Notices. Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment

10,492 words·~48 min read·/register/2005/07/11/05-13561·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)Review; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a current valid OMB control number. 1. *Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:* Extension. 2. *The title of the information collection:* NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters.” 3. *The form number if applicable:* NRC Form 241. 4. *How often the collection is required:* NRC Form 241 must be submitted each time an Agreement State licensee wants to engage in or revise its activities involving the use of radioactive byproduct material in a non-Agreement State, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters. The NRC may waive the requirements for filing additional copies of NRC Form 241 during the remainder of the calendar year following receipt of the initial form from a licensee engaging in activities under the general license. 5. *Who will be required or asked to report:* Any licensees who holds a specific license from an Agreement State and wants to conduct the same activity in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters under the general license in 10 CFR 150.20. 6. *An estimate of the number of responses:* 3,963 responses. 7. *The estimated number of annual respondents:* 167 respondents. 8. *An estimate of the number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* 1,033 hours (15 minutes per response). 9. *An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Public Law 104-13 applies:* Not applicable. 10. *Abstract:* Under the reciprocity provisions of 10 CFR Part 150, any Agreement State licensee who engages in activities (use of radioactive material) in non-Agreement States, areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction, or offshore waters, under the general license in Section 150.20, is required to file four copies of NRC Form 241, “Report of Proposed Activities in Non-Agreement States, Areas of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction, or Offshore Waters,” and four copies of its Agreement State license at least 3 days before engaging in such activity. This mandatory notification permits NRC to schedule inspections of the activities to determine whether the activities are being conducted in accordance with requirements for protection of the public health and safety. A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: *http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html* . The document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer listed below by August 10, 2005. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received after this date. John Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0158), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be e-mailed to *John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov* or submitted by telephone at

(202)395-4650. The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Beth C. St. May, Acting NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-3637 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 72-20] Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Materials License No. SNM-2508; Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: License amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone:

(301)415-1132; fax number:

(301)425-8555; e-mail: *jms3@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has issued Amendment 4 to Materials License SNM-2508 held by the Department of Energy

(DOE)for the receipt, possession, transfer, and storage of spent fuel of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) core debris in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), located in Butte County, Idaho. The amendment is effective as of the date of issuance. By application dated January 31, 2005, as supplemented, DOE submitted a request to the NRC, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 72.56, “Application for amendment of license,” to amend the license for the TMI-2 ISFSI to revise the technical specification corrective actions if the 5 year leak test on the dry shielded canisters

(DSC)fails. This amendment complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment. In accordance with 10 CFR 72.46(b)(2), a determination has been made that the amendment does not present a genuine issue as to whether public health and safety will be significantly affected. Therefore, the publication of a notice of proposed action and an opportunity for hearing or a notice of hearing is not warranted. Notice is hereby given of the right of interested persons to request a hearing on whether the action should be rescinded or modified. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. For this action, an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact was prepared and published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 37124, June 28, 2005). The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72, Docket 72-20. For further details with respect to this action, see the amendment request dated January 31, 2005, and June 9, 2005, supplement. The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at: *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Copies of the referenced documents will also be available for review at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. PDR reference staff can be contacted at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by E-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-3631 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-244] R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant; Notice of Receipt and Availability for Comment of Request Regarding Release of Part of Site for Unrestricted Use AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of receipt and availability for comment. DATES: Comments must be provided in writing by August 10, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-1457; fax no.: 301-415-2102; e-mail: *pdm@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)has received, by letter dated May 20, 2005, an application filed by R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (Ginna LLC) requesting the release of a part of the site for unrestricted use at its R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna Plant), located in Wayne County, New York. An NRC administrative review, documented in a letter to Ginna LLC dated June 29, 2005, found the request acceptable to begin a technical review. Before approving the proposed partial site release, the NRC will need to determine that the licensee has met the criteria set forth in Section 50.83, “Release of part of a power reactor facility or site for unrestricted use,” of Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 50.83). The tract of land proposed for release consists of two adjacent parcels, comprising a total of approximately 15 acres located along the western edge of the Ginna Plant site boundary, and is entirely outside of the Exclusion Area. The release of the part of the site would allow Ginna LLC to convey the tract of land under a Purchase and Sale Contract dated September 10, 2002, that was assumed from the former licensee of the Ginna Plant. Pursuant to this contract agreement, the land would be sold to a real estate developer for the purpose of developing the land for residential use. No physical changes to the Ginna Plant facility or operational changes are being proposed in the application. The NRC will approve an application for partial release of a non-impacted area, if it determines that the licensee has adequately evaluated the effect of releasing the property and has adequately justified the classification of any release areas as non-impacted. II. Opportunity To Provide Comments The NRC is providing notice to individuals in the vicinity of the facility that the NRC is in receipt of this request, and will accept written comments concerning this proposal by August 10, 2005. The comments must be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, and should cite the publication date and page number of this **Federal Register** notice. Furthermore, before acting upon this request for approval submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.83, the NRC will schedule and conduct in the near future a public meeting in the vicinity of the Ginna Plant for the purpose of obtaining public comments on the proposed release of the part of the site. The NRC will consider and, if appropriate, respond to these written and verbal comments, but such comments will not otherwise constitute part of the decisional record. Comments received after public meeting will be considered if practicable to do so, but only those comments received on or before the public meeting can be assured consideration. III. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for approval and supporting documentation, are available for public inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will also be accessible electronically as text and image files from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are: Title ADAMS accession No. Application, “Partial Site Release” ML051530448 Drawing 1 of 4, “Ginna Site Boundary Survey” ML051530451 Drawing 2 of 4, “Building Details” ML051530453 Drawing 3 of 4, “Site Detail” ML051530454 Drawing 4 of 4, “Station 13A Site Survey Map” ML051530457 Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of July 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-3634 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50-321 and 50-366] Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC); Notice of Withdrawal of Application for Amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of SNC (the licensee) to withdraw its application dated July 20, 2004, for a proposed amendment to Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 for the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively, located in Appling County, Georgia. The proposed amendment would have revised the Administrative Controls Section 5.3.1 of the technical specifications and replaced the specific designation for the Health Physics Superintendent with a reference to the senior individual in charge of Health Physics, and to add flexibility to the qualification requirements for the unit staff positions. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the **Federal Register** on September 28, 2004 (69 FR 57993). However, by letter dated June 27, 2005, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated July 20, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated June 27, 2005, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.* Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Christopher Gratton, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-3632 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-259] Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-33, issued to Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee), for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1, located in Limestone County, Alabama. The proposed amendment would change the BFN, Unit 1, operating license to increase the maximum authorized power level from 3293 megawatts thermal

(MWt)to 3952 MWt. This change represents an increase of approximately 20 percent above the current maximum authorized power level. The proposed amendment would also change the BFN, Unit 1, licensing bases and any associated Technical Specifications for containment overpressure, the maximum ultimate heat sink temperature, and the upper bound peak cladding temperature. Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's regulations. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings” in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult current copies of 10 CFR 2.309, 2.304, and 2.305, which are available at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.* If a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel will rule on the request and petition; and the Secretary or the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order. As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner/requestor in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following general requirements:

(1)The name, address and telephone number of the requestor or petitioner;

(2)the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding;

(3)the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and

(4)the possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must also identify the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated in the proceeding. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party. Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing. Nontimely requests and petitions and contentions will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(I)-(viii). A request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene must be filed by:

(1)First class mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(2)courier, express mail, or expedited delivery services: Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff;

(3)e-mail addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV;* or

(4)facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at

(301)415-1101, verification number is

(301)415-1966. A request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene need not comply with 10 CFR 2.304(b)(c) and

(d)if an original and two copies otherwise complying with the requirements of that section are mailed within two

(2)days after filing by e-mail or facsimile transmission to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of facsimile transmission to

(301)415-3725 or by e-mail to *OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov* . A copy of the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, ET 11A, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee, 37902, attorney for the licensee. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated June 28, 2004, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209,

(301)415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Margaret H. Chernoff, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-3633 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-28641] Notice of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Approval of Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L at Eglin Air Force Base, FL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. Blair Spitzberg, Ph.D., Chief, Fuel Cycle and Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone:

(817)860-8100; e-mail: *dbs@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Department of the Air Force (the licensee) submitted a decommissioning plan

(DP)to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)by Memorandum dated May 24, 2002. Supplemental information was provided by Memoranda dated November 1, 2002, August 21, 2003, October 27, 2004, and January 13, 2005. The licensee requested that the DP for Test Area C-74L at Eglin Air Force Base

(AFB)be approved. The NRC is considering the issuance of an amendment to Master Materials License 42-23539-01AF which will approve the DP. If approved by the NRC, the licensee will be authorized to conduct decommissioning activities in accordance with the DP. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this licensing action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. The EA was developed to provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Based on the results of the EA, the NRC has determined that a FONSI is appropriate. II. Environmental Assessment Proposed Action The proposed action is to approve the DP which will allow the licensee to conduct decommissioning in accordance with the procedures and processes provided in the DP. The approval of the DP would be accomplished by license amendment to NRC Materials License 42-23539-01AF following the NRC decision that the DP meets the standards specified in 10 CFR Part 20 and related NRC guidance documents. The Need for the Proposed Action The licensee intends to remediate Test Area C-74L and ultimately remove the site from its license (and the associated AFB radioactive material permit) because it no longer conducts NRC-licensed activities at this location. If the site is properly decommissioned, the licensee would then be in compliance with the Timeliness Rule requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, “Expiration and Termination of Licenses and Decommissioning of Sites and Separate Buildings or Outdoor Areas.” Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Test Area C-74L is located in Walton County, Florida, within the north-central portion of Eglin AFB. The site is located approximately 14 miles northwest of the city of Niceville, Florida. The test area lies within Section 11 of Range 21 West, Township 2 North. The test area currently consists of a 4-acre radiologically controlled area, fire control/ballistics building, gun corridor, target area, well house building, drum storage area, and surrounding land. From late-1974 to 1978, the area was used for pre-production testing of a gun system which used depleted uranium

(DU)ammunition. The licensee elected to discontinue DU munitions testing at this location. An estimated 16,315 pounds of DU was expended at the site. Approximately 9,257 pounds of DU were collected and disposed of during remediation activities conducted between March 1978 and June 1987. The remainder of the material has since been remediated, was dispersed or vaporized as part of DU ordinance testing, or remains onsite and requires remediation. The portions of the site that may have been contaminated with DU fragments include the ballistic building interior, ballistic and well house building exteriors, target area, 4-acre radiologically restricted grounds, and two drainage ditches. Previous radiological investigations included at least six soil sampling events that occurred between 1976-1999. Limited reclamation activities have been conducted several times since 1980. A detailed site characterization study was conducted during 1999 followed by additional limited characterization studies during 2000-2001. At that time, the only area remaining to be remediated was the 4-acre radiologically controlled area. The ballistic building interior was not expected to contain radioactive material in measurable quantities, in part, because the building was not used to store DU munitions. The well house building was constructed after completion of DU testing although the land beneath the building was not radiologically surveyed prior to construction. The exteriors of these two buildings may contain small amounts of contamination as a result of possible wind dispersion of DU fragments. Two drainage ditches are located on site property. Sample results indicated measurable quantities of radionuclides above background values. The licensee does not expect to conduct remediation activities in these ditches because the residual radioactivity is expected to be at levels below the NRC-approved release criteria. The radiological criteria for unrestricted use is provided in 10 CFR 20.1402. This regulation states that a site will be considered acceptable for unrestricted use if the residual radioactivity that is distinguishable from background radiation results in a total effective dose equivalent to an average member of the public that does not exceed 25 millirems (0.25 mSv) per year, including that from groundwater sources of drinking water, and that the residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Current NRC guidance (Section 2.5 of NUREG-1757, Volume 2, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance”) recommends that licensees demonstrate compliance with the dose criteria by using dose modeling or derived concentration guideline levels (DCGLs) and final status survey results. The licensee's request to release the site for unrestricted use will be based on use of DCGLs and final status survey results. In the DP, the licensee proposes DCGLs for building interiors, building exteriors, equipment, and site soils. Through an internal review process, the NRC accepted the licensee's proposed building and equipment DCGLs, but rejected the licensee's proposed soil DCGL. By Memorandum dated August 21, 2003, the licensee accepted the NRC's alternate proposal for soil DCGL. Upon completion of the decommissioning project, the licensee is expected to submit the final status survey results to the NRC for review and approval. In addition, the NRC will conduct confirmatory sampling. If the results of the final status survey and any confirmatory surveys performed are below the NRC-approved DCGLs, the site will be found to be in compliance with the annual dose limit provided in 10 CFR 20.1402. If the surveys indicate that the results are above the DCGLs, then additional remediation may be necessary. Alternatively, the licensee will have to conduct an analysis to demonstrate that the survey results demonstrate compliance with the dose criteria. The remediation activities will result in potential exposure of workers to radioactive material. The primary radionuclide of concern is uranium-238. The DU is expected to be in the form of solid uranium oxide or uranium metal fragments. The primary health hazard is inhalation of DU. The health effects from DU include both chemical and radiological toxicity with the two important target organs being the kidneys and the lungs. In general, the health consequences are determined by the physical and chemical form of the DU as well as the level and duration of exposure. To prevent potential health consequences from exposure to DU, the licensee has initiated a radiological safety program. External occupational exposure rates to DU is expected to be minimal based on previous exposure data. The internal exposure pathways will be controlled and monitored as necessary by the use of personnel protective equipment, strict hygiene practices, and air particulate and bioassay sampling. The licensee's proposed program for control of exposure to radioactive materials is typical for the type of work being conducted and is considered acceptable to the NRC to maintain occupational exposures within NRC limits. The Air Force, or a contractor for the Air Force, will be responsible for packaging and transporting the low-level radioactive wastes. Remediation of the site may have short-term non-radiological health and safety risks caused by the excavation, packaging, and shipping of the residual radioactive material. These non-radiological impacts include the normal risks of exhuming the wastes with earth-moving equipment and transportation of the material to an out-of-state disposal facility. The risks include injury or death from a construction or transportation accident. There should be minimal risk to members of the public from exposure to radioactive wastes during transport because the radionuclides of concern will be dispersed within the soil, contained in authorized shipping containers, and shipped in accordance with U.S. Department of Transportation requirements. The reclaimed material will be transported to an out-of-state low level radioactive waste disposal facility licensed to accept and dispose of the wastes. The radiological health risks would be minimal to the workers of the disposal facility, in part, because the facility would have a radiation protection program in place to protect its workers. However, there is still a small risk of an occupational accident occurring while handling the waste material. In summary, the combination of the NRC-approved DCGLs, the licensee's proposed final status survey results, and the NRC's confirmatory survey results should demonstrate that annual doses to future occupants of the site will be less than the NRC's radiological criteria for unrestricted use of the facility. Additional details of the licensee's radiation safety program and NRC-approved DCGLs will be provided in the NRC's Safety Analysis Report that will be used to support the licensing decision. Furthermore, the radiological impacts of releasing the site for unrestricted use are bounded by the impacts evaluated in NUREG-1496, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities.” The proposed action will have a short-term detrimental effect on the impacted area. The licensee plans to scrap portions of the ground surface to remove any residual radioactive material. This action will result in destruction of the cover vegetation and top soil, and may create airborne dust. In response, the licensee plans to implement a program that will minimize any long term damage. Dust suppression methods will be utilized as necessary. The area will be backfilled and revegetated if scraped. The site includes two drainage ditches. One ditch is located on the south side of the property and drains to the south-south east. The second ditch is located in the northeastern portion of the property and drains towards the northeast. There are two streams in the vicinity of Test Area C-74L. Rocky Creek is located about 700 feet (213 meters) south of the controlled area. A tributary to Rocky Creek is located about 1800 feet (549 meters) to the west of the site. A small dammed pond is located within the western tributary. The groundwater flow is anticipated to have a southward component towards Rocky Creek. Therefore, the remediation of the site has the potential for impacting the wildlife habitat in and around Rocky Creek. The NRC consulted with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service because the reclamation of the site could have an impact on the habitat of a endangered species, the Okaloosa darter. Okaloosa darters are found only in the Choctawhatchee Bay drainage in Florida, where they inhabit vegetated sand runs of clear creeks. According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, approximately 90 percent of the watershed drainage area in which the Okaloosa darter occurs is under the management of Eglin AFB. To protect the darter's habitat, the licensee has taken or plans to take several actions. First, an earthen berm currently exists on the southern portion of the radiologically restricted area. This berm is expected to help prevent contaminated soil from leaving the controlled area. Silt fencing will be used as necessary to supplement the berm. Manual remediation of areas of elevated activities in lieu of heavy equipment will help reduce the need for mechanical removal of the top six inches of soil in some areas. Dust suppression methods, including water trucks, will be utilized as necessary to prevent the spread of windblown contamination during reclamation. A decontamination pad will be used as necessary to decontaminate equipment. The licensee believes that light rain will percolate into the ground, although heavy rains may transport some soil material into the two drainage ditches. Scraped surface areas will be covered with plastic sheeting as necessary until backfilled. With respect to other potentially endangered or threatened species, the licensee claims that the indigo snake has been seen in the vicinity of Test Area C-74L but does not live within the radiologically controlled area. Reclamation activities are not expected to adversely impact the habitat of the indigo snake on Eglin AFB ranges. Further, the licensee claims that there are no red cockaded woodpecker colonies within Test Area C-74L. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ultimately decided that the proposed action (reclamation of the site) was not likely to adversely affect resources protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. This conclusion was reported to the NRC by letter dated February 25, 2004. The surficial groundwater is about 50-60 feet (15-18 meters) below land surface. Geologic literature indicates that the surficial aquifer beneath the site extends to approximately 125 feet (38 meters) below land surface. The Pensacola Clay separates the surficial aquifer from the underlying Floridian aquifer system. The Pensacola Clay layer is about 160 feet (49 meters) thick, meaning that the drinking water aquifer is no less than 285 feet (87 meters) below the land surface. The hydraulically impenetrable Pensacola Clay layer would be expected to prevent any contamination that might be present in the surficial groundwater from reaching the Floridian aquifer system even if the surficial groundwater was contaminated with DU. The licensee has conducted site characterization studies and concluded that the land surface contamination of DU has not impacted the groundwater. Most contamination is found within the first 6 inches (15 centimeters) of soil except in selected locations. In these discrete locations, contamination is no more than 4 feet (1.2 meters) below the land surface. There are two drinking water wells in the vicinity of the site. One is located onsite and is 644 feet (196 meters) deep. The second is located a half-mile (0.8 kilometers) away and has been permanently abandoned. The onsite drinking water well was sampled during 1983, and the sample result indicated no measurable quantities of radioactive materials above background values. Because the surficial groundwater is located 50-60 feet (15-18 meters) below surface, and the drinking water aquifer is located at least 285 feet (87 meters) below surface, the NRC concluded that the probability that DU contamination has impacted either the surficial or drinking water aquifer is highly unlikely. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action The licensee seeks NRC approval of the DP. The alternatives to the proposed action are:

(1)The no-action alternative, or

(2)to deny the amendment request and require the licensee to take some alternate action. 1. No-Action Alternative One alternative available to the NRC is to take no action by denying the amendment request. Denial of the DP submittal would result in no change in current environmental conditions. The no-action alternative is not a feasible alternative because it will result in violation of the NRC's Timeliness Rule (10 CFR 30.36), which requires licensees to decommission their facilities when licensed activities cease. 2. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 A second alternative is to deny the licensee's request in favor of alternate release criteria as allowed by § 20.1403 (criteria for restricted conditions) or § 20.1404 (alternate criteria). However, the NRC's analysis confirmed that the proposed action (approval of the DP as submitted) meets the license termination requirements of § 20.1402. Accordingly, the NRC has determined that the second alternative is not reasonable. Therefore, this alternative action is eliminated from further consideration in this EA. Conclusion Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action do not warrant denial of the license amendment request. The NRC staff believes that the proposed action will result in minimal environmental impacts, including those to endangered species and critical habitats. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval of the DP, is the appropriate alternative for selection. Agencies and Persons Contacted The NRC staff consulted with both the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer and the local U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service office. The Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources stated that no historic properties were known to exist in the area; therefore, the proposed decommissioning will have no effect on historic properties. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service has informed the NRC that the proposed action (site reclamation) is not likely to adversely affect protected resources including endangered species and critical habitats. The NRC staff also consulted with the Florida Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control. By letter dated May 19, 2005, the State responded that it had no objections to the proposed EA and FONSI. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action (amend the Air Force's license to approve the DP) complies with both the Timeliness Rule requirements of 10 CFR 30.36 and License Termination Rule requirements of 10 CFR 20.1402. On the basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, it has been determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. IV. Further Information A copy of this document will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records

(PARS)component of the NRC's document system. From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The following references are available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html* (the Public Electronic Reading Room). ADAMS accession numbers are located in parentheses following the reference. 1. NRC, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear Facilities,” NUREG-1496, July 1997 (ML042310492). 2. Pugh, Capt. David L., Department of the Air Force Memorandum, “Review of Decommissioning Plan for Eglin AFB, Florida,” May 24, 2002 (ML021970666, ML021970669, ML021980188, ML021980239, ML021990724, ML021990330, ML021990377, ML021990737, ML021990743). 3. Pugh, Capt. David L., Department of the Air Force Memorandum, “Clarification Request For C-74L Decommissioning Plan,” November 1, 2002 (ML023370482, ML023370535, ML023370648, ML023370660, ML023370675, ML023380282, ML023380332). 4. Brockman, Ken E., NRC Letter to Air Force, “Acknowledgment of Receipt of Decommissioning Plan,” November 25, 2002 (ML023290265). 5. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Memorandum, “Notice of Consideration of Amendment Request for Department of the Air Force, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and Opportunity for Providing Comments and Requesting a Hearing,” January 27, 2003 (ML030270180). 6. Brockman, Ken E., NRC Memorandum, “Regional Technical Assistance Request Form,” January 29, 2003 (ML030300253). 7. Cain, Charles L., “NRC Inspection Report 030-28641/2003-01,” February 11, 2003 (ML030420534). 8. Kokajko, Lawrence E., NRC Memorandum, “Review of Derived Concentration Guideline Levels (DCGLs) for Eglin Air Force Base,” April 10, 2003 (ML031000111). 9. Cain, Charles L., NRC Letter to Air Force, “Request for Additional Information Regarding Eglin Air Force Base Decommissioning Plan,” April 24, 2003 (ML031140240). 10. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Letter to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, “Request for Comments Regarding Endangered/Threatened Species and Critical Habitats,” June 9, 2003 (ML031600579). 11. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC Letter to Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, “Request for Comments Regarding Cultural and Historical Resources at Eglin Air Force Base,” June 9, 2003 (ML031600613). 12. Carmody, Gail A., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Letter to NRC, “Reclamation and Decommissioning Uranium Munitions Site, Area C-74L,” July 7, 2003 (ML031920346). 13. Matthews, Janet Snyder, Florida Department of State Letter to NRC, “Reclamation Activities Within a Four-Acre Property at Test Area C-74L, Walton County,” July 8, 2003 (ML032050604). 14. NRC, NUREG-1748, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated With NMSS Programs,” July 2003 (ML032540811). 15. Mather, Lt. Col. Kali K., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, “Supplement to the Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L, Eglin AFB, FL,” August 21, 2003 (ML032450123). 16. NRC, NUREG-1757, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” Volumes 1-3, September 2003 (ML032530410, ML032530405, ML032471471). 17. Seiber, Stephen M., Air Force Letter to NRC, “No Effect Determination,” February 11, 2004 (ML040430157). 18. Spitzberg, D. Blair, NRC letter to U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, “Request for Comments Regarding Department of Air Force's Determination of No Effect,” February 18, 2004 (ML040690296). 19. Carmody, Gail A., U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's Response to NRC's Letter “Request for Comments Regarding Department of Air Force's Determination of No Effect,” February 25, 2004 (ML040690296). 20. Whitten, Jack E., NRC Letter to Air Force, “Request for Additional Information Regarding Eglin Air Force Base Decommissioning Plan,” February 19, 2004 (ML040500864). 21. Whitten, Jack E., “NRC Inspection Report 030-28641/04-001,” February 25, 2004 (ML040570122). 22. Abell, Capt. Clint E., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, “Decommissioning Plan for Test Area C-74L, Eglin AFB, Florida,” October 27, 2004 (ML043410237). 23. Abell, Capt. Clint E., Air Force Memorandum to NRC, “Response to NRC Query of Decommissioning of Test Area C-74L, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida,” January 13, 2005 (ML050320251). 24. Passetti, William A., Florida Department of Health Letter to NRC, “Environmental Assessment for Decommissioning of Test Area C-74L at Eglin Air Force Base,” May 19, 2005 (ML051640567). If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room

(PDR)reference staff at

(800)397-4209,

(301)415-4737 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov* . Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Dated at Arlington, Texas this 28th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. D. Blair Spitzberg, Chief, Fuel Cycle & Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E5-3629 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 030-30429] Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Core Laboratories, Houston, TX AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack E. Whitten, Branch Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region RIV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011. Telephone:

(817)860-8197; fax number

(817)860-8263; e-mail: *jew1@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is considering the issuance of a license amendment to Material License No. 42-26928-01 issued to Core Laboratories, Inc., (dba ProTechnics) to authorize the utilization of cesium-137 in quantities in excess of limits listed in 10 CFR 30.71 for well logging activities at temporary job sites where NRC maintains jurisdiction. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment

(EA)in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. Environmental Assessment Background Core Laboratories, Inc., (Core Laboratories) is a well logging licensee based in Houston, Texas, and conducts tracer operations using radioactive materials in oil and natural gas fields worldwide. Core Laboratories is licensed by both the NRC and Agreement States (Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas) to conduct well logging operations. By letter dated July 14, 1997, Core Laboratories requested that NRC grant an amendment to allow the use of radioactive collar markers containing activities of byproduct material exceeding the limits listed in 10 CFR 30.71. An EA was written and based on the EA, the NRC concluded that a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was appropriate. The EA and the FONSI were published in the 67 **Federal Register**

(FR)5320, February 5, 2002. On March 9, 2002, Core Laboratories was granted an amendment authorizing an exemption to 10 CFR 30.71. This amendment authorized Core Laboratories to use pipe collar markers containing iridium-192, scandium-46, antimony-124, cobalt-60, and cesium-137 with activities up to 50 micro curies (μCi). On February 23, 2004, Core Laboratories requested an amendment to increase the activity of radioactive markers containing cesium-137 from the 50 μCi, previously approved, with activities up to 100 μCi. This 100 μCi activity exceeds the quantities of byproduct material listed for use as pipe collar markers in oil and gas wells in 10 CFR 39.47, 10 CFR 30.71, and the activities authorized in the March 9, 2002, license amendment to Core Laboratories' byproduct material license. The NRC has reviewed the licensee's amendment request and has developed this EA to assess the environmental consequences of this licensing action using the guidance provided in NUREG-1748, Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs. Proposed Action The proposed action is to amend the license and modify the previous exemption by approving the licensee's request to use radioactive markers containing 100 μCi cesium-137 for use as pipe collar markers in oil and gas wells. This proposed activity exceeds the limits of radioactive markers authorized in 10 CFR 39.47 and 10 CFR 30.71. The radioactive markers Core Laboratories requested authorization to use in well logging activities are either installed directly in the pipe collars or are placed on the pipe collar threads and secured between the pipe casing joints and are not easily removed. Once installed in a well bore, the pipe casing and collars are cemented into place. By letter dated July 14, 1997, Core Laboratories in its correspondence to NRC, describes the procedures it will have in place involving the customer or well owner/operator. These procedures state, in part, that the customer or well owner/operator must contact Core Laboratories in the event the radioactive pipe collar markers must be removed. Core Laboratories will be available on site to secure and take possession of the collar markers upon their return to the surface. Additionally, Core Laboratories will provide the customer or well owner/operator a copy of Attachment XII-1 (Core Laboratories' Radioactive Collar Marker Utilization Log) as a written record of the requirement to notify Core Laboratories if markers returned to the surface before a specified date. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary so that Core Laboratories can efficiently carry out its business of well logging in the oil and gas industry. The need for an increase in activity for cesium-137 is due to the heavier density of the materials being used in the well logging application. The higher activity radioactive markers will allow, when logging certain oil and gas wells, for more accurate pipe collar location measurements for longer periods of time. Radioactive markers with lower activities may result in Core Laboratories having to depend on less accurate pipe collar location measurements when logging oil and gas wells, thereby providing less accurate information to the well owner/operator. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Core laboratories provided calculations in its November 14, 1997, and February 27, 2004, letters that demonstrated that the 100 millirem in a year or 2 millirem in any one hour limits to a member of the public would not be exceeded at any time while using the pipe collar markers with increased 50 to 100 μCi activities. There will be no significant environmental impact realized from the proposed action, due to no material being released into the environment and all of the material being wholly contained within the pipe collars. Additionally, the pipe collar markers will be recovered by Core Laboratories should the casing containing the collars be removed from the well bores. If the collar markers are returned to the surface prior to having decayed to exempt quantity levels specified on Core Laboratories customer agreement, the customer is required to contact Core Laboratories to take possession of the markers. These markers are then removed from the equipment, placed into a lead shield, and then placed into a U.S. Department of Transportation 7A transport container for shipment back to Core Laboratories. Upon return to the storage facility, the markers are placed into waste storage to await decay or shipment to an authorized recipient for disposal when quantities of waste justifies such a shipment. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the proposed action of increasing the activity of radioactive markers containing cesium-137 from 50 μCi to 100 μCi is to take no action. The no-action alternative would be to allow the licensee to maintain radioactive marker activities currently authorized in Core Laboratories' NRC license. Again, there will be no significant environmental impact realized from the proposed action or the alternative to the proposed action, due to no material being released into the environment and all of the material being wholly contained within the pipe collars. On March 9, 2002, Core Laboratories was granted an amendment authorizing an exemption to 10 CFR 30.71 to use pipe collar markers containing iridium-192, scandium-46, antimony-124, cobalt-60, and cesium-137 with activities up to 50 μCi. An EA was published in the 67 FR 55320, February 5, 2002, and based on the EA the NRC concluded that environmental impacts that would be created by the proposed action would not have a significant effect on the quality of the environment and did not warrant the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Accordingly, it was determined that a FONSI was appropriate. Agencies and Persons Consulted Since the proposed action occurs downhole in the well bore and results in a permanent installation, the NRC has concluded that there is no potential to affect threatened or endangered species or historic resources. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not the type of activity that has potential to cause effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The NRC staff provided letters to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA)and Agreement States of Louisiana, Texas, and New Mexico for their review and comments, in accordance with NUREG-1748, Section 3.3. The Agreement States that were contacted provided no comments. By letter dated March 3, 2005, the EPA responded and recommended that the NRC, as a condition of approving the license amendment, have Core Laboratories provide notice to the Federal or State natural resource agency of which wells have the radioactive collar installed. The NRC staff took this comment into consideration and determined that Core Laboratories already provides notification to agreement states via reciprocity before performing well logging activities in the respective agreement states. Conclusion Based in its review, the NRC staff has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action and the preparation of an EIS is not warranted. The staff has determined that the proposed action, approval of the license amendment request to increase the activity of radioactive markers containing cesium-137 from the 50 μCi, to100 μCi, is the appropriate alternative for selection. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The NRC staff has concluded that the proposed action complies with 10 CFR Part 20. Exposure to a member of the public would be less than the limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1302. The licensee provided calculations that demonstrated that the 100 millirem in a year or 2 millirem in any one hour could not be exceeded when normal restricted boundaries were established. The NRC staff prepared this EA in support of the proposed action to amend the license. On the basis of this EA, the NRC has concluded that there are no significant environmental impacts and the license amendment does not warrant the preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, it has been determined that a FONSI is appropriate. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at *http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.* From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are listed below. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public Document Room

(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. 1. NRC, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,” NUREG-1748, August 2003. (ML032540811). 2. NRC, “Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance,” NUREG-1757, Volume 1, September 2003 (ML032530410). 3. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Texas Bureau of Radiation Control License No. L03835, Amendment No. 41, expiration date August 31, 2005 (ML051510390). 4. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality License No. LA-6678-L01, Amendment No. 17, expiration date October 31, 2004 (ML051510385). 5. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories New Mexico Radiation Control Bureau License No. WL264-26, expiration date February 28, 2007 (ML051510393). 6. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, February 23, 2004 (ML040580736). 7. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, July 14, 1997 (ML003724357). 8. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, November 14, 1997 (ML003724675). 9. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, February 4, 1998 (ML003724694). 10. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, January 20, 1998 (ML003724684). 11. ProTechnics Division of Core Laboratories Letter to NRC, February 27, 2004 (ML040580735). 12. **Federal Register** Volume 67, Number 24, pages 5320-5321 13. NRC letter to Roger Mulder, State of Texas, January 7, 2005 (ML050130550). 14. NRC letter to Derrith Watchman-Moore, State of New Mexico, January 7, 2005 (ML050130548). 15. NRC letter to Michael Henry, State of Louisiana, January 7, 2005 (ML050130549). 16. NRC letter to Robert Smith, EPA, January 7, 2005 (ML050130547). 17. NRC letter to Bruce Kobelski, EPA, January 7, 2005 (ML050130545). 18. EPA letter to Mark Satorius, NRC, March 3, 2005 (ML050690294). Dated at Arlington, Texas, this 27th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack E. Whitten, Chief, Nuclear Materials Licensing Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region IV. [FR Doc. E5-3630 Filed 7-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Acquisition Advisory Panel; Notification of Upcoming Meetings of the Acquisition Advisory Panel AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President. ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meetings. SUMMARY: The Office of Management and Budget announces two meetings of the Acquisition Advisory Panel (AAP or “Panel”) established in accordance with the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. DATES: There are two meetings announced in this **Federal Register** Notice. A public meeting of the Panel will be held on July 27, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. Pacific Time and ending no later than 5 p.m. A second public meeting of the Panel will be held on August 18, 2005, beginning at 9 a.m. Eastern Time and ending no later than 5 p.m. ADDRESSES: The July 27, 2005 meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach, Conference Room Beacon B, 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802. The August 18, 2005 meeting will be held at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Basement auditorium, 801 17th Street NW., Washington DC 20434. The public is asked to pre-register one week in advance for each meetings due to security and/or seating limitations (see below for information on pre-registration). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public wishing further information concerning these meetings or the Acquisition Advisory Panel itself, or to pre-register for either meeting, should contact Ms. Laura Auletta, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), at: *laura.auletta@gsa.gov,* phone/voice mail

(202)208-7279, or mail at: General Services Administration, 1800 F Street, NW., Room 4006, Washington, DC 20405. Members of the public wishing to reserve speaking time must contact Ms. Anne Terry, AAP Staff Analyst, in writing at: *anne.terry@gsa.gov,* by FAX at 202-501-3341, or mail at the address given above for the DFO, no later than one week prior to the meeting at which they wish to speak. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

(a)*Background:* The purpose of the Panel is to provide independent advice and recommendations to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and Congress pursuant to Section 1423 of the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. The Panel's statutory charter is to review Federal contracting laws, regulations, and governmentwide policies, including the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, performance of acquisition functions across agency lines of responsibility, and governmentwide contracts. Interested parties are invited to attend the meetings. Opportunity for public comments will be provided at both meetings. Additional time for oral public comments is expected at future public meetings to be announced in the **Federal Register** . *July 27, 2005 Meeting* —The working groups, established at previous public meetings of the AAP (see *http://www.acqnet.gov/aap* for a list of working groups), will report any significant updates during this meeting, which may include any follow-up recommendations for additional working groups or other issues to be examined. The Panel also expects to hear from additional invited speakers from the public and private sectors who will address issues related to the Panel's statutory charter, including commercial practices and performance-based contracting. In addition to working group reports and invited speakers, the Panel welcomes oral public comments at this meeting and has reserved an estimated one hour for this purpose. Members of the public wishing to address the Panel during either meeting must contact Ms. Anne Terry, in writing, as soon as possible to reserve time (see contact information above). *August 18, 2005 Meeting* —In addition to working group reports on any significant updates, the Panel plans to hear invited speakers on a variety of topics related to the Panel's statutory charter including a discussion group on commercial practices that will cover the use of Time and Material contracting. The Panel also welcomes oral public comments at this meeting and is reserving an estimated one hour for this purpose. Members of the public wishing to address the Panel during either meeting must contact Ms. Anne Terry, in writing, as soon as possible to reserve time (see FOR INFORMATION CONTACT above).

(b)*Availability of Materials for the Meetings:* Please see the Acquisition Advisory Panel Web site for any available materials, including draft agendas, for these meetings ( *http://www.acqnet.gov/aap* ). Questions/issues of particular interest to the Panel are also available to the public on this Web site on its front page, including “Questions for Government Buying Agencies,” “Questions for Contractors that Sell Commercial Goods or Services to the Government,” and an issue raised by one Panel member regarding the rules of interpretation and performance of contracts and liabilities of the parties entitled “Proposal for Public Comment.” The Panel asks that the public address any of these questions/issues when presenting either oral public comments or written statements to the Panel. The public may also obtain copies of Initial Working Group Reports presented at the March 30, 2005 public meeting at the Panel's Web site under “Meeting Materials” at this Web site.

(c)*Procedures for Providing Public Comments:* It is the policy of the Acquisition Advisory Panel to accept written public comments of any length, and to accommodate oral public comments whenever possible. To facilitate Panel discussions at its meetings, the Panel may not accept oral comments at all meetings. The Panel Staff expects that public statements presented at Panel meetings will be focused on the Panel's statutory charter and working group topics, and not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or written statements, and that comments will be relevant to the issues under discussion. Oral Comments: Speaking times will be confirmed by Panel staff on a “first-come/first-serve” basis. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, oral public comments must be no longer than 10 minutes for both the July 27th and August 18th meetings. Because Panel members may ask questions, reserved times will be approximate. Interested parties must contact Ms. Anne Terry, in writing (via mail, e-mail, or fax identified above for Ms. Terry) at least one week prior to the meeting in order to be placed on the public speaker list for the meeting. Oral requests for speaking time will not be taken. Speakers are requested to bring extra copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the Panel at the meeting. Speakers wishing to use a Power Point presentation must e-mail the presentation to Ms. Terry one week in advance of the meeting. *Written Comments:* Although written comments are accepted until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received by the Panel Staff at least one week prior to the meeting date so that the comments may be made available to the Panel for their consideration prior to the meeting. Written comments should be supplied to the DFO at the address/contact information given in the FR Notice in one of the following formats (Adobe Acrobat, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files, in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). *Please note:* Since the Panel operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, all public presentations will be treated as public documents and will be made available for public inspection, up to and including being posted on the Panel's Web site.

(d)*Meeting Accommodations:* Individuals requiring special accommodation to access the public meetings listed above should contact Ms. Auletta at least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Laura Auletta, Designated Federal Officer (Executive Director), Acquisition Advisory Panel. [FR Doc. 05-13561 Filed 7-6-05; 1:16 pm]

Connectionstraces to 10

Traces to 10 documents

CFR