[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 149 (Tuesday, August 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46257-46258]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19068]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14447-004]

L.S. Starrett Company; Notice of Application Accepted For Filing,
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, And Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Incorporation of modified 30(c) condition 5
into Appendix A and B of the project exemption order.
    b. Project No: 14447-004.
    c. Date Filed: May 28, 2015.
    d. Applicant: L.S. Starrett Company (exemptee).
    e. Name of Project: Crescent Street Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Millers River in the Town of Athol, Worcester County,
Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Steve Walsh, L.S. Starrett Company, 121
Crescent Street, Athol, Massachusetts 01331; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Robert Ballantine at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests
is 30 days from the issuance of this notice by the Commission. All
documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. If unable to be filed
electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an
original and seven copies should be mailed to: Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters,
without prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and
contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-14447-004) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: Pursuant to exemption Article 16(d), the
exemptee is requesting to amend Appendix A and Appendix B of the
Commission's March 1, 2013, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing
(5MW or Less) to incorporate a modified condition 5. The appendices
contain the mandatory terms and conditions submitted under section
30(c) of the Federal Power Act by the Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) and by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior). The MDFW and the Interior issued modifications to
condition 5 of their terms and conditions and as such, the exemptee is
requesting that the Commission amend the exemption order by
incorporating the modified terms and conditions. The modification of
condition 5 allows the exemptee to operate the project with an approach
velocity at the left-side trash rack greater than the 2.0 cubic feet
per second as required by the original condition 5, until such time
that the MDFW determines that protection for atlantic salmon is
necessary. The Interior revision requires additional American eel
monitoring during the period of time that the exceedance of the 2.0 cfs
approach velocity is allowed.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. You may also register
online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be
notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also
available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item (h)
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the

requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS''; ``PROTESTS'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from
the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be
served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the
particular application. If an intervener files comments or documents
with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect
the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also
serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all
other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by
proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by
the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b)
and 385.2010.

    Dated: July 28, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19068 Filed 8-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Technical Background Document: Mercury Wastes Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury Final Report February 8, 2002 Submitted to:

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building Office of Solid Waste 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20460 Submitted by:

Science Applications International Corporation Engineering and Environmental Management Group 11251 Roger Bacon Drive Reston, Virginia 20190 EPA Contract No. 68 W 98 025 Work Assignment No. 3 8 SAIC Project No. 06 0758 08 1373 000 Evaluation of Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury Executive Summary The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) and Department of Energy ( DOE) have collaborated on a series of studies to evaluate the effectiveness of treatment technologies at stabilizing wastes containing large concentrations of mercury. In addition to mercurycontaminated wastes, the disposal of bulk elemental mercury is of concern because of the excess quantity of mercury in the Defense Logistics Agency ( DLA) stockpile.

The study described in this report was designed to assist in evaluation of options for disposition of the inventory, by providing information on the ability of current technologies to convert elemental mercury ( or wastes with large components of elemental mercury) into a stable waste form for disposal. The study evaluated the effectiveness of three technologies at stabilization of bulk elemental mercury. Bulk elemental mercury was treated by each vendor, and the treated waste forms evaluated for mercury leachability, using both the TCLP and a novel, automated, constant pH leaching protocol. Constant pH leaching was conducted at pH 2, 4,6, 8, 10, and 12 for 14 days at each pH.

The report provides descriptions of the study plan and the treatment processes, as well as detailed discussions of the leaching results. The leaching data presented demonstrate that the stability of the mercury in the treated waste forms varies widely across the pH range tested. Clearly, the stability of mercury in these treated waste forms will be highly dependant on the disposal conditions. The combination of site specific disposal conditions and appropriate treatment technology must be considered as decisions are made about disposal of waste bulk elemental mercury.

Project Team Mary Cunningham   Project Manager EPA 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 John Austin, EPA 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Mike Morris ORNL UT Battelle PO Box 2008 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 6180 Greg Hulet, INEEL Bechtel PO Box 1625 Idaho Falls, ID 83415 3875 1. Introduction The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments ( HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) require the EPA toestablish treatment standards for all listed and characteristic hazardous wastes destined for land disposal. After the effective date of a restriction, wastes that do not meet the Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) treatment standards are prohibited from land disposal.

The LDR treatment standards for the six waste codes ( D009, K071, K106, P065, P091, and U151) which contain mercury as the primary hazardous constituent ( Mercury Wastes) were promulgated in the Third Third LDR Rule ( 55 FR 22520, June 1, 1990). Some of these standards were revised when EPA promulgated Universal Treatment Standards in the Phase II LDR Rule ( 59 FR 47980, September 19, 1994). Since these rules were promulgated, however, the Agency has become aware of information and data which indicate that the treatment standards for some categories of these wastes may be inappropriate and warrant further review.

1.1 Disposal Options for Wastes Containing > 260 mg/ kg Total Mercury Under the existing LDRs, treatment by stabilization and disposal is not an available option for most wastes containing greater than 260 mg/ kg total mercury ( high mercury wastes). The reasons given in the 3rd 3rd rule for this regulation are that, " EPA's data for untreated mercury wastes being retorted/ roasted domestically show minimum concentrations of mercury up to 255 mg/ kg," and that " There is a strong preference in the land disposal restrictions legislation for treatment standards to be based on recovery where possible." The technical background document for mercury wastes also cited data from attempts to treat K106 sludge containing 25.9 g/ kg of total mercury using conventional metal stabilizing agents ( cement, kiln dust, lime/ fly ash), indicating that the leachability of the waste was actually increased by the process.

Mercury is a high priority chemical at EPA. It is one of twelve Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic Chemicals ( PBT) targeted in the U. S. Bi National Strategy between the U. S. and Canada and is included in EPA's PBT Strategy. There are also efforts in the Agency to reduce mercury consumption and to take mercury out of circulation to minimize air emissions. For these reasons, it appears that the general preference for recovery over immobilization may not be appropriate for some categories of mercury wastes. In addition, various commenters and petitioners have submitted data indicating that wastes containing concentrations well above 260 mg/ kg may be effectively stabilized. Therefore, EPA has decided to revisit the issue of mercury stabilization by gathering currently available performance data, possibly conducting new stabilization research, and investigating the long term potential for oxidation or vaporization of land disposed mercury. 1.2 Wastes which are not directly amenable to roasting and retorting Retorting or roasting for recovery ( RMERC) is currently required for inorganic high mercury wastes. Commenters and petitioners have asserted that many subcategories of mercury wastes ( e. g., inorganic salts, corrosive wastes, incineration residues, wastewater treatment residues) are not directly amenable to RMERC treatment, and are not accepted by commercial retorting facilities. Although EPA's general position has been that those nonamenable subcategories can be pretreated to make recovery possible, current management practices indicate that this position may be impractical and unrealistic. Therefore, EPA has decided to investigate alternative treatment technologies to roasting and retorting for high mercury wastes.

1.3 Incineration of Mercury Wastes Incineration ( IMERC) is currently either required or allowed as an alternative to RMERC for organic high mercury wastes. The rationale for this standard given in the 3rd 3rd rule is that IMERC will destroy the organic component of organo mercury complexes or mixtures, so that the " valuable mercury" present in the waste can be subsequently recovered from the incineration residuals ( e. g., ash, baghouse dust, sludge from treated scrubber water). However, given the high volatility of mercury, it is reasonable to assume that both mercury and organo mercury compounds will be vaporized by incineration rather than remain in the ash. Although some of this mercury will be captured by air pollution controls, the rest will be lost to the atmosphere. Furthermore, evaluation of current waste management practices indicates that incineration residuals are in fact not being treated for mercury recovery. Therefore, the Agency has decided to further investigate whether treatment alternatives exist for mercury wastes that might currently be going to incinerators for treatment.

Elemental Mercury Waste Project Report The purpose of this report is to provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of commercially available stabilization technologies on elemental mercury. The Department of Defense has maintained a huge inventory of mercury for many years. However, the DoD has determined that they will not need the volumes in the inventory. The DoD is preparing an environmental impact analysis of the options for disposition of the inventory. The options include sale, storage by other governmental agencies, and disposal. This report is designed to assist in identifying the proper methods of safe 1 40 CFR 268.40 2 This procedure is described in Method 1311 of U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Publication SW 846. 2. Background The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) 1 defines several categories of mercury wastes, each of which has a defined technology or concentration based treatment standard, or universal treatment standard ( UTS). RCRA defines mercury hazardous wastes as any waste that has a TCLP value for mercury of 0.2 mg/ L or greater. Three of these categories, all nonwastewaters, fall within the scope of this report on new technologies to treat mercurycontaminated wastes:

 Wastes as elemental mercury;  Hazardous wastes with less than 260 mg/ kg [ parts per million ( ppm)] mercury; and  Hazardous wastes with 260 ppm or more of mercury.

2.1 Current Treatment Methods While this report deals specifically with the first category   waste elemental mercury   the other two categories will be discussed briefly so that the full range of mercury treatment challenges can be understood. The current treatment requirements for these three categories are as follows:

 Waste as elemental mercury   RCRA identifies amalgamation ( AMLGM) as the treatment standard for elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials.

 Waste with < 260 ppm mercury   No specific treatment method is specified for hazardous wastes containing < 260 ppm. However, RCRA regulations require that such wastes that exceed a TCLP mercury concentration of 0.20 mg/ L be treated by a suitable method to meet the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure ( TCLP) 2 limit for mercury of 0.20 mg/ L.

 Waste with > 260 ppm mercury   For hazardous wastes with mercury contaminant concentrations > 260 ppm and RCRA regulated organic contaminants ( other than incinerator residues), incineration or retorting ( IMERC or RMERC) is the treatment standard. For wastes with mercury contaminant concentrations > 260 ppm that are inorganic, including incinerator and retort residues, RMERC is the treatment standard.

EPA's hazardous waste classification system identifies six categories of mercury bearing wastes, each of which has a separate RCRA waste code. Table 2 1 shows the six mercury waste codes and a brief description adapted from the May 28, 1999 proposed rule: Table 2 1 RCRA Codes for Wastes that Contain Mercury Waste Code Description D009   Characteristic Mercury Wastes D009 wastes are extremely variable in composition, and depend on the industry and process that generate the waste. Some of the more common types of D009 wastes include miscellaneous wastes from chlor alkali production facilities ( especially cell room trench sludge and activated carbon for liquid or gas purification), used fluorescent lamps, batteries, switches, and thermometers. D009 wastes are also generated in the production of organomercury compounds for fungicide/ bactericide and pharmaceutical uses, and during organic chemicals manufacturing where mercuric chloride catalyst is used.*

K071   Brine purification muds from the mercury cell process in chlorine production, where separately prepurified brine is not used K071 wastes are generated by the chlor alkali industry in the mercury cell process. In this process, sodium chloride is dissolved to form a saturated brine solution. The brine solution is purified by precipitation, using hydroxides, carbonates, or sulfates. The precipitate is dewatered to form K071 wastes, while the purified brine continues in the process. The depleted solution from the mercury cell is ultimately recycled to the initial step of the process.

K106   Wastewater treatment sludge from the mercury cell process in chlorine production Like K071 wastes, K106 wastes are generated from chlorine production using the mercury cell process. Effluent from the mercury cell includes spent brine, a portion of which is recycled and a portion of which is purged to wastewater treatment. Other plant area wastewaters ( e. g., stormwater, washdown waters) are also typically sent to this treatment system. The wastewater treatment process generates a sludge through precipitation and filtering, which is K106 waste. The mercury concentration in K106 waste is consistently greater than 260 mg/ kg and therefore retorting is a required technology for this waste.

P065   Mercury fulminate P065 wastes consist of discarded mercury fulminate product, off specification mercury fulminate product, and container or spill residues thereof.

P092   Phenylmercury acetate P092 wastes consist of discarded phenylmercury acetate product, off specification phenylmercury acetate product, and container or spill residues thereof.

U151   Mercury U151 wastes consist of discarded elemental mercury product, off specification metallic mercury product, and container or spill residues thereof. The principal constituent of U151 is metallic mercury.**

* U. S. EPA, Best Demonstrated Available Technology ( BDAT) Background Document for Mercury Wastes, Nov 1989, page 2 18. ** Mercury Treatment and Storage Options Summary Report, A. T. Kearney report for USEPA Reg 5, May 1997, page 1.

2.2 What is the Impetus for the Current Study?

2.2.1 Land Disposal Restrictions The Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR) treatment standards established by the 3rd 3rd Rule ( 55 FR 2250, June 1, 1990) requires roasting and retorting ( RMERC) to recovery mercury as the treatment for high mercury wastes greater than 260 mg/ kg mercury. In the 3rd 3rd Final Rule, EPA cited Congress' preference for " treatment standards to be based on recovery, where possible" ( S. Rpt. 98 284, p. 17). In addition, the Agency cited technical reasons for not 3 Memorandum, G. Tracy Mehan, III to Steve Johnson, September 27, 2001, " Developing an EPA Game Plan for Surplus Mercury ( draft issue paper). promulgating stabilization as the preferred treatment technology for high mercury subcategory wastes. Specifically, data available to support the 3rd 3rd Final Rule indicated that the metal stabilization agents actually increased the mobility of mercury in the stabilized matrix. Given a growing excess of mercury stocks, as uses of mercury decline, the disposal requirements for excess mercury need to be considered.

2.2.2 Defense Logistics Agency Stockpile The National Defense Stockpile program was established by Congress in the Strategic and Critical Materials Stock Piling Act of 1939, as amended, to minimize the United States' dependence on foreign sources of essential materials in times of national emergency. Between 1949 and 1988, the General Service Administration and Federal Emergency Management Agency were responsible for the program. In 1988, the responsibility for the program was delegated to the Secretary of Defense who assigned the program to the Defense Logistics Agency ( DLA) . The Defense National Stockpile Center ( DNSC) was established within DLA to manage the program. DNSC is headquartered at Fort Belvoir, Virginia and operates storage depots nationwide. The stockpile currently includes 68 commodities, including mercury.

DNSC is responsible for all activities necessary to provide safe, secure, environmentally sound stewardship of all commodities in the National Defense Stockpile. Over the past several years as new technologies have evolved and global economies emerged, Congress has declared most of the Defense National Stockpile materials to be in excess of national defense needs and has authorized their disposition, generally by sale. Mercury is one of these commodities determined to be in excess of national defense needs. In January 2001, DNSC initiated an Environmental Impact Statement ( EIS) to solicit comments from the public and policy makers about what to do with its remaining 11 million pounds of mercury. 3 The DNSC excess inventory of mercury is " prime virgin" i. e., between 99.5 and 99.9 percent pure mercury. The material is currently stored in steel flasks weighing about 76 pounds ( 34.5 kilograms). The flasks are stored in wooden pallet boxes. Some of the flasks date from the 1940s and 1950s.

As custodian of the excess inventory of mercury, DNSC must decide on a strategy for management of the material. As required by CEQ and DLA NEPA regulations, this decision must include consideration of a range of reasonable management alternatives and the environmental impacts of those alternatives. 2.3 Bulk Elemental Mercury Treatment Study The Bulk Elemental Mercury Treatment study was conducted to analyze the effectiveness of commercially available technologies for stabilizing elemental mercury. This study was sponsored by EPA and focuses on the DLA stockpiles. The study started with a solicitation to industry to demonstrate the effectiveness of their stabilization process treatment of elemental mercury. This effort had two major objectives.

1. The first objective was to evaluate alternative processes to RMERC and IMERC for the DLA elemental mercury stores. To that end, a process that will treat an elemental mercury sample to meet a TCLP treatment goal of 0.025 mg/ L or less was desired.

2. The second objective was to provide EPA with the treated waste forms for use in empirical testing to compare proposed new analytical protocols to the standard TCLP results, and to assess potential suitable disposal environments for the wastes forms.

Technology vendors participated in this demonstration at their expense, except for the analytical costs incurred from the use of an outside laboratory to perform the surrogate waste characterization, TCLP testing on the treated waste forms, and the costs of shipping the treated waste forms to ALTER, Inc., where the constant pH leaching was performed.

Sample waste forms from stabilization of elemental mercury were characterized and leached by ALTER, Inc., using both the TCLP and a novel, automated, constant pH leaching protocol. These data are presented in detail in Section 5. Characterization of the waste forms consisted of bulk density, moisture content, percent organic matter, cation exchange capacity and particle size distribution. These data are presented in Appendix C. Mercury vapor pressure testing will also be performed on the final treated waste. The results of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory testing will be presented in a separate report. 3. Detailed Description of Study 3.1 Overall Plan Mercury contamination exists in various forms, such as soil, sludges, and debris, and in various species, such as organic, inorganic, and elemental. The objective of this investigation is to provide information on the ability of current technologies to convert elemental mercury ( or wastes with large components of elemental mercury) into a stable waste form for disposal. Each of the current technologies relies on chemical reactions to minimize volatilization and solubility, as opposed to recovery or separation technologies which generate a near mercury free residual in addition to concentrated or purified mercury.

EPA and DOE are investigating possible stabilization methods for mercury contaminated waste and mixed waste streams. These methods are ` nonthermal,' occurring at conditions below the boiling point of mercury ( about 350 E C or 650 E F). To investigate the ability of these technologies to effectively treat wastes, EPA designed a detailed project plan ( EPA Quality Assurance Project Plan   Technical Support for Amendment of Land Disposal Restrictions for Mercury Wastes, December 2000, Appendix A). EPA requested that several different vendors attempt to treat elemental mercury using their processes identified for the MER 04 project. The resulting treated wastes would each undergo a rigorous set of procedures to better understand the performance of the technology. In addition to reducing mercury mobility, the process should minimize worker exposure, minimize volume increase as waste is treated, minimize secondary waste generation, and maximize operational flexibility.

In completing this project, a coordinated effort was required between technology vendors, laboratories, DOE/ ORNL, and EPA. Key participants in the project were as follows:

Treatment technology vendors   Three vendors volunteered to be participants in the study. These vendors participated in the related MER 04 surrogate waste study. Detailed discussion of their roles, technologies, and activities are discussed in Chapter 4 of this report. Responsibilities of the vendors included treating the elemental mercury using bench scale technology, and sending the treated waste back to the laboratory.

The Accelerated Life Testing and Environmental Research Corporation ( ALTER), Dillsboro, IN   ALTER's responsibilities include providing instructions to the vendors, receiving the treated wastes, and conducting leaching tests of the resulting treated wastes. Actual analysis of the treated waste material or leachates for most chemical and physical parameters ( including mercury) was conducted by other laboratories. ALTER conducted alkalinity and acidity testing, and pH analysis.

Environmental Enterprises, Cincinnati, OH   Environmental Enterprise was primarily responsible for conducting mercury analysis of solid and aqueous ( i. e., leachate) matrices ( Appendices B and E).

Agvise Laboratories, Northwood, ND   Agvise was primarily responsible for testing physical characteristics of the treated waste. These tests include bulk density, moisture content, percent organic matter, cation exchange capacity, and particle size distribution ( Appendix C). The Agvise testing uses standard methods for soils, established by the USDA and the Soil Society of America ( Appendix D).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN   ORNL is responsible for the measurement of the mercury vapor pressure at 20 E C and 60 E C of treated waste forms. ORNL results will be reported separately.

Activities performed by these parties are described below in more detail. These activities include preparing a surrogate sludge for evaluation and treatment and characterizing both the untreated surrogate sludge and treated residue. Activities relating to the treatment itself are discussed in detail in Section 4 of this report.

3.1.1 Elemental Mercury Preparation Each vendor was responsible for obtaining elemental mercury for use in the study. Relatively small quantities ( less than approximately one kilogram per batch) were generally used by the vendors.

3.1.2 Treated Waste Characterization The commercial vendors returned the treated material to ALTER for testing. The vendortreated materials were characterized and subjected to physical and chemical analyses to determine their behavior under a range of potential disposal conditions.

3.2 Physical and Chemical Analysis Samples of the baseline ( elemental) mercury and the treated waste generated by the vendors were subjected to a battery of physical and chemical analyses. The technologies used by the vendors are described in Section 4. Table 3 1 summarizes the analyses conducted on the materials. These testing and analysis procedures are described below:

Baseline untreated mercury: total mercury, TCLP mercury, and constant pH leaching analysis of mercury; physical and chemical analysis at Agvise Laboratory, additional characterization by ALTER.

Treated waste: total mercury, TCLP mercury, and constant pH leaching analysis of mercury; physical and chemical analysis at Agvise Laboratory, additional characterization by ALTER.

In order to assess the stability of the materials, several leaching procedures were performed on the baseline untreated and vendor treated waste. Leaching tests performed by ALTER included the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure ( TCLP) and constant pH testing. Upon completion of each leaching test, the pH of the leachate was recorded and leachate samples sent to Environmental Enterprises Inc for determination of their mercury content. These two leaching tests are discussed below:

Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure   This is a standard regulatory test ( 40 CFR 261.24, SW 846 Method 1311) intended to determine the potential mobility of contaminants in a solid waste under simulated landfill conditions. The TCLP entails exposure of a sample that has been size reduced to pass a 9.5 mm sieve to a 20 fold large volume of acetate buffer for 18 hours.

Constant pH Leaching   Constant pH leaching tests are a means to determine the effect of pH on the stability of a waste. The constant pH procedure was developed at ALTER and is attached as Appendix B to the QAPP ( presented as Appendix A to this report). Samples are leached in a constant pH solution that is adjusted to, and maintained at, the desired pH end point. The constant pH leaching tests were performed at a minimum of pH values of 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12. The pH is maintained by automated systems for a 14 day period, at which point the resulting leachate is filtered and analyzed for mercury. A nominal 20: 1 liquid/ solid ratio ( 20 Kg/ 1 L) was used in these tests. The longer exposure period of 14 days was selected to ensure equilibrium conditions were obtained.

Table 3 1 Test Procedures for Bulk Elemental Mercury Project Parameter Reference Laboratory Matrices Physical characteristics: density; water content; particle size; cation ion exchange capacity; percent organic matter; cations ( magnesium, potassium, calcium, sodium) Standard Methods for Soils established by the USDA and the Soil Society of America. Agvise Laboratories 1, 2 Mercury analysis, in leachate and solid matrices SW 846 Method 7470A Environmental Enterprises 1, 2; all leachates Mercury vapor pressure testing Jerome 431 Arizona Instruments ( Phoenix, AZ) ORNL 2 Alkalinity, acidity Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ALTER 2 pH Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater ALTER All leachates Moisture content, particle size ASTM ALTER 2 TCLP leaching SW 846 Method 1311 ALTER 1, 2 Constant pH leaching   ALTER 2 Matrices: 1: elemental mercury ( untreated). 2: treated waste prepared by each vendor. * Only total levels of mercury were to be analyzed in the untreated waste prepared by each vendor. 4. Treatment Technologies Four waste treatment technology vendors participated in the related MER 04 study. Three of these vendors ( identified in this report as Vendors A, B and C) elected to participate in the elemental study. Each of the technologies used by the three vendors involves stabilization and/ or amalgamation of the mercury. ORNL and EPA specifically were evaluating technologies which immobilize, rather than separate, mercury within wastes. Data and information concerning these treatment technologies were obtained from the vendor project reports submitted to EPA/ ORNL, as well as previously prepared technology or performance descriptions prepared for ORNL.

Detailed descriptions of these technologies are presented in this section of the report. Similarities and differences between the technologies are presented in Table 4 1.

Table 4 1 Summary of Technologies Used for Treatment of Bulk Elemental Mercury Comparison Factor Vendor A B C Process Overview Formation of mercuric sulfide followed by thermoplastic encapsulation using sulfur polymer stabilization/ solidification process Formation of mercuric sulfide with micro and macroencapsulation Amalgamation and stabilization process with precipitation of stable salt Reagents added 95% sulfur polymer, 5% organic modifier, and proprietary additives Sulfide and proprietary encapsulants Amalgamation agent and proprietary stabilization reagent Waste Loading ( On dry basis) 33 wt% Phase I: 55 wt% Phase II: 44 wt% 20.1 wt%

Volume or Weight Increase 203% by weight 1500% by volume Phase I: 81.8% by weight Phase II: 127% by weight 398% by weight Final Form of Treated Waste Monolithic solid Soil like and macroencapsulated pellets Monolithic Mercury Losses to Air Estimated 0.3% None identified None measured or expected * Several vendors use reagents and/ or process steps which have been claimed to be confidential business information ( CBI). Only non CBI is presented in this report.

4.1 Vendor A Vendor A used its proprietary sulfur polymer stabilization/ solidification ( SPSS) process for treating the elemental mercury. The purpose of this process is to chemically stabilize and physically encapsulate mercury to reduce vapor pressure and leachability. This process is conducted in two stages. The first step is a reaction between elemental mercury and powdered sulfur polymer cement to generate mercuric sulfide ( HgS). ( Sulfur polymer cement consists of 95 wt% elemental sulfur reacted with five wt% of an organic modifier.) During reaction, the vessel is placed under inert nitrogen gas to prevent mercuric oxide ( HgO) formation ( a compound much more environmentally mobile than mercuric sulfide) and heated to 40 E C to enhance the sulfide formation. The purpose of this first step is to chemically stabilize the mercury.

The purpose of the second step is to solidify the product. The mixture is heated to 130 E C to melt the thermoplastic sulfur binder. It is then poured into a mold. On cooling, the reacted sulfide particles become microencapsulated within the monolithic sulfur matrix.

Pilot scale SPSS processing was accomplished using a 1 ft3, oil heated, vertical cone mixer. Mixing action was provided by a 24 inch long auger screw. Feed materials were charged to the unit through a 6 inch diameter port on the cone lid with the auger screw drawing material upward from the base of the cone. When mixing, the system was purged with an inert gas by connection to a regulated nitrogen gas supply. Heat was provided to the jacketed cone by a circulating fluid heat transfer system. A heated ball valve at the base of the cone was used to discharge the molten SPSS product.

Off gas was controlled by a sequence of a heat exchanger, a liquid nitrogen trap, and HEPA/ charcoal filters prior to atmospheric discharge. Vendor A did not measure mercury air releases during processing of the elemental mercury. In earlier demonstrations of treatment of elemental mercury and mercury contaminated soils, a mercury balance demonstrated that 0.3% of mercury was volatilized and captured in the off gas collection system.

Vendor A submitted two physical forms of treated waste ( both from batch 2) to ALTER for testing. The first waste form was created by allowing the molten material to solidify in bulk. The second waste form submitted for testing by vendor A was pelletized. To prepare the pellets, monolithic material was heated to approximately 140 E C and poured into Teflon molds to create small pellets approximately 8 mm in diameter by 8 mm in length. This dimension was selected so that the material would meet the 9.5 mm particle size requirement for TCLP testing. The bulk ( monolithic) material was crushed at ALTER, using a commercial compression machine to yield < 9.5mm pieces for parallel TCLP testing. Both the pellet and crushed forms were tested in parallel throughout the evaluation.

4.2 Vendor B Vendor B used a multi step process that can be stopped at a given stage dependent on what the performance specification is. The first step ( primary stabilization) consists of conversion of elemental mercury to mercuric sulfide ( meta cinnabar). This step fits the EPA definition of elemental mercury amalgamation. The primary product is then subjected to micro and macro encapsulation utilizing a range of polymeric and other agents to attain the desired product specification. For the study in question the final product was a bead like material that had a top size diameter of 9.5 mm.

On a dry weight basis the primary product contained 55 wt% elemental mercury. The product that has been processed through micro and macro encapsulation contained 44 wt% elemental mercury on a dry weight basis.

4.3 Vendor C Vendor C used an ambient temperature process, developed to treat elemental, ionic, and complexed forms of mercury in mixed ( radioactive and hazardous) waste. Vendor C has previously permitted and operated this process for treatment of mercury contaminated mixed wastes.

Vendor C placed approximately 1.5 to 2 kg of elemental mercury and reagents inside of a sealed polypropylene bottle. The material was mixed externally ( i. e., without a stirrer, propeller, or other internal mechanism). Following treatment of the elemental mercury, each batch remained in the chamber. The final waste form was best described as a monolith which set up within 24 hours. The weight of the treated mercury was increased significantly: for an initial 1.5 to 2 kg mercury, the final weight was 10 kg. This is much greater than the 15 to 20 % increase typically seen for soil treated by the process.

Airborne mercury concentrations were not obtained during this study. Releases are expected to be minimal because all steps following charging of the mercury and reagents ( e. g., mixing, setting) are conducted within the sealed bottle. 5. Leaching Results Samples of the treated waste form from each vendor were leached according to both the TCLP and the constant pH leaching protocol, and the concentrations of mercury in both the waste forms and leachate were measured.

Sections 5.1 to 5.3 present the leaching data, by vendor, both as a concentration of mercury in the leachate, and as the percentage of mercury that leached from the treated waste form. The percent mercury calculations are based on the waste loading data provided by the technology vendors, rather than on the measured concentrations of mercury in the waste due to incomplete digestion of the diverse final waste forms. This approach was used because the data indicate a significant negative bias in the analysis of the mercury content of the treated waste forms. Quality control data indicate that the precision and bias of the analysis of mercury in the leachates were acceptable.

5.1 Vendor A Two final waste forms ( pellets and crushed material) were evaluated. Table 5 1 summarizes results for total mercury recovered from the digested solids representing the treated waste form and the TCLP tests. The crushed fraction shows more uniform leaching results ( i. e., a relatively lower standard deviation and CV), as expected for a sample with smaller particle size. Also, the pelletized waste is known to be more heterogeneous than the monolith, from which the crushed material came. However, pellet sample 3 is the only solid that met the performance goal of 0.025 mg/ L Hg in leachates generated using the TCLP. One replicate of each waste form leached unacceptably in excess of 0.2 mg/ L TCLP.

Table 5 1 Analytical Results for Vendor A EEI Work Order 01 07 213 TCLP Pellets Crushed Sample pH TCLP ( mg/ L) Percent Leached Sample pH TCLP ( mg/ L) Percent Leached 1 5.18 0.0580 0.0004 1 4.98 0.144 0.0009 2 5.22 1.13 0.0068 2 4.97 0.0493 0.0003 3 5.22 0.0243 0.0001 3 4.98 0.202 0.0012 Average 0.404 0.0024 Average 0.132 0.0008 Std. Dev. 0.629  Std. Dev. 0.0771  CV 155  CV 58.4  The amount of mercury recovered by the TCLP test is reported as percent leached, and is based on the waste loading in the solid sample. Percent leached is calculated as follows:

[( mg Hg/ L leachate)/( mg Hg/ kg sample/ 20] * 100 where mg Hg/ L is the TCLP result, mg Hg/ kg sample is the mercury concentration in the solid, based on the vendor's waste loading, and 20 is the liquid / solid ratio of the leaching test.

Results for the constant pH leach tests are tabulated in Table 5 2 and plotted on Figure 5 1 with the TCLP results. For this waste form, the constant pH results at pH 4 and 6 are similar to the TCLP results obtained at pH ~ 4.98.

Table 5 2 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor A EEI Work Order 01 07 213 & 01 10 360 pH Pellets Crushed RPD Sample Dups. Hg conc. ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Leachate volume2 ( mL) Hg conc. ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Leachate volu me2 ( mL)

2 0.00542 0.000034 511.59 0.00658 0.00004 512.69 P   86.6 2 0.0137 0.000091 546.80 0.0132 0.00008 509.88 C   66.9 4 0.984 0.006136 514.48 0.0621 0.00042 552.00

6 0.0835 0.000511 504.43 16.7 0.11135 550.06

8 44.9 0.274293 503.99 30.8 0.22007 589.46 P   59.5 8 24.3 0.148242 503.29 53.5 0.36116 556.93 C   53.9 9 13.7 0.085078 512.33

10 0.0742 0.000499 555.21 0.0839 0.00054 531.59

11 0.00951 0.000063 550.01   P   60.2 11 0.0177 0.000121 561.98   C  NA 12 127 0.773669 502.58 74.6 0.53159 587.88 P   19.9 12 155 1.031492 549.02 23.5 0.20415 716.68 C  104 2 < 0.00050  501.81 < 0.00050  506.14 Blank 1 Calculated based on the waste loading in the solids. 2 Total volume of leachate, including addition of NaOH and/ or HNO 3 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 0 1 0 . 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 1 4 pH Hg Conc. ( mg/ L) P e lle t s Cru s h e d 0.025 mg / L 0.2 m g / L TCL P P e lle t s TCL P C ru s h e d Figure 5 1 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor A Concentration Leached Table 5 2 reports the analytical results, the amount of mercury leached from the solid ( percent leached), and the total volume of leachate fluid after addition of reagents to maintain the indicated pH. Duplicates were run at pH values of 2, 8 and 11 ( pellets only) and 12. Percent leached is calculated according to the equation presented for the TCLP results. Relative percent difference ( RPD) for the experimental duplicates do not meet the QA criteria of ± 50 percent, with the exception of the pellet duplicates at pH 12. The duplicate values appear with the calculated average on Figure 5 1 and Figure 5 2, and the trend is drawn through the calculated average. Additional tests for the pellet samples were run at pH 9 and 11 to investigate the sharp decrease in mercury concentration at pH 10.

Percent leached is calculated according to the equation presented for the TCLP results using the leachate volume in Table 5 2 to calculate the liquid/ solid ratio. Values in Table 5 2 indicate that 0.11 to 0.53 percent of the original mercury treated is leached from the crushed solid at pH 6, 8, and 12, which did not undergo recasting. Much smaller losses were observed at pH 2, 6, and 10.

A comparison of the results for pellets and crushed samples shows that mercury concentrations are similar at pH 2, 8, 10 and 12, and quite different at pH 4 and 6. Laboratory QA/ QC ( Appendix E) indicates the analytical results are valid as reported. Samples representing the pellets plot as a saw tooth pattern, and the crushed samples show increasing mercury values up to pH 8 followed by a decrease and then an increase to pH 12. The additional pellet samples run at pH 9 and 11 indicate the minimum at high pH lies near 11, rather than 10. 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH % Leached Pellets Crushed Figure 5 2 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor A Percent Leached 5.2 Vendor B Vendor B provided both an intermediate ( Phase I) and final waste form ( Phase II). Only the final waste form was used in the TCLP tests. The data from the TCLP analyses are presented in Table 5 3. The mercury concentrations in the TCLP leachates were below the performance goal of 0.025 mg/ L Hg.

Table 5 3 Analytical Results for Vendor B EEI Work Order 01 12 039 TCLP Phase I Phase II Sample pH TCLP ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Sample pH TCLP ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 1 5.53   1 4.84 0.00588 0.000027 2 5.63   2 4.84 0.00611 0.000028 3 5.79   3 4.78 0.00284 0.000013    4 4.81 0.00613 0.000028       Average   Average 0.00524 0.000024 Std. Dev.   Std. Dev. 0.00183  CV   CV 34.8

1 Calculated based on the waste loading of the solids. Phase II results for the constant pH leach tests are tabulated in Table 5 4, and plotted on Figure 5 3 on a concentration basis with the TCLP results, and in Figure 5 4 as a percentage of mercury that leached. Table 5 4 reports the analytical results, the amount of mercury removed from the solid ( percent leached), and the total volume of leaching fluid, including the volume of reagents added to maintain the indicated pH. Duplicates were run at pH values of 2, 8 and 12, with the RPD at pH 2 and 8 meeting the QA criteria and the results at pH 12 failing. The duplicate values appear with the calculated average on Figures 5 3 and 5 4, and the trend is drawn through the calculated average. Laboratory QA/ QC ( Appendix E) indicates the analytical results are valid as reported.

Table 5 4 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor B EEI Work Order 01 12 039 Phase II pH Hg conc. ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Leachate Volume2 ( mL) RPD Sample Dups.

2 0.00105 0.000005 550.62 39.1 2 0.00156 0.000007 500.28 4 0.00186 0.000009 504.97 6 0.00484 0.000022 501.29 8 0.0110 0.000050 503.34 27.7 8 0.00832 0.000038 501.45 10 0.0118 0.000056 525.30 12 0.143 0.000665 511.34 72.1 12 0.0672 0.000317 518.18 2 < 0.00050  500.77 Blank 1 Calculated based on the average total mercury concentration in Phase II solids. 2 Total volume of leachate, including addition of NaOH and/ or HNO 3 The mercury concentration increases by two orders of magnitude as the pH climbs from 2 to 12 ( Figure 5 3). A very small fraction of the total mercury is released from the solids, which is in agreement with results from the TCLP tests. The volume of reagent added to each test does not appear to effect the result. Duplicates at pH 2 show a gross difference in the amount of reagent added to each, yet the mercury concentrations are similar. This is the likely result of solubility limited conditions. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Hg Conc. ( mg/ L) Phase II  Elemental Hg 0.025 mg/ L 0.2 mg/ L 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Percent (%) Leached Phase II Figure 5 3 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor B Concentration Leached Figure 5 4 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor B Percentage Leached 5.3 Vendor C Table 5 5 summarizes the TCLP results for of a treated waste form produced by Vendor C. Relative to Vendors A and B, there is considerably less variation in the mercury concentration between the sample aliquots, as demonstrated by the reported standard deviation and coefficient of variation ( CV). The TCLP tests yielded mercury concentrations that met the performance goal of 0.025 mg/ L Hg by the TCLP.

Table 5 5 Analytical Results for Vendor C EEI Work Order 01 08 371 TCLP Sample pH TCLP ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 1 6.67 0.0129 0.00013 2 6.67 0.0133 0.00013 3 6.70 0.0152 0.00015 4 6.70 0.0154 0.00015

Average 0.0142 0.00014 Std. Dev. 0.00128

CV 9.04

1 Calculated based on the waste loading of mercury in the treated waste form Results for the constant pH leach tests are tabulated in Table 5 6 and plotted in Figure 5 5 with the TCLP results. For this waste form, the constant pH results at pH 6 and 8 are greater than the TCLP results obtained at pH ~ 6.7. This indicates that the TCLP likely did not reach equilibrium for this matrix during its 18 hour exposure period.

Table 5 6 reports the analytical results, the amount of mercury removed from the solid ( percent leached), and the total volume of leachate, including the reagents added to maintain the indicated pH. Duplicates were run at pH values of 2, 8 and 12, with the RPD at pH 2 and 12 meeting the QA criteria and the results at pH 8 exceed the desired criteria. This may be attributed to sample heterogeneity. The duplicate values appear with the calculated average on Figure 5 5 and Figure 5 6, and the trend is drawn through the calculated average. Laboratory QA/ QC indicates the analytical results are valid as reported. The mercury concentration decreases by three orders of magnitude as the pH climbs from 2 to 12 ( Figure 5 5). 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Hg Conc. ( mg/ L) Vendor C 0.025 mg/ L 0.2 mg/ L TCLP Table 5 6 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor C EEI Work Order 01 08 371 & 01 10 360 pH Hg conc. ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Leachate Volume2 ( mL) RPD Sample Dups.

2 29.7 0.39069 661.02 6.25 2 27.9 0.36725 661.44 4 0.315 0.00393 626.71 6 0.0323 0.00032 501.32 8 0.0494 0.00049 500.93 153 8 0.368 0.00367 500.72 10 0.139 0.00145 524.17 12 0.0251 0.00028 566.20 0.80 12 0.0249 0.00025 501.09 2 0.00066  506.86 Blank 1 Calculated based on the waste loading of mercury in the treated waste form 2 Total volume of leachate, including addition of NaOH and/ or HNO 3 Figure 5 5 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor C Concentration Leached 4Characterization and Evaluation of Landfill Leachate ( Draft), SAIC, Reston, VA, September 2000. 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Percent (%) Leached Vendor C Figure 5 6 Constant pH Leaching Results for Vendor C Percentage Leached 5.4 Mercuric Selenide A process to convert mercury into mercuric selenide ( HgSe) has been developed by Bjasta Atervining A B, Bjasta Sweden. In the process, mercury and selenium are heated and allowed to react in the vapor phase to yield a mercuric selenide powder when cooled. In order to assess the leachability of this type of treated wasteform over the range of pH values expected at a RCRA Subtitle C landfill, reagent mercury selenide was obtained and subjected to constant pH leaching at pH 7 and pH 10, and again at pH 7 and pH 10 with 500 ppm of chloride present in the leachate.

While mean ground water chloride concentrations are approximately 160 mg/ L, landfill leachates range from 59 to 6560 mg/ L in industrial landfills and 96 to 31,100 mg/ L in hazardous waste landfills. 4 Because mercury chloride is a soluble mercury species, these initial runs were performed to explore the effects of chloride on the solubility of mercury selenide.

The constant pH leach tests are tabulated in Table 5 7, and plotted on Figure 5 7 on a concentration basis with the TCLP results, and in Figure 5 8 as a percentage of mercury that leached. At pH 7, the addition 500 ppm of chloride increased solubility approximately three fold and almost four fold at pH 10. This indicates that the major ions present in a given disposal environment may significantly impact the release from the treated waste form and must also be considered in the evaluation of suitable disposal sites in addition to pH and redox conditions. Table 5 7 Constant pH Leaching Results for Mercury Selenide pH Hg conc. ( mg/ L) Percent Leached1 Leachate volume2 ( mL)

7 0.00656 0.000018 501.93 7 ( Cl) 0.0216 0.000060 500.98 10 0.0278 0.000308 528.84 10 ( Cl) 0.108 0.000082 512.39 10 ( Blank) < 0.00050 500.24 1 Calculated based on the mass of mercury in the mercury selenide reagent 2 Total volume of leachate, including addition of NaOH and/ or HNO 3 Figure 5 7 Constant pH Leaching Results for HgSe Concentration Leached 0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 pH Percent (%) Leached HgSe HgSe with Cl Figure 5 8 Constant pH Leaching Results for HgSe Percentage Leached 5.5 Conclusions Figure 5 9 provides the constant pH leach test data discussed previously for all three vendors, plotted on a concentration basis. Figure 5 10 provides the same data, plotted as a percentage of mercury that leached from the treated waste forms. From these Figures, it is evident that the stability of the mercury in the treated waste forms varies widely across the pH range tested. For example, Vendor A's treated waste form performed better at pH 2 and 10 11, than at the other pHs tested. Vendor B's treated waste form performed best at low pH, while Vendor C's waste form leached less mercury at high pH than at low pH. Clearly, the stability of mercury in these treated waste forms will be highly dependant on the disposal conditions. The combination of site specific disposal conditions and appropriate treatment technology must be considered as decisions are made about disposal of waste bulk elemental mercury. 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH Hg Conc. ( mg/ L) Vendor A Pellets Vendor A Crushed 0.025 mg/ L 0.2 mg/ L Vendor B Vendor C Figure 5 9 Constant pH Leaching Results for All Vendors Concentration Leached 0.000001 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 pH % Leached Vendor A Pellets Vendor A Crushed Vendor B Vendor C Figure 5 10 Constant pH Leaching Results for All Vendors Concentration Leached 5.7 Additional Information Resources The following articles are relevant to this topic:

+" Stabilization/ solidification ( S/ S) of mercury containing wastes using reactivated carbon and Portland cement", Zhang, Jian; Bishop, Paul L. Journal of Hazardous Materials ( 2002), 92( 2), 199 212.

" Sulfide induced stabilization and leachability studies of mercury containing wastes", Piao, Haishan; Bishop, Paul, Abstracts of Papers, 223rd ACS National Meeting, Orlando, FL, United States, April 7 11, 2002 ( 2002), ENVR 207.

" Phosphate induced mercury stabilization", Zhang, Jian; Bishop, Paul L., Preprints of Extended Abstracts presented at the ACS National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry ( 2001), 41( 1), 422 424.

" Sulfide induced mercury stabilization", Piao, Haishan; Bishop, Paul L., Preprints of Extended Abstracts presented at the ACS National Meeting, American Chemical Society, Division of Environmental Chemistry ( 2001), 41( 1), 428 431. " Stabilization of radioactively contaminated elemental mercury wastes", Stewart, Robin; Broderick, Tom; Litz, John; Brown, Cliff; Faucette, Andrea., Proceedings of the International Conference on Decommissioning and Decontamination and on Nuclear and Hazardous Waste Management, Denver, Sept. 13 18, 1998 ( 1998), 3 33 36.

" Mercury stabilization in chemically bonded phosphate ceramics", Wagh, Arun S.; Jeong, Seung Young; Singh, Dileep, Ceramic Transactions ( 1998), 87( Environmental Issues and Waste Management Technologies in the Ceramic and Nuclear Industries III), 63 73.

" A Framework for Risk Assessment of Disposal of Wastes Treated by Solidification/ Stabilization", Batchelor, B., Environmental Engineering Science, 14( 1): 3 13, 1997.

" A study of immobilization of four heavy metals by solidification/ stabilizatioin with Portland cement", Susan A. Trussell, Ph. D. Dissertation, Texas A& M Univeristy, College Station, Texas, 1994.

" Immobilization of chromium and mercury from industrial wastes", Wasay, S. A.; Das, H. A. , J. Environ. Sci. Health, Part A ( 1993), A28( 2), 285 97.

Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Hazardous Wastes, Jesse R. Conner, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990.

" An investigation of mercury solidification and stabilization in portland cement using x ray photoelectron spectroscopy and energy dispersive spectroscopy", McWhinney, Hylton G.; Cocke, David L.; Balke, Karl; Ortego, J. Dale., Cem. Concr. Res. ( 1990), 20( 1), 79 91.

" Studies of zinc, cadmium and mercury stabilization in OPC/ PFA mixtures", Poon, C. S.; Perry, R., Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. ( 1987), 86( Fly Ash Coal Convers. By Prod.), 67 76.

" Permeability study on the cement based solidification process for the disposal of hazardous wastes", Poon, C. S.; Clark, A. I.; Perry, R.; Barker, A. P.; Barnes, P., Cem. Concr. Res. ( 1986), 16( 2), 161 72.

" Mechanisms of metal fixation and leaching by cement based fixation processes", Poon, C. S.; Clark, A. I.; Peters, C. J.; Perry, R., Waste Manage. Res. ( 1985), 3( 2), 127 42.

" Mechanisms of metal stabilization by cement based fixation processes", Poon, C. S.; Peters, C. J.; Perry, R.; Barnes, P.; Barker, A. P., Sci. Total Environ. ( 1985), 41( 1), 55 71.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73268-73270]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29489]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1117; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-25-AD;
Amendment 39-17275; AD 2012-24-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 900 series turbofan engines. This AD
requires inspection of the low pressure turbine (LPT) bearing housing
end cover assembly in certain engines and, if necessary, its
replacement. This AD was prompted by a Trent 900 engine experiencing a
high intermediate pressure vibration fault, along with other
fluctuating engine parameters, while in flight. We are issuing this AD
to prevent fracture of the oil transfer tube, which could result in
uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 26, 2012.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 24, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in the AD as of December 26,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418 or email from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp, or download the
publication from https://www.aeromanager.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
781-238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive AD No. 2012-0145, dated August 6, 2012
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    During a revenue service flight, a Trent 900 engine experienced
a high Intermediate Pressure (IP/N2) vibration fault along with
several other fluctuating engine parameters, including Low Pressure
(LP/N1) faults. The flight crew decided to throttle back the engine
to idle and performed an air turn back. The other engines continued
to operate normally and an uneventful landing was made.
    The results of an initial investigation revealed that the LP
system was seized. Removal of the Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) bearing
housing end cover revealed that the oil transfer tube assembly had
fractured because the spherical seat between the oil transfer tube
and the end cover was missing (not installed).
    This non-conformity caused the fracture of the oil transfer
tube, leading to reduced oil flow and subsequent damage to the LP
and IP bearings. Rolls-Royce has identified that other Trent 900
engines could potentially be affected.

    The in-service event engine was assembled at the factory by RR.
After the in-service event, RR inspected all LPT bearing housing end
cover assemblies

they had assembled and found one other assembly with a missing
spherical seat. RR estimates that up to 200 LPT bearing housing end
cover assemblies assembled using this procedure may have been built
without the spherical seat. We are issuing this AD to prevent fracture
of the oil transfer tube, which could result in uncontained failure of
the engine and damage to the airplane. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce has issued Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin
Alert (NMSB) RB.211-72-AH051, dated August 3, 2012, or Revision 1,
dated September 11, 2012, and NMSB RB.211-72-H056, dated August 3,
2012, or Revision 1, dated September 11, 2012. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the United Kingdom and is
approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral
agreement with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information
referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all
information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that notice and comment prior to adoption of
this rule is unnecessary because no engines are used on U.S. registered
airplanes. Therefore, we find that good cause exists for making this
amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2012-1117; Directorate
Identifier 2012-NE-25-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this AD. Using the search function of the
Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our dockets,
including, if provided, the name of the individual who sent the comment
(or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2012-24-05 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-17275; Docket No. FAA-2012-
1117; Directorate Identifier 2012-NE-25-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December 26,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 970-84 and
972-84 series turbofan engines, all serial numbers.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a Trent 900 engine experiencing a high
intermediate pressure vibration fault, along with other fluctuating
engine parameters, while in flight. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fracture of the oil transfer tube, which could result in
uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Before further flight, unless already done, do the following:
    (1) Use paragraph 1.A. of RR Alert Non-Modification Service
Bulletin (NMSB) RB.211-72-AH051, dated August 3, 2012, or Revision
1, dated September 11, 2012, and RR NMSB RB.211-72-H056, dated
August 3, 2012, or Revision 1, dated September 11, 2012, to
determine which engine serial numbers to inspect.
    (2) Inspect the LPT bearing housing end cover assembly for the
presence of a spherical seat, P/N CU38971. For guidance on
performing the inspection, see paragraphs 3.A.(5) through 3.A.(8) of
the SBs listed in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If, during the inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of
this AD, you find that spherical seat, P/N CU38971, is missing,
replace the LPT bearing housing end cover assembly, P/N FW22780,
with a part eligible for installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not approve for return to service any airplane with an
engine, affected by this AD, installed, unless the engine has passed
the inspection required by paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.
    (2) Do not install an LPT bearing housing end cover assembly, P/
N FW22780, onto any engine required to be inspected by this AD,
unless the LPT bearing housing end cover assembly was inspected as
required by this AD.

(g) Credit for Previous Actions

    If you accomplished the actions required by paragraph (e) of
this AD before the effective date of this AD using RR Technical
Variance (TV) 125436, issue 2, dated July 27, 2012, you met the
requirements of paragraph (e) of this AD.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2012-0145, dated August 6, 2012, for related information.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the following service
information under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use the following service information to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise:
    (i) Rolls-Royce (RR) Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin
(NMSB) RB.211-72-AH051, dated August 3, 2012.
    (ii) RR Alert NMSB RB.211-72-AH051, Revision 1, dated September
11, 2012.
    (iii) RR NMSB RB.211-72-H056, dated August 3, 2012.
    (iv) RR NMSB RB.211-72-H056, Revision 1, dated September 11,
2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby,
England, DE248BJ; phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-
245418, email: http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp,
or download the publication from https://www.aeromanager.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 26, 2012.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Assistant Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-29489 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 203 (Monday, October 25, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58816-58817]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22984]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0860; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-54]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of United States Area Navigation (RNAV)
Route T-385; Kodiak, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish United States Area
Navigation (RNAV) route T-385 in the vicinity of Kodiak, AK in support
of a large and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the
state of Alaska.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 9, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone:
1(800) 647-5527, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0860; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-54 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email:
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in Alaska and
improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System (NAS) by lessening the dependency on ground based navigation.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0860; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-54) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2021-0860; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-54.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

Background

    In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 108-176), which established a joint
planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related
to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today,
NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air
transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more
predictable.
    In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of a larger and
comprehensive T-route modernization project in the state of Alaska. The
project mission statement states: ``To modernize Alaska's Air

Traffic Service route structure using satellite based navigation
development of new T-routes and optimization of existing T-routes will
enhance safety, increase efficiency and access, and will provide en
route continuity that is not subject to the restrictions associated
with ground based airway navigation.'' As part of this project, the FAA
evaluated the existing Colored Airway structure for: (a) Direct
replacement (i.e., overlay) with a T-route that offers a similar or
lower Minimum En route Altitude (MEA) or Global Navigation Satellite
System Minimum En route Altitude (GNSS MEA); (b) the replacement of the
colored airway with a T-route in an optimized but similar geographic
area, while retaining similar or lower MEA; or (c) removal with no
route structure (T-route) restored in that area because the value was
determined to be insignificant.
    The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to
transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from
dependency on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB), and move to develop and
improve the RNAV route structure. The FAA proposes to establish RNAV
route T-385 to offer alternate routing for Colored Federal airway B-12.
The proposed route would provide lower GNSS MEAs while ensuring
continuous two-way VHF communications for the entirety of the route.
Additionally, the proposed route would provide an RNAV waypoint (WP)
ZEKTI for Iliamna (ILI), AK, NDB in anticipation of the future
decommissioning schedule.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish
RNAV route T-385 in the vicinity of Kodiak, AK in support of a large
and comprehensive T-route modernization project for the state of
Alaska. The proposed route is described below.
    T-385: The FAA proposes to establish T-385 from the Kodiak, AK,
(ODK) VHF Omnidirectional Radar/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
to the ZEKTI, AK, WP located over ILI.
    United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph
6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F dated August 10, 2021 and effective
September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The RNAV listed in this document would be published subsequently in FAA
Order JO 7400.11F.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO
7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10,
2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6011 United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-385 Kodiak, AK to ZEKTI, AK [New]

KODIAK, AK (ODK)              VOR/DME             (Lat. 57[deg]46'30.13'' N, long. 152[deg]20'23.42'' W)
WUMVI, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 59[deg]01'11.75'' N, long. 153[deg]07'28.42'' W)
GAMIC, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 59[deg]22'48.60'' N, long. 154[deg]28'36.95'' W)
ZEKTI, AK                     WP                  (Lat. 59[deg]44'53.02'' N, long. 154[deg]54'34.73'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2021.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-22984 Filed 10-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 132 (Tuesday, July 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41323-41325]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14800]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1729]

Revocation of Emergency Use of a Drug During the COVID-19
Pandemic; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
revocation of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization)
issued to Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius Kabi), for Fresenius
Propoven 2% Emulsion. FDA revoked the Authorization on May 10, 2022,
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The
revocation, which includes an explanation of the reasons for the
revocation, is reprinted in this document.

DATES: The Authorization is revoked as of May 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the revocation
to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist
that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which
the Authorizations may be sent. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the Authorizations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Mair, Office of
Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002,<PHONE_NUMBER> (this is not a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) as amended by the
Project BioShield Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-276) and the Pandemic and
All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-5)
allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against
biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other
things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of
an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved
medical product in certain situations. On May 8, 2020, FDA issued an
Authorization (EUA 050) to Fresenius Kabi for Fresenius Propoven 2%
Emulsion, subject to the terms of the Authorization. Notice of the
issuance of the Authorization was published in the Federal Register on
September 11, 2020 (85 FR 56231), as required by section 564(h)(1) of
the FD&C Act. The authorization of a drug for emergency use under
section 564 of the FD&C Act may, pursuant to section 564(g)(2) of the
FD&C Act, be revoked when the criteria under section 564(c) of the FD&C
Act for issuance of such authorization are no longer met (section
564(g)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act), or other circumstances make such
revocation appropriate to protect the public health or safety (section
564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act).

II. EUA Revocation Request

    In a request received by FDA on April 8, 2022, Fresenius Kabi
requested revocation of, and on May 10, 2022, FDA revoked, the
Authorization for the Fresenius Propoven 2% Emulsion. Because Fresenius
Kabi notified FDA that it does not intend to offer the Fresenius
Propoven 2% Emulsion in the United States anymore and requested FDA
revoke the EUA for the Fresenius Propoven 2% Emulsion, FDA has
determined that it is appropriate to protect the public health or
safety to revoke this Authorization.

III. Electronic Access

    An electronic version of this document and the full text of the
revocation is available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov/.

IV. The Revocation

    Having concluded that the criteria for revocation of the
Authorization under section 564(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA
has revoked the EUA for Fresenius Kabi's Fresenius Propoven 2%
Emulsion. The revocation in its entirety follows and provides an
explanation of the reasons for revocation, as required by section
564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JY22.000

    Dated: July 5, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-14800 Filed 7-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 213 (Monday, November 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59397-59398]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24024]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0703]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
the following collection of information: 1625-NEW, Intermodal Container
Inspection Program. Our ICR describes the information we seek to
collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only
impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
December 4, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2019-0703] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, attention
Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

MANAGER, U.S. COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE SE, STOP
7710, WASHINGTON, DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777,
Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also
requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information
could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2019-0703], and must be received by December 4,
2019.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-NEW.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (84 FR 42940, August 19,
2019) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no
comments. Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Intermodal Container Inspection Program.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-NEW.
    Summary: The Coast Guard inspects containers and cargo within
containers to ensure compliance with domestic and international
standards. Coast Guard-issued forms provide stakeholders with the
results of container examinations.
    Need: Under the National Container Inspection Program, Coast Guard
personnel inspect intermodal containers and cargo within containers to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations and to promote maritime
safety, security, and stewardship for U.S. ports and waterways.
Specifically, the Coast Guard inspects containers for compliance with
the--
     Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law,
     International Safe Containers Act, and
     International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code.
    Forms: CG-5577, Intermodal Container Inspection Report; CG-5577A,
Intermodal Container Non-Deficiency Inspection Report; CG-5577B,
Intermodal Container Targeted Inspection Report.
    Respondents: Operators of container facilities.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden is 625 hours annually.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: October 30, 2019.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2019-24024 Filed 11-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P