Notices. Notice; request for comments

8,902 words·~40 min read·/register/2005/12/16/05-24186

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

BILLING CODE 4310-RE-M DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Information Collection Sent to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)for Approval Under the Paperwork Reduction Act; 1018-0119; Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice; request for comments. SUMMARY: We (Fish and Wildlife Service, Service) have sent a request to OMB to renew approval for the collection of information associated with our Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE). We use the information that we collect as part of the basis for identifying conservation efforts that can contribute to a decision not to list a species under the Endangered Species Act

(ESA)or to list a species as threatened rather than endangered. DATES: You must submit comments on or before January 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Send your comments and suggestions on this information collection renewal to the Desk Officer for the Department of Interior at OMB-OIRA at

(202)395-6566

(fax)or *OIRA_DOCKET@OMB.eop.gov* (e-mail). Please provide a copy of your comments to Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service, MS 222-ARLSQ, 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22203 (mail);

(703)358-2269 (fax); *hope_grey@fws.gov* (e-mail). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request a copy of the proposed information collection requirement, related forms, or explanatory material, contact Hope Grey at the addresses above or by phone at

(703)358-2482. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320, which implement provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), require that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). Currently, we have approval to collect this information under OMB Control Number 1018-0119, which expires on December 31, 2005. We are asking OMB to renew approval for a 3-year term. OMB has up to 60 days to approve or disapprove our request; however, OMB may respond as early as 30 days after our submittal. To ensure consideration, send your comments to OMB by the date listed in the DATES section. We may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. On August 15, 2005, we published in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 47845) a notice of our intent to request renewal of this information collection authority from OMB. In that notice, we solicited public comments for 60 days, ending on October 14, 2005. We did not receive any comments. Section 4 of the ESA specifies the process by which we can list species as threatened or endangered. When we consider whether or not to list a species, the ESA requires us to take into account the efforts being made by any State or any political subdivision of a State to protect such species. We also take into account the efforts being made by other entities. States or other entities often formalize conservation efforts in conservation agreements, conservation plans, management plans, or similar documents. The conservation efforts recommended or called for in such documents could prevent some species from becoming so imperiled that they meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species under the ESA. PECE encourages the development of conservation agreements/plans and provides certainty about the standard that individual conservation efforts contained in an agreement/plan must meet so that we can consider that such efforts contribute to forming a basis for a listing determination. PECE applies to “formalized conservation efforts” that have not been implemented or have been implemented but have not yet demonstrated effectiveness in contributing to the reduction or removal of one or more threats to a species. Under PECE, formalized conservation efforts are defined as conservation efforts (specific actions, activities, or programs designed to eliminate or reduce threats or otherwise improve the status of a species identified in a conservation agreement, conservation plan, management plan, or similar document (68 FR 15100)). The development of such agreements/plans is voluntary and there is no requirement that the individual conservation efforts included in such documents be designed to meet the standard in PECE. PECE specifies that to consider that a conservation effort contributes to forming a basis for not listing a species or listing a species as threatened rather than endangered, we must find that the effort is sufficiently certain to be implemented and effective so as to have contributed to the elimination or adequate reduction of one or more threats to the species. To gauge whether or not this standard has been met, PECE includes criteria for evaluating the certainty of implementation and the certainty of effectiveness of individual conservation efforts. One criterion for evaluating the certainty of effectiveness of a conservation effort is that the agreement/plan contains provisions for monitoring and reporting progress on implementation and effectiveness of the effort. Also, if we make a decision not to list a species or to list the species as threatened rather than endangered based in part on the contributions of formalized conservation efforts that were subject to the policy, we must

(1)track the status of the effort, including the progress of implementation and effectiveness of the efforts, and

(2)if necessary, reevaluate the status of species and consider whether or not initiating the listing process is necessary. The nature and frequency of the monitoring and reporting will vary according to the species addressed, land ownership, specific conservation efforts, expertise of participants, and other factors. Generally monitoring and reporting occurs annually for several years as the conservation efforts are implemented and their effectiveness is evaluated. The information collected through monitoring is invaluable to the Service, the States, and other entities implementing agreements and plans, and to others concerned about the welfare of the species covered by the agreements/plans. *Title:* Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions. *OMB Control Number:* 1018-0119. *Form Number:* None. *Frequency:* Occasional. Description of Respondents: Federal agencies, States, tribes, local governments, individuals, not-for-profit institutions. *Total Annual Responses:* 11 (4 original agreements; 7 monitoring/reporting). *Annual Burden Hours:* 13,040 hours (2,000 hours per original agreement; 600 hours per agreement for monitoring; 120 hours per agreement for reporting). When a State or other entity voluntarily decides to develop a conservation agreement or plan with the specific intent of making listing the subject species unnecessary, the criteria and the standard identified in PECE can be construed as a requirement placed on the development of that agreement/plan, and the entity must satisfy the monitoring and reporting requirements to obtain and retain the desired benefit (e.g., making listing of a species as threatened or endangered unnecessary). Thus, the development of such an agreement/plan with the involvement of the Service and the monitoring and reporting elements are the basis for this information collection. Those agreements/plans developed with the intent of influencing a listing decision and with involvement of the Service constitute an information collection that requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Estimating the hours associated with developing such a conservation agreement or plan is difficult because:

(1)Development and associated monitoring of conservation efforts are completely voluntary, and we cannot predict who will decide to develop these efforts, how many entities they might involve, or the type and extent of the planning, monitoring, and reporting processes they might use.

(2)We cannot predict which species are certain to become the subjects of conservation efforts, and, therefore, cannot predict the nature and extent of conservation efforts and monitoring that might be included in conservation agreements/plans designed with the intent of influencing a decision regarding listing a species.

(3)Many agreements/plans, such as agency land management plans, are developed to satisfy requirements of other laws or for other purposes, and we cannot predict whether or the extent to which some of these plans may be expanded to attempt to make listing unnecessary. Consequently, we must base our estimates of the amount of work associated with developing conservation agreements or plans, and monitoring and reporting of conservation efforts, on information from conservation agreements developed in the past. To prepare this estimate we contacted two representatives of entities involved in conservation agreements containing conservation efforts that were subject to PECE and were a key basis for Service determinations that listing the covered species was not necessary. We also reviewed the number of conservation agreements and plans developed since the publication of the final PECE on March 28, 2003 (68 FR 15100), through FY 2005, in which the Service was substantially involved. Of 27 such agreements/plans prepared during that period, 9 were developed with the specific intent of influencing a decision to list species, for an average of 3 to 4 such agreements per year. On average, conservation efforts subject to PECE in one to two agreements/plans per year contributed substantially to determinations that listing species was unnecessary. We expect these averages to continue, based on the number of draft conservation plans/agreements currently in preparation. Thus we estimate that four agreements/plans with the intent of making listing unnecessary will be completed annually. We further estimate that an average of two such agreements/plans will contain conservation efforts that meet the standard in PECE and contribute substantially to a decision that listing a species is unnecessary, and that the States or other entities will carry through with monitoring and reporting the efforts in such agreements in order to keep the covered species off the lists of endangered or threatened species. Monitoring and reporting occurs for a period of years until the efforts have been implemented and demonstrate effectiveness. We estimate that monitoring and reporting will occur for an average of seven agreements annually. The hour burden estimated for preparation of a conservation agreement/plan varies from approximately 500 hours to 4,000 hours. The variability is related to differences in the size and scope of the areas covered by these plans, the number of entities involved in developing them, and the complexity of the conservation issues involving a given species. We estimate the public reporting burden for the information collection covered by this renewal to average 2,000 hours for developing one agreement with the intent to preclude a listing (one-time burden). We further estimate 600 hours for annual monitoring under one agreement, and 120 hours for one annual report, for a total of 720 hours annually for monitoring and reporting per agreement. We estimate that monitoring and reporting will occur for seven agreements annually. Based on our estimate of four plans prepared per year and seven plans for which monitoring and reporting will occur per year, the total annual burden is estimated at 13,040 hours. We again invite comments on this information collection renewal on:

(1)Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of our management functions involving PECE, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;

(2)the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the collection of information;

(3)ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

(4)ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents. The information collections in this program are part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a)). Dated: December 2, 2005. Hope Grey, Information Collection Clearance Officer, Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. E5-7436 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-55-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Indian Affairs Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation's Proposed Coyote Business Park, Umatilla County, OR AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: This notice advises the public that the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA)intends to file a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS)with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the proposed lease and development of an industrial park of up to 142 acres of land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) in Umatilla County, Oregon, and that the DEIS is now available for public review. The purpose of the proposed project, the Coyote Business Park, is to help meet economic development needs on the Umatilla Indian Reservation. This notice also announces a hearing for the public to provide comments on the DEIS. DATES: Written comments on the DEIS must arrive by January 30, 2006. The public hearing will be held January 19, 2006, starting at 7 p.m. ADDRESSES: You may mail written comments to Jerry L. Lauer, Acting Superintendent, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Umatilla Agency, P.O. Box 520, Pendleton, Oregon, 97801; or hand carry written comments to Mr. Lauer at the Umatilla Agency, 46807 B Street, Mission, Oregon. The public meeting will be held at the Tamastslikt Cultural Institute, 72789 Highway 331, Pendleton, OR 97801. To obtain a copy of the DEIS, please contact Jerry L. Lauer by mail at the above mailing address or by telephone at the number provided below. Copies of the DEIS are available for public review at the Umatilla Agency (street address above), at the Pendleton Public Library, 500 SW Dorian, Pendleton, Oregon, and on the Web site *http://www/efw/bpa.gov/cgi-bin/PSA/NEPA/ SUMMARIES/Coyote Business Park* . Copies of the DEIS have also been sent to agencies and individuals who participated in the scoping process and to all others who had requested copies. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry L. Lauer,

(541)278-3786. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEIS, prepared with the cooperation of the Bonneville Power Administration

(BPA)and CTUIR, analyzes the impacts of the proposed leasing of Indian trust land for the purpose of constructing and managing a light industrial and commercial business park. The proposed Coyote Business Park would be situated on 142 contiguous acres of a 520 acre parcel of trust land located south of Interstate 84 at Exit 216 and west of South Market Road, approximately 7 miles east of Pendleton, Oregon, on the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The proposed action is to construct infrastructure for the business park, including domestic water service, sanitary sewer service, storm water drainage, roads, and utilities to lots which would be leased by the CTUIR to individual business owners for the construction of light industrial and/or commercial facilities. The CTUIR may also construct such facilities for lease to private operators. Anticipated light industrial operations include warehouses or distribution facilities and assembly of previously manufactured components. Water under the proposed action would be supplied to the business park from the Mission Water System. Wastewater would be handled by connection to the Mission Wastewater Collection System, which is treated through a cooperative agreement by the city of Pendleton. Storm water drainage would be retained on-site. Access to the site would be from South Market Road, which would be improved to an industrial standard and provided with a dedicated right hand turn lane into the site. Commercial utilities would be provided through extensions of existing services which are located either adjacent to, or within one-fourth mile of the site. Support structures would also be replaced on the high-voltage BPA transmission line that crosses the site. Potential impacts to Patawa Creek as well as nearby residences have been considered in the design of the business Park. Mitigation includes a storm water drainage collection system that isolates storm water from Patawa Creek; creation of a Riparian Management Zone along Patawa Creek to establish native vegetation and reduce sedimentation and erosion; incorporation of best management practices to reduce impacts to groundwater; incorporation of landscaping and night lighting design to reduce visual impact and night light pollution; and construction of a new bridge across Patawa Creek to provide access to the Oregon Department of Transportation's gravel shed and the Tribal Environmental Recovery Facility, thus eliminating the need for the existing gravel road to these facilities. The DEIS analyzes the proposed action (Alternative E), the no action alternative

(A)and three other action alternatives (B, C, and D). The proposed action is the preferred alternative. The action alternatives differ primarily in:

(1)The size (21-142 acres) of the proposed business park;

(2)whether domestic water would be provided through the drilling of a new well or through the extension of an existing community water system; and

(3)whether sanitary sewer service would be provided by installation of septic tanks and drain fields or by connection to an existing municipal sewer system. Public participation has occurred throughout the development of this DEIS. The Notice of Intent was published in the **Federal Register** on January 9, 2002 (66 FR 1191). A public scoping meeting was held in Pendleton, Oregon, on January 23, 2003, to solicit comments and ideas. On November 6, 2003, an open house was held in Pendleton, Oregon, to update the public on the National Environmental Policy Act compliance process for the proposed project. All comments presented throughout the process have been considered. Public Comment Availability Comments, including names and addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the mailing address shown in the ADDRESSES section during regular business hours, 7:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. We will not, however, consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety. Authority This notice is published in accordance with section 1503.1 of the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 1508) implementing the procedural requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 *et seq.* ), and the Department of Interior Manual (516 DM 1-6), and is in the exercise of authority delegated to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.1. Dated: December 8, 2005. Michael D. Olsen, Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. [FR Doc. E5-7413 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [MT-079-06-1010-PH] Notice of Public Meeting, Western Montana Resource Advisory Council Meeting AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting. SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Western Montana Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below. DATES: The next two regular meetings of the Western Montana RAC will be held February 22, 2006 at the Butte Field Office, 106 N. Parkmont, Butte, Montana and May 11, 2006 at the Missoula Field Office, 3255 Fort Missoula Road, Missoula, Montana beginning at 9 a.m. The public comment period for both meetings will begin at 11:30 a.m. and the meetings are expected to adjourn at approximately 3 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For the Western Montana RAC, contact Marilyn Krause, Resource Advisory Council Coordinator, at the Butte Field Office, 106 North Parkmont, Butte, Montana 59701, telephone 406-533-7617. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in western Montana. At the February 22 meeting, topics we plan to discuss include: a Montana Challenge presentation by Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, election of officers, an update on the Recreation RACs, a briefing on the White House Conservation Conference and impacts related to the Pombo Mining Bill (if passed). Topics for the May 11 meeting will be determined at the February meeting. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. Dated: December 12, 2005. Steven Hartmann, Acting Field Manager. [FR Doc. E5-7459 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-$$-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation No. 731-TA-1098 (Preliminary)] Liquid Sulfur Dioxide From Canada Determination On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject investigation, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, 2 pursuant to section 733(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1673b(a)) (the Act), that there is no reasonable indication that an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or that the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports from Canada of liquid sulfur dioxide, provided for in subheading 2811.23.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, that are alleged to be sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV). 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)). 2 Chairman Stephen Koplan dissenting. Background On September 30, 2005, a petition was filed with the Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) by Calabrian Corp., Kingwood, TX, alleging that an industry in the United States is materially injured by reason of LTFV imports of liquid sulfur dioxide from Canada. Accordingly, effective September 30, 2005, the Commission instituted antidumping duty investigation No. 731-TA-1098 (Preliminary). Notice of the institution of the Commission's investigation and of a public conference to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** of October 7, 2005 (70 FR 58747). The conference was held in Washington, DC, on October 20, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determination in this investigation to the Secretary of Commerce on December 12, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3826 (December 2005), entitled Liquid Sulfur Dioxide from Canada: Investigation No. 731-TA-1098 (Preliminary). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 12, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7449 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION [Investigation Nos. 731-TA-340-E and H (Second Review)] Solid Urea From Russia And Ukraine Determinations On the basis of the record 1 developed in the subject five-year reviews, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, 2 pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the Act), that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on solid urea from Russia and Ukraine would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. 1 The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR § 207.2(f)). 2 Vice Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun, Commissioner Jennifer A. Hillman, and Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff dissenting. Background The Commission instituted these reviews on October 1, 2004 (69 FR 58957) and determined on January 4, 2005 that it would conduct full reviews (70 FR 2882, January 18, 2005). Notice of the scheduling of the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the **Federal Register** on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19502). The hearing was held in Washington, DC, on September 22, 2005, and all persons who requested the opportunity were permitted to appear in person or by counsel. The Commission transmitted its determinations in these reviews to the Secretary of Commerce on December 13, 2005. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 3821 (December 2005), entitled Solid Urea from Russia and Ukraine: Investigations Nos. 731-TA-340-E & H (Second Review). By order of the Commission. Issued: December 13, 2005. Marilyn R. Abbott, Secretary to the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7445 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7020-02-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment. SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of continued approval of information collections under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted: 1. *The title of the information collection:* Billing Instructions for NRC Cost Type Contracts. 2. *Current OMB approval number:* 3150-0109. 3. *How often the collection is required:* Monthly and on occasion. 4. *Who is required or asked to report:* NRC Contractors. 5. *The number of annual respondents* : 55. 6. *The number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request:* The total annual contractor burden for the Billing Instructions and License Fee Recovery Cost Summary for NRC cost type contracts is estimated to be 1,070 hours. Billing burden is 754 hours plus 316 hours for License Fee Recovery Cost burden. 7. *Abstract:* In administering its contracts, the NRC Division of Contracts provides Billing Instructions for its contractors to follow in preparing invoices. These instructions stipulate the level of detail for supporting data that must be submitted for NRC review. The review of this information ensures that all payments made by the NRC are for valid and reasonable costs in accordance with the contract terms and conditions. Submit, by February 14, 2006, comments that address the following questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate accurate? 1. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected? 2. How can the burden of the information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, 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 homepage site for 60 days after the signature date of this notice. Comments and questions about the information collection requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet electronic mail to *INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this *12th* day of December 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer,Office of Information Services. [FR Doc. E5-7451 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. PROJ0734, PROJ0735, PROJ0736, POOM-32] Draft Interim Concentration Averaging Guidance for Waste Determinations AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of Draft Interim Guidance. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

(NRC)is issuing draft interim guidance on concentration averaging for public comment. The NRC is currently in the process of preparing a Standard Review Plan

(SRP)to provide guidance to NRC staff regarding reviews of waste determinations submitted by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The NRC staff held a public scoping meeting on the draft SRP on November 10, 2005, to obtain stakeholder input on the contents of the SRP. The draft SRP is expected to be released for public comment in 2006 and will include, among other things, guidance on evaluating concentration averaging in those cases that are specific to the types of waste and situations typically evaluated in waste determinations. Because several stakeholders are interested in obtaining NRC guidance on concentration averaging as soon as practicable, the NRC is issuing this draft interim guidance prior to completion and public release of the entire draft SRP. This draft interim guidance is applicable only to waste determinations at DOE sites. This guidance will eventually be incorporated into the draft SRP and any comments received on this guidance will be evaluated at the same time as other public comments that are received following the release of the draft SRP. DATES: The public comment period on the draft interim guidance begins with publication of this notice and continues until January 31, 2006. Written comments should be submitted as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Comments submitted by mail should be postmarked by that date to ensure consideration. Comments received or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practical. Note that a subsequent public comment period will also be held after publication of the draft SRP in 2006. ADDRESSES: Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit comments to the Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Mail Stop T6-D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Please note Docket Nos. PROJ0734, PROJ0735, PROJ0736, and POOM-32 when submitting comments. Comments will also be accepted by e-mail at *NRCREP@nrc.gov* or by facsimile to

(301)415-5397, Attention: Anna Bradford. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Anna Bradford, Senior Project Manager, Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD 20852. Telephone:

(301)415-5228; fax number:

(301)415-5397; e-mail: *AHB1@nrc.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005

(NDAA)provides criteria for determining whether certain waste resulting from the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel is not high-level waste (HLW). Criteria 3(A) and 3(B) of Section 3116(a) of the NDAA require that the waste be disposed of in compliance with the performance objectives contained in NRC regulations at 10 CFR 61, Subpart C. The applicability of either 3(A) or 3(B) is dependent upon whether the waste exceeds Class C concentration limits, thus the classification of waste residuals must be determined in order to apply the NDAA criteria. NRC's regulation, “Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,” 10 CFR Part 61, provides waste classification tables (Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55) to ensure suitability of radioactive waste for near-surface disposal. The waste classification (along with other provisions such as waste segregation and intruder barriers) was developed in part to provide protection to individuals from inadvertent intrusion into the waste after disposal. To determine waste classification, 10 CFR part 61 allows for the averaging of the concentration of radionuclides in waste over the volume or weight of the waste, depending on the units used to express the limits for the radionuclides. The guidance provided in NRC's Branch Technical Position

(BTP)on Concentration Averaging and Encapsulation (January 17,1995) represents acceptable methods by which specific waste streams or mixtures of these waste streams may be compared to the tabulated concentration values in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55. The concentration averaging BTP was written to address a subset of acceptable classification or encapsulation practices and was not intended to address all cases. For example, the concentration averaging BTP was not written to address residual contamination of large underground or buried structures or systems. Waste classification was developed to ensure that waste concentrations would not exceed the values provided in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55, without special authorization, to provide protection of individuals from inadvertent intrusion into the waste. The waste classification tables were developed from performance assessment calculations for a variety of intruder scenarios considering the types of waste and disposal technologies that would likely be utilized for near-surface commercial disposal of low-level waste. The term “near-surface disposal” indicates disposal in the uppermost portion, or approximately the top 30 meters, of the earth's surface. Waste that would decay to acceptable levels within 100 years was defined as Class A or B waste, and institutional controls were believed to be effective at limiting inadvertent intruder risk from these classes of waste. Waste that would decay to acceptable levels for an inadvertent intruder within 500 years was defined as Class C waste. Class C waste was envisioned to be segregated from other classes of waste, to be protected with 100 years of institutional control, to be disposed of deeper than Class A and B wastes, and to be disposed of with an intruder barrier that would prevent contact with the waste for 500 years. It was also recognized that waste exceeding Class C limits for which form and disposal methods must be different, and in general more stringent, than those specified for Class C waste would not generally be suitable for near-surface disposal. However, it was recognized that there may be instances where waste with concentrations greater than permitted for Class C would be acceptable for near-surface disposal with special processing or design. These would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Guidance on acceptable methods for performing concentration averaging to determine waste classification is presented in this draft interim guidance. Interpretation and examples of implementation of the BTP on concentration averaging and encapsulation as it applies to the types of waste and situations typically evaluated in waste determinations are provided. This guidance is only applicable to waste determinations at DOE sites; other uses may be authorized with permission of the NRC. II. Proposed Concentration Averaging Guidance The guidance contained herein does not replace the guidance contained in the BTP on concentration averaging and encapsulation for the purposes of waste classification for the commercial disposal of low-level waste. The guidance is not intended to address all unique situations at DOE sites. However, the guidance contained herein is generally applicable to the following scenarios:

(1)Underground waste storage tanks including heels, cooling coils, and residuals adhering to walls and other surfaces,

(2)Infrastructure used to support underground waste storage tanks such as transfer lines, transfer pumps, and diversion boxes,

(3)Waste removed from tanks that is processed or treated for disposal in a near surface disposal facility, and

(4)Other scenarios relating to waste determinations proposed by the DOE and accepted by the NRC. Although the concentration averaging BTP was not written to address residual contamination of underground or buried structures or systems, the fundamental principles contained within the BTP are applicable to these systems. This guidance clarifies the fundamental principles presented in the BTP and provides specific examples that may be pertinent to DOE waste determinations. The acceptable methods for concentration averaging for the purposes of waste classification for waste determinations are based on the following fundamental principles introduced in the BTP.

(1)Measures are not to be undertaken to average extreme quantities of uncontaminated materials with residual waste solely for the purpose of waste classification.

(2)Mixtures of residual waste and materials can use a volume or mass-based average concentration if it can be demonstrated that the mixture is reasonably well-mixed.

(3)Credit can be taken for stabilizing materials added for the purpose of immobilizing the waste (not for stabilizing the contaminated structure) even if it can not be demonstrated that the waste and stabilizing materials are reasonably well-mixed, when the radionuclide concentrations are likely to approach uniformity in the context of applicable intruder scenarios.

(4)Other provisions for the classification of residual waste may be acceptable if, after evaluation of the specific characteristics of the waste, disposal site and method of disposal, conformance of waste disposal with the performance objectives in Subpart C of 10 CFR part 61 can be demonstrated with reasonable assurance.

(5)Regardless of the averaging that is performed for waste classification purposes, the performance assessment or other approach used to demonstrate compliance with the performance objectives of 10 CFR part 61, subpart C, must consider the actual distribution of residual contamination in the system when estimating release rates to the environment and exposure rates to inadvertent intruders. Conservative assumptions regarding the distribution of contamination are appropriate. The purpose of these principles is to prevent arbitrary or incorrect classification of materials that may result in near-surface disposal of materials that are not suitable for near-surface disposal. Appropriate concentration averaging may indicate that waste exceeds Class C concentration limits. Waste that exceeds Class C concentration limits may be suitable for near-surface disposal, but the evaluation of the suitability must involve independent analyses such as would be performed by the NRC under 10 CFR 61.58. The methods that follow can be used to determine the waste classification of waste residuals. As indicated by the first principle above, extreme measures should not be taken when performing concentration averaging to determine waste classification. Extreme measures include:

(1)Deliberate blending of lower concentration waste streams with high activity waste streams to achieve waste classification objectives, or

(2)averaging over stabilizing material volume or masses that are not needed to stabilize the waste per the 10 CFR 61.56 stability requirement or are not homogeneous from the context of the intruder scenarios. This guidance presents three categories of calculations of the concentrations of radionuclides in waste. The first pertains to cases in which the waste can be mixed and is fairly homogeneous. The second pertains to cases in which the waste cannot be removed or well mixed, and is stabilized in place to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 61.56. The third pertains to the concentrations used in performance assessment calculations to determine the suitability of near-surface disposal according to 10 CFR 61.58 and does not pertain to the determination of whether a waste is Class A, Class B, Class C, or greater than Class C as defined in 10 CFR 61.55. Category 1. Physical Homogeneity In general, waste will have been processed to the maximum extent practical and will have been stabilized so that there is reasonable assurance that the performance objectives of 10 CFR 61, Subpart C, can be achieved. The concentrations of radionuclides in the waste for waste classification can be based on the average concentration calculated from the total volume or mass of the waste and processing or stabilizing materials if the materials are reasonably well-mixed. For Category 1, the weight or volume of the container should not be included in the calculation of average concentrations. The primary consideration is whether the distribution of radionuclides within the final wasteform is reasonably homogeneous. Technical basis should be provided (e.g., sampling results, engineering experience, operational constraints) to demonstrate that the waste is reasonably well-mixed. The preferred method to demonstrate homogeneity would be to provide a statistical measure of the variability of concentration within the waste, although it is recognized that this may not always be practical. For homogeneous mixtures, the classification of waste residuals may be based on the total volume or mass of the final wasteform. If additional averaging (e.g., as in the examples in Category 2) is not applied, waste with radionuclide concentrations after mixing that are greater than the values provided in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55 would be considered to be greater than Class C waste. Mixing within waste or of waste with stabilizing materials may be needed for a variety of reasons. Mixing of waste and stabilizing materials may be advantageous to reduce release rates in order to achieve the performance objectives. As defined with respect to the principles of the BTP, mixing with excessive amounts of stabilizing materials solely to reduce the waste concentrations to alter waste classification should not be performed. In most cases, the ratio of the unstabilized to stabilized radionuclide concentrations would not be significantly greater than a factor of 10 for waste classification purposes. For unstabilized waste that can not be selectively treated or removed, mixing (within waste, not between waste streams) to facilitate homogenization of radionuclide concentrations is appropriate. For example, mixing may be used to reduce the variability in concentrations within a layer of tank waste that can not be removed for further treatment. Example 1-1. Liquid waste is removed from a tank and additional fluids are added in order to adjust the chemistry for processing. Cement and fly ash are mixed with the resultant liquid in an industrial mixer to form a grout that is placed in disposal containers. The concentration of radionuclides for determining waste classification is based on the total volume or mass of the final wasteform. Example 1-2. Reducing grout is added to stabilize a tank heel. The waste residuals in the tank are flocculated solids suspended in a liquid phase that can be mobilized with the tank transfer equipment. However, the solids can not be removed with the existing equipment. The reducing grout has a relatively high viscosity, such that the flocculated solid residuals and remaining waste liquids can be mixed with the grout prior to setting with the transfer equipment. The concentration of radionuclides for waste classification is based on the total volume or mass of the waste and the reducing grout in which the waste is mixed. Additional reducing grout into which little or no waste is mixed should not be included in the total mass or volume used for concentration averaging. Category 2. Stabilization To Satisfy 10 CFR 61.56 Stabilization is a factor in limiting exposure to an inadvertent intruder because it provides a recognizable and non-dispersible waste. For solidified liquids and solids, Section 3.2 of the BTP provides for the concentration of the radionuclides to be determined based on the volume or weight of the solidified mass, which is defined here to be the amount of material needed to stabilize the liquids or dispersible solids to satisfy 10 CFR 61.56. Liquid waste must be solidified or packaged in sufficient absorbent material to absorb twice the volume of the liquid (10 CFR 61.56). However, the stabilizing material is not to be interpreted as bulk material added to fill void space. Stabilization is determined with respect to the waste and not the entire disposal system or unit. While stabilization of the entire disposal unit (e.g., a tank) may be necessary to meet the performance objectives, it generally would not be needed to make the residual waste recognizable and non-dispersible. Waste concentrations are calculated based on the volume or mass of material needed to be added to liquids or dispersible solids in order to solidify or encapsulate them. The concentration of the stabilized waste (waste plus stabilizing material) should generally be within a factor of 10 of the concentration on either a mass or volume basis in the unstabilized waste. The factor of 10 is derived from consideration that most stabilization techniques commonly envisioned use cementitious materials, and most cementitious wasteforms can readily achieve a ten mass percent waste loading. Additional stabilizing materials would in general not be needed for waste stabilization but may be needed for stabilization of the system or structures. For thin layers of contamination on surfaces, especially vertical surfaces, the average concentration may be based on the volume or mass of the structure in direct contact with the contamination plus a layer of stabilizing material that would be needed to stabilize the waste, as discussed above. This is not to be interpreted that averaging can be performed over all materials added to fill void space in the structure or over the portions of the structure that are essentially uncontaminated. This approach is justified because the concentrations would be expected to approach homogeneity with respect to the intruder scenarios, and the main justification for the classification system is to provide protection to the inadvertent intruder. The concentration values found in Tables 1 and 2 of 10 CFR 61.55 were derived assuming the total volume of waste exhumed by the intruder is at those concentrations, therefore a thin layer of more concentrated material averaged over the same exhumed volume would achieve a similar level of protection. Specific averaging volumes are not provided in this guidance because of the site-specific nature of the waste and site-specific considerations for intruder scenarios. Example 2-1. A tank contains a heel that is 2.5 cm thick, and is composed of liquids and dispersible solids. A 20 cm thick layer of reducing grout is needed to stabilize the waste, and an additional 300 cm of high-strength grout is added to fill void space and to provide an intruder barrier. The concentration of radionuclides would be calculated by averaging over the 20 cm thick layer of reducing grout. Use of a 20 cm layer of reducing grout in the concentration calculation is based on the amount of grout that would be needed to stabilize the waste if it could be removed from the tank and made into a stable wasteform. The concentration of the stabilized waste (waste plus stabilizing material) would generally be within a factor of 10 of the concentration in the unstabilized waste on either a mass or volume basis. Example 2-2. The walls of a waste storage tank have a thin layer (0.1 cm) of residual contamination that is not easily removed. The tank walls are 1 cm thick and the tank is contained within a 0.5 m thick vault. The contamination is distributed on the lower 5 m of the vertical surface. The contamination is not easily dispersed into the environment and is located underground. Closure of the storage tank will involve filling the tank and all void space with grout. The concentration of the waste for waste classification is calculated based on the thickness of the tank wall over the lower 5 m of the tank, the thickness of the contamination, and a 1 cm thick layer of stabilizing grout. Use of a 1 cm layer of grout in the concentration calculation is based on the assumption that formation of a stable waste form is accomplished by incorporating the 0.1 cm layer of residual waste into a cementitious waste form at a mass loading of approximately 10%. The concentrations of the thin layer would be reduced by a factor of 20 for estimating waste classification if a volume basis were used. Category 3. Other Provisions 10 CFR part 61.58 allows the Commission to authorize other provisions for the classifications and characteristics of waste, if after evaluation of the specific characteristics of the waste, disposal site, and method of disposal, it finds reasonable assurance of compliance with the performance objectives in subpart C. Demonstration that the performance objectives can be satisfied would involve a site-specific analysis (e.g., performance assessment). 10 CFR part 61.58 was intended to allow the NRC to establish alternate waste classification schemes when justified by site-specific conditions, and does not affect the generic waste classifications established in 10 CFR 61.55. Thus, if the results of concentration calculations performed in a manner consistent with the principles and examples described previously in this document indicate that radionuclide concentrations in the waste exceed Class C limits, then the waste is greater than Class C waste for waste classification purposes. If it can be demonstrated that the performance objectives of 10 CFR part 61.58 can be satisfied, then the waste would be suitable for near surface disposal. For the performance assessment calculations, the waste should be represented as it is physically expected to be present, and not averaged over the stabilizing and encapsulating materials unless the estimated doses to the public and inadvertent intruders were conservative as a result of averaging. Otherwise, every attempt should be made to represent the expected distribution of activity within the disposal system. If the 10 CFR 61 subpart C performance objectives can be met with reasonable assurance, then the waste is considered to be acceptable for near surface disposal. When performing the intruder calculations, it is not appropriate to calculate an average dose factoring in the likelihood of the occurrence of the scenario. The likelihood of the intruder scenario occurring is already represented in the higher limit (e.g., 500 mrem/yr) applied for inadvertent intruder regulatory analysis. Example 3-1. A waste heel remains in a HLW tank. Reducing grout is added to the heel, displacing some material to the center of the tank, while a fraction of the waste remains on the tank surfaces encapsulated by the reducing grout. A high strength grout is placed over the reducing grout as an intruder barrier and to limit water contact. The top of the waste residuals are 10 meters below the ground surface. An intruder scenario is evaluated in which a well-driller places a well through the disposal system. In this case, the intruder is exposed to drill cuttings (waste). The average concentration of the waste used in the performance assessment calculations should be calculated by assuming mixing over the volume of well cuttings exhumed because the cuttings are expected to be well-mixed when spread on the land surface. This average concentration is applicable only to the performance assessment and not to the determination of waste classification. Because the rate of erosion at the site is relatively high, a second intruder scenario is evaluated in which most of the cover is eroded over the analysis time period. Some cover is expected to remain. The intruder constructs a home in the area over the tank. Because the direct exposure pathway is the only major contributing pathway for this scenario, the actual waste distribution can be used in the performance assessment. Alternatively, the average concentration of waste over the stabilizing materials can be used in the performance assessment because there would be less shielding for this calculation and the doses would likely be conservative. The doses to a public receptor who is offsite when institutional controls are in place and at the edge of a buffer zone near the closed tanks after institutional controls end is evaluated with an all-pathways performance assessment. The performance assessment represents expected degradation of the system over time. The modeling of the source term represents the waste as two zones, one zone of higher hydraulic conductivity and reducing conditions that persist for 500 years and one zone of lower hydraulic conductivity and reducing conditions that persist for the entire analysis period (10,000 years). The first zone represents waste between the tank surface and the added grout which may be exposed to increased moisture flow/oxidation because of shrinkage effects or degradation of the grout itself over time from various attack mechanisms. The second zone represents waste that was immobilized in the center of the reducing grout by the pour sequence of the tank closure operations. The concentrations of radionuclides in both zones should be represented in the performance assessment by the expected distribution of contamination within the zones, or distributions that can be demonstrated to be conservative with respect to release and exposure modeling. The potential pathways of water to the waste may depend on the discrete features of the system (e.g., cooling coils, shrinkage effects, fractures). III. Further Information Documents related to NRC's reviews of waste determinations 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. Recent documents related to reviews of NRC waste determinations can be found under Dockets Numbers PROJ0734, PROJ0735, PROJ0736, and POOM-32. 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 1-800-397-4209, 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 Public Document Room (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 Rockville, MD this 5th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Scott Flanders, Deputy Director, Environmental and Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection,Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-7450 Filed 12-15-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Sunshine Act Meeting Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week of December 19, 2005: A Closed Meeting will be held on Tuesday, December 20, 2005 at 2 p.m. Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be present. The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (3), (5), (7), (8), (9)(B), and

(10)and 17 CFR 200.402(a), (3), (5), (7), (8), 9(ii) and

(10)permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting. Commissioner Campos, as duty officer, voted to consider the items listed for the closed meeting in closed session. The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December, 20, 2005 will be: Formal orders of investigations; Institution and settlement of injunctive actions; Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an enforcement nature; and Post-argument discussion. At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting items. For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the Secretary at

(202)551-5400. Dated: December 13, 2005. Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-24186 Filed 12-14-05; 11:09 am]

Connectionstraces to 11

Traces to 11 documents

U.S. Code