of transuranic (TRU) waste 

generated as part of the cleanup of the 

Battelle Columbus Laboratory West 

Jefferson site near Columbus, Ohio, to 

the Savannah River Site (SRS) and/or 

the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) site 

near Andrews, Texas for either 

characterization or storage until the 

waste can be disposed of at the Waste 

Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New 

Mexico. Both SRS and WCS offer viable 

storage options for the Battelle TRU 

waste. Pursuant to this decision, DOE 

may ship all of the Battelle TRU waste 

to either SRS or WCS, or it may choose 

to ship a portion of the waste to SRS 

and the remainder of the waste to WCS. 

The Remote-Handled (RH) TRU waste 

(approximately 25 cubic meters, 

including about 3 cubic meters of mixed 

TRU waste [containing both radioactive 

and hazardous components]) would be 

stored at SRS or WCS for up to five 

years. The CH–TRU waste 

(approximately 12 cubic meters, 

including about 2 cubic meters of mixed 

TRU waste) would be characterized at 

SRS under the existing characterization 

program and shipped to WIPP for 

disposal or stored at WCS for up to five 

years. If DOE’s request for modification 

of the WIPP hazardous waste facility 

permit currently pending before the 

New Mexico Environment Department 

is granted without substantial change, 

DOE may be able to ship the Battelle 

West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or 

WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for 

disposal, without additional 

characterization. If additional 

characterization is necessary prior to 

disposal at WIPP, the Battelle West 

Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped 

from SRS or WCS to another DOE site 

for characterization. 

DOE has prepared a Supplement 

Analysis (SA) in accordance with DOE 

NEPA regulations (10 CFR 1021.314) to 

determine whether the proposed off-site 

shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson 

TRU waste for storage at SRS or WCS 

prior to disposal at WIPP is a substantial 

change to the proposal or whether there 

are significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns such that a supplement to the 

WM PEIS or a new EIS would be 

needed. Based on the SA, DOE has 

determined that a supplement to the 

WM PEIS or a new EIS is not needed. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Copies of the Waste Management 

Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (WM PEIS), the 1998 WM 

PEIS ROD for TRU waste, the revised 

WM PEIS RODs for TRU waste, this 

revised ROD, and the Supplement 

Analysis for Transportation, Storage, 

Characterization, and Disposal of 

Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at 

the Battelle West Jefferson Site near 

Columbus, Ohio (DOE/EIS–0200–SA–

02) will be available on DOE’s National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Web 

site at: http://www.eh.doe.gov/nepa 

under DOE NEPA Documents. To 

request copies of any of these 

documents, please write or call: 

The Center for Environmental 

Management Information, P.O. Box 

23769, Washington, DC 20026–3769, 

Telephone: 1–800–736–3282 (in 

Washington, DC: 202–863–5084). 

For further information regarding the 

storage, characterization, and disposal 

of Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste, or 

to obtain copies of the Supplement 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60509 

Analysis discussed herein, contact: Mr. 

Harold Johnson, Carlsbad Field Office, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 4021 

National Parks Highway, Carlsbad, NM 

88220, Telephone: 505–234–7349. 

For further information on the DOE 

program for the management of TRU 

waste or this revision to the ROD, 

contact: Ms. Lynne Smith, Office of 

Environmental Management, U.S. 

Department of Energy, 19001 

Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 

20874, Telephone: 301–903–6828. 

For information on DOE’s NEPA 

process, contact: Ms. Carol Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance, EH–42, U.S. Department of 

Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, Telephone 

202–586–4600, or leave a message at 1–

800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

TRU waste is waste that contains 

alpha particle-emitting radionuclides 

with atomic numbers greater than that 

of uranium (92) and half-lives greater 

than 20 years in concentrations greater 

than 100 nanocuries per gram. TRU 

waste is classified according to the 

radiation dose at a package surface. CH–

TRU waste has a radiation dose rate at 

a package surface of 200 millirem per 

hour or less; this waste can safely be 

handled directly by personnel. RH–TRU 

waste has a radiation dose rate at a 

package surface greater than 200 

millirem per hour, and must be handled 

remotely (e.g., with machinery designed 

to shield workers from radiation). Mixed 

TRU waste contains both radioactive 

and hazardous components. 

The 37 cubic meters of TRU waste at 

the Battelle West Jefferson site consist of 

approximately 12 cubic meters of CH–

TRU waste and approximately 25 cubic 

meters of RH–TRU waste. At the Battelle 

West Jefferson site, most of the CH–TRU 

waste is stored in six standard waste 

boxes in three concrete shielding units. 

One additional 30 gallon drum of 

possible CH–TRU waste (this waste was 

originally thought to be low-level waste, 

but may eventually be determined to be 

TRU waste due to the presence of 

americium) is stored in a locked cargo 

container at the Battelle site. The RH–

TRU waste is contained in 110 55-gallon 

drums (stored in 11 concrete shielding 

units) and two RH–TRU 72–B shipping 

casks (the two shipping casks hold a 

total of five drums). 

In the WM PEIS, DOE analyzed the 

potential environmental impacts of the 

management (treatment and storage) of 

TRU waste at DOE sites (DOE estimated 

that 580 cubic meters of RH–TRU waste 

had been generated and was being 

stored at the Battelle West Jefferson site 

but did not specifically analyze the 

treatment or storage of that TRU waste 

at off-site locations). In the 1998 WM 

PEIS ROD for TRU waste, DOE decided 

that ‘‘each of the Department’s sites that 

currently has or will generate TRU 

waste will prepare and store its waste 

on site’’ prior to shipment to WIPP. (The 

only exception to this decision was the 

Sandia National Laboratory in New 

Mexico, which will ship its waste to the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory for 

disposal preparation and storage before 

disposal at WIPP.) DOE also noted that 

‘‘in the future, the Department may 

decide to ship transuranic wastes from 

sites where it may be impractical to 

prepare them for disposal to sites where 

DOE has or will have the necessary 

capability,’’ stating that 

‘‘[t]ransportation of TRU waste would 

occur only in situations where the sites 

at which the waste is located lack the 

capability to prepare it for disposal.’’

The WM PEIS ROD also stated that the 

sites that could receive TRU waste 

shipments from other sites were the 

Idaho National Laboratory (formerly 

known as the Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory), Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, the SRS, and the Hanford 

Site, and that such decisions would be 

subject to appropriate review under 

NEPA. 

In the WIPP SEIS–II, DOE analyzed 

the potential environmental impacts 

associated with disposing of TRU waste 

at WIPP. DOE’s Proposed Action was to 

open WIPP and dispose of 175,600 

cubic meters of defense TRU waste; this 

waste volume included 580 cubic 

meters of Battelle West Jefferson RH–

TRU waste. In addition, DOE analyzed 

several action alternatives that would 

consolidate waste from some smallerquantity DOE sites at Oak Ridge 

National Laboratory, SRS, and Hanford. 

In the Savannah River Site Waste 

Management Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (SRS WM EIS) (DOE 

1995) DOE examined the environmental 

impacts of alternative strategies for 

managing various waste types 

(including TRU wastes) at SRS. In its 

initial ROD, DOE selected an alternative 

that included storage of TRU waste at 

SRS. In a subsequent ROD, DOE decided 

to construct and operate a TRU waste 

characterization/certification facility to 

characterize, repackage, and certify CH–

TRU waste for disposal at WIPP. 

The Battelle West Jefferson facility is 

privately owned; however, as part of the 

closeout of its nuclear materials 

research contract, DOE is assisting in 

the remediation of the site. Contract 

terms specify that all radioactive waste 

generated during the facility cleanup is 

‘‘DOE-owned’’ for the purposes of 

disposal. The TRU waste must be 

shipped off-site by December 2005, to 

comply with Battelle’s NRC license, 

which will expire at the end of 2005. 

Removal of the TRU waste from the 

Battelle West Jefferson site is required to 

allow site closure in fiscal year 2006. 

The Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste 

is not eligible for direct shipment to 

WIPP for disposal because the Battelle 

West Jefferson facility does not have the 

capability to certify the CH–TRU waste 

for disposal and WIPP is not yet 

authorized by the State of New Mexico 

to accept RH–TRU waste for disposal. 

Because the Battelle West Jefferson site 

is closing, developing the capability at 

that site to certify TRU waste for 

disposal is not cost-effective. 

In an amended ROD pursuant to the 

WM PEIS (69 Fed. Reg. 39446, June 30, 

2004), DOE decided to send the Battelle 

West Jefferson TRU waste to the 

Hanford site for storage and eventual 

shipment to WIPP. For the reasons 

described in DOE’s Supplement 

Analysis (described in IV below) and in 

DOE’s Notice of Availability of the 

Supplement Analysis (70 Fed. Reg. 

53353, September 8, 2005), DOE has 

now decided to ship the waste to SRS 

or WCS for storage or characterization 

until the waste can be disposed of at 

WIPP. 

II. Decision 

DOE has decided to transfer 

approximately 37 cubic meters of CH 

and RH–TRU waste and up to 14 

concrete shielding units (in 39 truck 

shipments) from the Battelle West 

Jefferson site to SRS and/or WCS. At 

SRS or WCS, the RH–TRU waste would 

be stored for a period not to exceed five 

years. At WCS, the CH–TRU waste 

would also be stored for up to five years. 

At SRS, the CH–TRU waste would be 

characterized under the existing SRS 

CH–TRU program and shipped to WIPP 

for disposal. DOE will ship a total of 

approximately 12 cubic meters of CH–

TRU waste in TRUPACT–II shipping 

casks (up to two truck shipments) and 

approximately 25 cubic meters of RH–

TRU waste in 10–160B and RH–TRU 

72–B shipping casks (up to 14 truck 

shipments). Onsite activities will 

involve preparing the waste for 

shipment (loading the waste into the 

shipping casks and loading the trucks 

for transport). 

If DOE’s request for modification of 

the WIPP hazardous waste facility 

permit currently pending before the 

New Mexico Environment Department 

is granted without substantial change, 

DOE may be able to ship the Battelle 

60510 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 

West Jefferson TRU waste from SRS or 

WCS to WIPP near Carlsbad, NM for 

disposal, without additional 

characterization. If additional 

characterization is necessary prior to 

disposal at WIPP, the Battelle West 

Jefferson TRU waste may be shipped 

from SRS or WCS to another DOE site 

for characterization. DOE has identified 

the Hanford Site, the Idaho National 

Laboratory, SRS (for waste stored at 

WCS) and the Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory as possible characterization 

sites for this waste. The decision 

regarding whether to ship the waste 

directly to WIPP or to another site for 

characterization will depend on the 

characterization requirements that are 

established as a result of DOE’s pending 

Hazardous Waste Facility Permit 

modification request and the 

characterization capabilities that are 

available or planned at the individual 

sites at the time of any decision. Such 

a decision would be the subject to 

appropriate additional National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

review if required. 

III. Basis for the Decision 

DOE needs to ship its TRU waste from 

the Battelle West Jefferson site for offsite 

storage prior to characterization for 

disposal at WIPP. However, this waste 

is not eligible for disposal at WIPP at 

this time, which results in the need to 

ship the waste to safe, secure storage 

until it can be shipped to WIPP. The 

Battelle West Jefferson site is a 

privately-owned site subject to 

regulation by the NRC. The NRC license 

expires in December 2005, and DOE has 

committed to close the site in Fiscal 

Year 2006. Continued storage would 

violate the current license issued by the 

NRC. 

IV. Supplement Analysis 

To determine whether the proposed 

action would warrant a supplement to 

the WM PEIS DOE prepared the 

Supplement Analysis for 

Transportation, Storage, 

Characterization, and Disposal of 

Transuranic Waste Currently Stored at 

the Battelle West Jefferson Site near 

Columbus, Ohio (DOE/EIS–0200–SA–

02) (SA). DOE considered both the SRS 

and WCS as possible storage sites for the 

Battelle West Jefferson TRU waste. Each 

site has advantages. For example, the 

shorter transportation route between 

Battelle and SRS would mean waste 

removal from Battelle could be 

accomplished more quickly. Also, the 

CH–TRU waste could be characterized 

at SRS and sent to WIPP for disposal, 

thus minimizing the amount of waste 

that would have to be stored. WCS, on 

the other hand, is close to WIPP, and 

subsequent transportation to WIPP for 

disposal could have less impact if, 

under the permit modification to be 

issued by the State of New Mexico, the 

waste can eventually be shipped to 

WIPP without further characterization. 

Preparation for Shipment. As 

discussed in the SA, it is expected that 

seven or eight workers would be 

involved in preparing the waste for 

shipment. Based on past experience 

with TRU waste handling at the Battelle 

West Jefferson site, DOE estimates that 

worker exposure would be less than 0.5 

person-rem, a level that is equivalent to 

a risk of a latent cancer fatality of 2.5 × 

10¥4. During this period, access to the 

Battelle West Jefferson site would be 

controlled, so there would be no 

exposure of the public to radiation. 

If a TRU waste drop accident were to 

occur, DOE’s analysis concluded that all 

radiation doses would be below 100 

mrem per accident and external 

exposures from groundshine would be 

less than 1 mrem per hour. Total dose 

to the maximally exposed member of 

the public would be 4.2 × 10¥2 rem, 

resulting in a risk of a latent cancer 

fatality of 2.5 × 10¥5. The accident with 

the highest dose, a drop accident 

involving a drum of RH–TRU waste, had 

an estimated radiation dose of 8.5 × 

10¥2 rem. This is equivalent to a risk of 

a latent cancer fatality of 5.1 × 10¥5 to 

the maximally exposed individual. 

Transportation and Unloading. The 

total calculated fatalities from all 

shipments to either SRS or WCS are 

much less than one (3.5 × 10¥3 for 

shipments to SRS and 5.0 × 10¥3 for 

shipments to WCS). The transportation 

impacts would include those from the 

shipment of the Battelle West Jefferson 

TRU waste (up to 16 shipments), 

shipments of characterized CH–TRU 

waste from SRS to WIPP (up to 2 

shipments) and the shipment of 

concrete shielding units in which the 

waste could be stored (up to 39 

shipments). The radiation dose to 

workers as a result of unloading the 

waste at SRS or WCS would be less than 

0.5 person-rem. This is the equivalent to 

the risk of a latent cancer fatality of 2.5 

× 10¥4. 

Storage of TRU waste. Based on the 

one year of experience with monitoring 

and maintenance of the TRU waste 

storage pad at the Battelle West Jefferson 

site, DOE estimates that routine 

exposures from monitoring, inspection 

and maintenance activities for TRU 

waste (stored in 14 concrete storage 

units, two RH–TRU 72–B casks, and in 

one drum in a locked cargo container) 

results in a total exposure of no more 

than 8 × 10¥3 person-rem at the Battelle 

West Jefferson site annually. Assuming 

a 5-year storage period at SRS or WCS, 

the total worker exposure would be no 

more than 4 × 10¥2 person-rem (8 × 

10¥3 person-rem for 5 years). This is 

equivalent to the risk of a latent cancer 

fatality of 2.0 × 10¥5. Radiation surveys 

at the Battelle West Jefferson site have 

verified that radiation exposures beyond 

the storage area would be at background 

levels, so the exposure to noninvolved 

workers and the general public at SRS 

or WCS would be zero. 

The impacts to workers of a TRU 

waste accident during unloading or 

storage at SRS or WCS would be similar 

to the accident impacts for a waste 

container drop during loading at the 

Battelle West Jefferson site. The impacts 

to the MEI would be expected to be less 

than at the Battelle West Jefferson site 

because the MEI would be farther away 

from the accident at SRS or WCS. 

Characterization of CH–TRU waste—

DOE estimates that worker exposure 

from characterizing the CH–TRU waste 

at SRS would be about 0.005 personrem, which is the equivalent of a latent 

cancer risk of 2.5 × 10¥6 for the 

involved workers. The impacts from 

characterizing RH–TRU waste at SRS 

would be about 0.03 person-rem which 

is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk 

of 1.5 × 10¥5 for the involved workers. 

A characterization accident would be 

expected to result in an exposure of 

about 9.0 × 10¥6 rem for the MEI, which 

is the equivalent of a latent cancer risk 

of 5.4 × 10¥9. 

In the SA, DOE analyzed the health, 

environmental and transportation 

impacts of shipping the Battelle West 

Jefferson TRU waste to SRS or WCS. 

DOE concluded that the potential 

impacts identified would not exceed 

impacts reported in the WM PEIS or the 

WIPP SEIS–II. DOE published a Notice 

of Availability of the SA in the Federal 

Register on September 8, 2005 (70 Fed. 

Reg. 53353). DOE stated that it would 

issue an amended ROD no sooner than 

30 days after publication of the Notice, 

and that it would consider public 

comments received during this period. 

V. Response to Public Comments on the 

Supplement Analysis 

DOE received two comments during 

the 30-day public notification of the 

availability of the SA, which 

commenced on September 8, 2005. One 

commenter objected to shipping the 

Battelle waste and storing it until it can 

‘‘theoretically’’ be disposed of at a 

‘‘potential future’’ WIPP site, citing 

concerns about ‘‘leaking valves’’ on 

casks used for transportation of wastes. 

The commenter stated that the safest 

way to treat radioactive waste is to leave 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 18, 2005 / Notices 60511 

the waste ‘‘in the ground where it is’’

rather than expose the public to risk by 

transporting the waste to another site. 

DOE cannot leave the waste at Battelle 

since to do so would violate the NRC 

requirements for continued storage of 

this waste. The waste is currently in 

aboveground storage, rather than ‘‘in the 

ground’’ and poses some continuing risk 

to the surrounding population. The 

waste will be transported to another site 

in NRC approved TRU waste casks that 

are sealed to prevent leakage. The WIPP 

site is an existing deep underground 

disposal site that is designed to isolate 

the waste from humans and the 

environment. 

One commenter stated that DOE 

cannot choose WCS as a storage site for 

the Battelle West Jefferson waste. The 

commenter asserted that, because WCS 

was not included as an alternative in the 

WM PEIS and because DOE has not 

conducted an analysis of the 

environmental impacts of storage at the 

WCS site, DOE cannot choose WCS as 

a storage site without completing a 

supplemental WM PEIS that includes 

WCS as an alternative. The commenter 

also asserted that storage at WCS is 

inappropriate because WCS, as a nonDOE site, is unable to prepare the waste 

for shipment to WIPP, while SRS (and 

other DOE sites considered in the WM 

PEIS) could. The commenter further 

asserted that the definition of interim 

storage contained in the WCS license 

would prevent storage of the Battelle 

West Jefferson Waste because the waste 

does not meet WIPP waste acceptance 

criteria. In addition, the commenter 

states that DOE should have considered 

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

and Idaho National Laboratory (INL) as 

possible alternative storage sites for this 

waste and it should have provided a 

more extensive discussion of the 

alternative of continued onsite storage at 

the Battelle West Jefferson site. 

Although the WM PEIS did not 

analyze waste management actions at 

commercial sites, DOE is not precluded 

from using such sites. Further, based on 

the conclusions in the SA, DOE does not 

believe that a supplemental EIS is 

needed. 

There is no requirement that a site be 

a DOE site before a waste 

characterization program can be 

established at that site. The definition of 

interim storage does not prevent WCS 

from storing the Battelle West Jefferson 

waste. Under the definition cited by the 

commenter, the waste would have to be 

properly packaged and meet the waste 

acceptance criteria for ‘‘an authorized 

disposal facility, or an authorized 

federal agency.’’ However, even if the 

waste does not meet the waste 

acceptance criteria for WIPP (the 

authorized disposal facility), the waste 

will meet the waste acceptance criteria 

for a DOE site (e.g. SRS) before it would 

be sent to WCS for storage. This would 

be sufficient to meet the definition of 

the WCS license. 

The alternatives of sending the waste 

to ORNL or INL were considered in the 

WM PEIS and not chosen in the original 

Record of Decision. DOE is not 

reconsidering that decision at this time. 

The alternative of continued storage at 

Battelle is unacceptable because NRC 

has indicated it will not renew the 

Battelle license for this waste. 

The SA reviewed the potential health 

and environmental impacts of the new 

proposed action as compared to those 

identified in the WM PEIS, the WIPP 

SEIS–II, and the SRS Waste 

Management EIS. The potential impacts 

of the proposed action are very small 

and would not add significantly to those 

previously reported. 

DOE has determined, therefore, that 

the proposed actions would not, either 

under incident-free or accident 

conditions, present a substantial change 

relevant to environmental concerns or 

significant new circumstances or 

information relevant to environmental 

concerns and bearing on the proposed 

action or its impacts. Therefore, DOE 

determined that a supplemental EIS or 

a new EIS is not required under 40 CFR 

1502.9(c) or 10 CFR 1021.314(c) to 

implement this proposal. 

Issued in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

October 2005. 

Dr. Ine ́s R. Triay, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 05–20804 Filed 10–17–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[FRL–7984–9] 

Proposed Settlement Agreement, 

Clean Air Act Citizen Suit 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Settlement 

Agreement; request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 

113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended 

(‘‘Act’’), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is 

hereby given of a proposed settlement 

agreement, to address petitions for 

review filed by the American Chemistry 

Council, the General Electric Company 

and the Coke Oven Environmental Task 

Force (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’). Stan 

Stephens, et al. v. EPA, Nos. 04–1112, 

04–1117, 04–1118, and 04–1119 (D.C. 

Cir.). In April 2004, petitioners filed 

petitions for review challenging the 

final EPA rule entitled ‘‘National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants: Organic Liquids Distribution 

(Non-Gasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69 

FR 5038 (February 3, 2004). Under the 

terms of the proposed settlement 

agreement, EPA has agreed that: On or 

before October 31, 2005, the EPA 

Administrator will sign a notice of 

proposed rulemaking to amend the OLD 

as provided in Attachment A to the 

Settlement Agreement; As part of the 

proposed amendments to the OLD, EPA 

will include language in the preamble as 

provided in Attachment B to the 

Settlement Agreement; and within 180 

days of the date the comment period on 

the proposed amendments closes, EPA 

will sign a notice of final rulemaking. 

DATES: Written comments on the 

proposed settlement agreement must be 

received by November 17, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket ID number OGC–

2005–0014, online at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket (EPA’s preferred 

method); by e-mail to 

oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA 

Docket Center, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; or by 

hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket 

Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. Comments on a disk or CD–

ROM should be formatted in 

Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption, and may be mailed to the 

mailing address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mike Thrift, Air and Radiation Law 

Office (2344A), Office of General 

Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone: (202) 

564–5596. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Additional Information About the 

Proposed Settlement 

This case concerns challenges to the 

rule entitled ‘‘National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 

Organic Liquids Distribution (NonGasoline); Final Rule’’ (‘‘OLD’’). 69 FR 

5038 (February 3, 2004). These 

standards are based on the performance 

of Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT), and implement 

section 112 (d) of the Clean Air Act.