OAKRIDGE NATIQNALLABORATORY ORNLITM 2001/ 17 5 ~ i MANAGED BY UT BATTELLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ?!

Measurements of Mercury Released from Solidified/ Stabilized Waste Forms April 2001 C. H. Mattus UT BATTELLE ORNL 27 ( 4 00) DOCUMENT AVAILABMTY Reports produced after January 1,1996, are generally available free via the U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE) Information Bridge.

Web site http:// www. osti. gov/ bridge Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source.

National Technical information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Telephone 703 605 6000 ( l 800 553 6847) TDD 703 487 4639 Fax 703 605 6900 E mail info@ ntis. fedworld. gov Web site http:// www. ntis. gov/ support/ ordernowabout. htm Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange ( ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear information System ( INIS) representatives from the following source.

Office of Scientific and Technical Information P. O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Telephone 865 576 8401 Fax 865 576 5728 E mail reportsQadonis. osti. gov We6 site httpz// www. osti. gov/ contact. html .

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. * Chemical Technology Division MEASUREMENTS OF MERCURY RELEASED FROM SOLIDIFIED/ STABILIZED WASTE FORMS C. H. Mattus . April 2001 .

Prepared for the U. S . Department of Energy Office of Technology Development Washington, D. C. 20585 Prepared by OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Oak Ridge, Tennessee 3783 l 6285 managed by UT BATTELLE, LLC for the U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY under contract DE AC054OOR22725 P CONTENTS s LISTOFFIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v . LISTOFTABLES.................................................................. vii ACRONYMS...............................................~....................... ix EXECUTIVE S UMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. xi 1. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2. INTRODUCTION ......................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3. WASTE DESCRIPTION .................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4. EQUIPMENT DESIGN  MERCURY VAPOR ANALYZER ............................. 4 5. MEASUREMENTS OF MERCURY RELEASE ........................................ 4 5.1 Experimental Procedure .......... ; ........................................... 5 5.2 Results of Tests Performed at 2 ° C ............................................. 6 5.3 Results of Tests Performed at 20 ° C 9 ............................................

5.4. Results of Tests Performed at 60 ° C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.1 QA/ QC PureMercurySamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2 QA/ QC Blank Samples ..................................................... 14 6.3 UntreatedSoil ............................................................ 15 6.4 Thermal Desorption  SepraDyne Process ...................................... 15 6.5 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Sulfur Polymer Cement  BNL Process ............ 15 6.6 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Portland Cement Based Additives  ATG Process ... 16 6.7 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Proprietary Additives  NFS Process .............. 16 7. CONCLUSIONS.. ............................................................... 16 8. REFERENCES ............................................................... ..: 17 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A l .

P . . . 111 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Mercury concentration in headspace at 2 ° C  samples with lower concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Mercury concentration in headspace at 2 ° C  samples with higher concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3 Mercury concentration in headspace at 20 ° C  samples with lower concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4 Mercury concentration in headspace at 20 ° C  samples with higher concentrations . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Mercury concentration in headspace at 60 ° C  samples with lower concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . 12 6 Mercury concentration in headspace at 60 ° C  samples with higher Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . 13 V * LIST OF TABLES L Table Page . 1 Characterization of the soil wastes ................................................. 3 2 Summary of technologies and soils used for demonstrations ............................. 3 3 Mercury concentrations in samples and in TCLP extracts ............................... 4 4 Vapor concentration of pure mercury over the temperature range investigated ............... 5 5 Instrument sensitivity as a function of the volume analyzed .......................... :. . 14 A l Summary of data for the samples maintained at 2 ° C .................................. A 3 A 2 Smnmary of data for the samples maintained at 20 ° C ................................. A 6 A 3 Summary of data for the samples maintained at 60 ° C ................................. A 9 1 vii , "

AMLGM ASTM I ATG BNL c& 4 CVAA DOE EPA IMERC INEEL LDR MLLW MWFA NFS ORNL rvb PPm RCRA RMERC SPC s/ s TCLP TLV UTS ACRON)? MS amalgamation American Society for Testing and Materials Allied Technology Group Brookhaven National Laboratory Clean Air Act cold vapor atomic absorption U. S. Department of Energy U. S. Environmental Protection Agency incineration of mercury wastes Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory Land Disposal Restrictions mixed low level waste Mixed Waste Focus Area Nuclear Fuel Services Oak Ridge National Laboratory parts per billion parts per million Resource Conservation and Recovery Act retorting or roasting of mercury wastes sulfur polymer cement solidification/ stabilization Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Threshold Limiting Value Universal Treatment Standards ix .

.

. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report covers work performed during FY 1999 2000 in support of treatment demonstrations conducted for the Mercury Working Group of the U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE) Mixed Waste Focus Area. In order to comply with the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as implemented by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), DOE must use one of these procedures for wastes containing mercury at levels above 260 ppm: a retorting/ roasting treatment or an incineration treatment ( if the wastes also contain organics). The recovered radioactively contaminated mercury must then be treated by an amalgamation process prior to disposal. The DOE Mixed Waste Focus Area and Mercury Working Group are working with the EPA to determine if some alternative processes could treat these types of waste directly, thereby avoiding for DOE the costly recovery step. They sponsored a demonstration in which commerqial vendors applied their technologies for the treatment of two contaminated waste soils from Brookhaven National Laboratory. Each soil was contaminated with  4500 ppm mercury; however, one soil had as a major radioelement americium 24 1, while the other contained mostly europium 152. The project described in this report addressed the need for data on the mercury vapor released by the solidified/ stabilized mixed low level mercury wastes generated during these demonstrations as well as the comparison between the untreated and treated soils. A related work began in FY 1998, with the measurement of the mercury released by amalgamated mercury, and the results were reported in ORNL/ TM 13728.

Four treatments were performed on these soils. The baseline was obtained by thermal treatment performed by SepraDyne Corp., and three forms of solidification/ stabilization were employed: one using sulfur polymer cement ( Brookhaven National Laboratory), one using portland cement [ Allied Technology Group ( ATG)], and a third using proprietary additives ( Nuclear Fuel Services).

The release of mercury vapor above the headspace of the untreated soils and waste forms was studied as a function of temperature. Three temperatures were selected: 2,20 22, and 60 ° C. Measurements were performed at three time intervals  1,3, and 7 days  to ensure that equilibrium between the solid and gas phases had been achieved.

Results showed that untreated soil containing either radionuclide ( americium or europium) released mercury vapor in the headspace in the same way that pure mercury was released. During the tests, some tiny droplets of elemental mercury were observed in the soil, which corroborates the measurements obtained. The soil treated by either process ( thermal desorption or solidification/ stabilization) released little mercury vapor in the headspace, up to a factor of 350 less when compared with the untreated soils. At 2O" C, the soil stabilized by ATG released the most mercury, at levels slightly above the threshold limiting value ( TLV) of 0.05 mg/ m3, with quantities varying between 0.04 and 0.11 mg/ m'. The other treated soils were found to be comparable with the thermal desorption process. However, it should be noted that because of the sensitivity of the instrument and the small volumes analyzed, a direct comparison of the results with the TLV is not appropriate.

At 60 ° C the same sample treated by ATG released between 1 and 3 mg/ m' of mercury, while the levels for the others were below 0.5 mg/ m3. These values should be compared with the releases measured in the untreated soils, which ranged from 100 to  1s'O mg/ m3.

xi ?

c . 1. BACKGROUND Significant quantities of waste containing both radioactive components and mercury [ mixed low level waste ( MLLW)] ` are currently stored at several U. S. Department of Energy ( DOE) facilities. In order to meet U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) Land Disposal Restrictions ( LDR), the treatment standard for this type of waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA), as set forth in 40 CFR 268.40, is amalgamation. For radioactively contaminated wastes containing mercury at levels above 260 ppm, one of two treatment standards is currently applied. If the waste does not contain organic constituents, retorting or roasting in a thermal processing unit is the treatment standard to follow; if the waste also contains organics, then incineration is the approved treatment standard. Recovery of the radioactive mercury is then followed by an amalgamation step before final disposal can occur. In an effort to reduce the costs associated with this two step treatment, the Mixed Waste Focus Area ( MFWA) and the Mercury Working Group are working together with the EPA to determine whether some form of direct treatment would meet the goal of a maximum TCLP extract concentration of 0.025 mg/ L mercury while also reducing the cost for final disposal of these wastes.

Recently, concerns have arisen about the release of mercury vapors from amalgamated or stabilized wastes. Much work was done to stabilize/ amalgamate the mercury, and success was declared when the leaching results were found to be satisfactory. However, no measurement of the headspace of the waste forms was performed and the possibility for volatilization of the mercury was overlooked. In the work performed in FY 1999 for the Mercury Working Group, the author of this report measured significant amounts of mercury vapors released by some amalgams prepared by commercial vendors ( I). Hamilton and Bowers have studied the release of mercury vapors from solidified/ stabilized waste forms using portland cement as a matrix ( 2). Their findings corroborate the author's: the concentration of mercury in the vapors increased with temperature and time when oxide or elemental mercury species were involved. The mercury was released quickly, and the headspace above the samples became saturated within a few hours. When mercury was stabilized with sulfide, no release of mercury vapor was measured.

Recently, in reporting to Congress, the R& D Mercury Group from the Florida landfill wrote that " the working face of the landfill may be more important than the landfill gas as a source of mercury emissions. While most of the mercury buried within the landfill may be immobilized, operations on the working face lead to emissions as mercury containing devices break. Moreover, the study found that landfills may emit highly toxic organic. mercury, as the result of reactions that take place within the landfill" ( 3).

2. INTRODUCTION l One of the primary performance requirements specified in the MWFA Technology Development . Requirements Document  Mercury Amalgamation  is related to vapor emissions: " The process must not release mercury vapors into the environment above the limits established by the applicable air permit [ in accordance with Clean Air Act ( CAA) requirements]. In addition, the process should not expose 1 operators to mercury vapors above the established Threshold Limiting Value ( TLV) of 0.05 mg/ m'. Using the TLV as a basis, the final waste form must have a vapor pressure of less than 1 Oe6 torr at 140 ° F" ( 4).

" Vapor pressure" is defined as the pressure at which a liquid or solid is in equilibrium with its vapor at a given temperature ( 5). This properly depends only upon the temperature and the composition of the material considered. For a typical liquid, a constant and reproducible vapor pressure exists, which varies only with the temperature ( i. e., it increases as the temperature rises).

The modified test procedure used in this study was very similar to the static headspace analysis method used by Kriger and Turner ( 6). In this technique, the mercury vapor pressure was allowed to reach equilibrium in a static headspace and the mercury concentration ( mass/ volume) in the headspace was subsequently measured using a commercial mercury vapor analyzer. This instrument was used successfully in the work performed during FY 1999 ( 1) and was also used by other scientists for similar work ( 2,6).

3. WASTE DESCRIPTION Two soil wastes stored at Brookhaven National Laboratory ( BNL) on Long Island, New York, were used in this demonstration. These soils contained about 4500 mg/ kg mercury and were also contaminated with radionuclides  americium 241 in one case and europium 152 in the other. For each soil, four drums were sampled and analyzed for radionuclide content, total mercury, and leachable mercury via the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure ( TCLP). Characterization of these two soils was performed at BNL, and data are provided in Table 1.

The vendors  BNL, SepraDyne, Allied Technology Group ( ATG), and Nuclear Fuel Services ( NFS)  provided samples of the untreated soil they received as well as the treated soil they generated via the, application of their processes. The untreated soil appeared to be a sand like material with some large pebbles and pieces of debris. Some vendors received only one type of soil for their demonstration, while others received both soils. Table 2 summarizes the technology as well as the type of soil used for each demonstration.

These samples will be used to test a new set of protocols developed by Dr. David Kosson at Vanderbilt University. This set of protocols, which could replace the controversial TCLP in the future, requires that particles in the sample be reduced in size to ~ 300 pm, ~ 2 mm, or 15 mm. For our project, based on the size of the untreated soil material, we chose a maximum size of 12 mm. All the samples were crushed if necessary and sieved. The sieved samples were then used for the mercury vapor measurement test. '

2 Table 1. Characterization of the soil wastes Soil contaminated with europium 152 Sbilcontaminkd with americium 24 1 E l E 2 E 3 E 4 Average A l A 2 A 3 A 4 Average Am 24l( pCi/ g) 0 0 0 0 0 12,230 9,085 12,130 17,160 12,651 cs 137 ( pCi/ g) 14.1 13.39 17.38 13.39 14.57 0.1257 0.0709 0.1736 0.3673 0.1844 Gross alpha @ G/ g) 327 714 345 584 493 5150 16,317 8467 15,795 11,432 Gross beta @ Ci/ g) 187 306 210 377 270 386 1114 768 1586 964 Eu 152 ( pCi/ g) 20.73 15.29 36.56 7.625 20.05 Eu 154 ( pCi/ g) 14.09 10.52 20.76 5.953 12.83 Pu 238 ( pCi/ g) 0 0 0 0 0 6.41 4.8 4.91 16.7 8.21 Pu 239/ 240 ( pCi/ g) 0.279 0.375 0.188 0.259 0.28 29.3 15.3 17.1 56.8 29.63 U 234 ( pCi/ g) 14.4 14 11.4 17.4 14.3 0.35 0.232 0.344 0.502 0.357 U 235 ( p& g) 0.66 0.774 0.562 0.773 0.692 0.023 0.045 0.0125 0.0197 0.0251 U 238 ( pCi/ g) 11.7 11.7 9.21 14.6 11.80 0.23 0.181 0.166 0.229 0.202 TCIJ @ g/ L) BariLllIl 1.56 1.78 1.48 1.82 li660 0.134 0.193 0.357 0.15 0.209 Mercury 0.208 0.245 0.191 0.212 0.214 0.868 1.5 1.39 1 1.190 CadmiUm 0.164 0.116 0.0999 0.148 0.132 0 0 0 0 0.000 Lead 0.754 0.789 0.736 0.993 0.818 < 0.015 0.0216 0.0263 < 0.015 0.024 Mercury ( m& g) 4,190 3,100 4,880 5,510 4,420 4,040 4,190 2,310 5,570 4,028 Table 2. Summary of technologies and soils used for demonstrations . Vendor Tecbnoloev Soil used BNL SepraDyne ATG NFS Sulfur polymer cement Thermal treatment Solidification/ stabilization Solidification/ stabilization Am 241 Am  241 and Eu 152 Eu 152 Am 241 Each sample received was analyzed by cold vapor atomic absorption ( CVAA) for total mercury concentration. The instrument used was a PS200 from Lehman Labs. The sample preparation and analysis were conducted according to EPA method SW846 7471. A modified TCLP test was performed on each sample following SW846 1311, using only 20 g of sample and 400 mL of extraction fluid instead of the 100 g/ 2 L indicated in Method 13 11. The extracts were then analyzed by CVAA for mercury. The results of both the total mercury concentration present in the sample and the mercury extracted in the TCLP test are provided in Table 3. Data provided by the vendor, when available, are shown in bold character.

3 Table 3. Mercury concentrations in samples and in TCLP extracts Sample Mercury concentration Mercury in modified b4&) TCLP tug/ L) Untreated soil ( Eu) received from ATG 5,480; 4,200 105; 282 Untreated soil ( Eu) received from BNL 3,250 78.7 Untreated soil ( Am) received from NPS 3,470 270 Untreated soil ( Am) received from BNL 3,280 401 SepraDyne thermal treatment  soil Eu 1.39 0.005 SepraDyne thermal treatment  soil Am 4.53 3.33 BNL sulfur polymer cement  soil Am 997 42.7 ATG solidification/ stabilization  soil Eu 1,840 32.9; 2.03 to 13.9'

NPS solidification/ stabilization  soil Am 2,410 3.0 Regulatory limit of mercury in TCLP 200 UTS limit for mercury ` Depends on the formulation used. 25 4. EQUIPMENT DESIGN  MERCURY VAPOR ANALYZER The instrument used for measurement of the vapor pressure of mercury was a Jerome 43 1 X gold film mercury vapor analyzer from Arizona Instruments ( Phoenix, Arizona). The range of detection is 0.000 to 0.999 mg/ m3 mercury. The sensitivity of the instrument is 0.003 mg/ m3, well below the TLV of 0.05 mg/ m3. The air sampling is performed with the aid of an internal pump. The amount of air sampled and analyzed each time is 87.5 n& The air flows through a guard column packed with soda lime for removing moisture and acid gases. The resulting dry vapor is deposited onto a gold film, which forms an amalgam with mercury, thus increasing the electrical resistance of the film. This instrument is stable and selective for mercury and, unlike ultraviolet analyzers, is not prone to interferences such as those from water vapor and hydrocarbons. When the sensor approaches its saturation limit, the instrument provides a warning; regeneration of the sensor then takes about 10 min. The instrument should not be used for about 30 min after regeneration of the sensor to allow the metal to cool down to room temperature.

5. MEASUREMENTSOF MERCURY RELEASE The objective of this set of experiments was to study the effect of temperature on the mercury vapors released from the various waste forms and untreated soils. Measurements were made at the following temperatures: 2" C, ambient ( 20 22"( I), and 60 ° C.

The objective of these tests was to measure the release of elemental mercury vapor over a given set of conditions for each candidate waste form and to compare the results with those for pure elemental mercury. In the literature, the mercury vapor pressure above pure mercury is expressed as a function of temperature. The expected gas space concentration of mercury at each temperature can be calculated 4 r from the mercury partial pressure using the ideal gas law, Eq. ( 1). The calculated data are presented in Table 4.

.

where W PM = RT ' V ( 1)

P = vapor pressure of the sample ( Pa),

W = mass of vaporized material ( g), A4 = molecular weight of mercury ( g . mol`), R = gas constant ( 8.31 Pa * m3 * mol* * K l), T = temperature ( K), v = volume analyzed ( m3).

Table 4. Vapor concentration of pure mercury over the temperature range investigated"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2.42 2.67 2.94 3.20 3.53 3.86 4.25 4.65 5.11 5.57 " Derive 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Md @ Wd 6.10 6.63 7.27 7.91 8.66 9.41 10.28 11.15 12.17 13.18 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 F& l ( mp/ m'f 14.37 15.54 16.93 18.31 19.91 21.51 23.36 25.20 27.34 29.47 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ekzis [ HEd ( mg/ m3)

31.93 34.38 37.22 40.04 43.30 46.53 SO. 26 53.96 58.22 62.46 y T (" 0 lHg1 ( mp/ m3) T (" 0 D w ( Wm') T T T (" Q [ Hgl ( mglm')

41 67.32 51 135.28 61 260.30 42 72.15 52 144.37 62 276.76 43 77.68 53 154.68 63 295.27 44 83.18 54 164.92 64 313.67 45 89.48 55 176.58 65 334.29 46 95.74 56 188.16 66 354.79 47 102.89 57 201.28 67 377.92 48 110.00 58 214.33 68 400.9 1 49 118.10 59 229.08 69 426.72 50 126.14 60 243.75 70 452.39 yszcs, 47th e& . on, p. D 108.

5.1 Experimental Procedure P The sample preparation was performed using Kapake pouches and glass sample vials with Teflon septa. The samples to be maintained at 2 and 20 ° C were introduced into the pouches, while those to be tested at 60 ° C were placed in glass vials. The samples at 0 3 ° C were placed in a container filled with ice and water and stored in a refrigerator set at 2 ° C. A thermocouple was placed in the liquid to measure the temperature of the bath where the samples were sitting. Tests made during FY 1999 showed that the samples could not simply remain in the refrigerator, since opening the door modified the temperature and thus introduced variations in the measurements. The samples at 20 22 ° C were maintained at room temperature in the laboratory using a thermocouple to monitor the temperature. The samples tested at 60 ° C were placed in a water bath to avoid fluctuation of temperature during sampling. The temperature of the water was monitored using equipment with a digital readout. Since the release of mercury in the headspace is independent of the amount of sample present, approximately 15 mL of material ( equivalent 5 to a tablespoon) was introduced into each bag or vial. The samples were not dried prior to testing. The bags were then filled with compressed air to provide the necessary volume needed for later sampling ( and to allow for volume changes during the curing time), heat sealed, and transferred into their respective locations for curing. All the samples were prepared in triplicate. For each temperature, as a means of ensuring quality, a blank and a sample containing pure mercury metal served as controls and were also run in triplicate. At selected time intervals, the samples were measured; then the bags were resealed.

Volumes of 0.2 to 10 mL of the headspace sample diluted to a total of 87.5 mL by room air were found to be appropriate for use in this set of experiments. The total concentration had to be recalculated to take into account the dilution made during sampling. Even though equilibrium between the sample and the air above is reached rapidly ( 2), measurements were made at 1,3, and 7 days to confirm that the data obtained were representative of an equilibrium condition.

Each bag was sampled and analyzed four times, and the results were averaged. The standard deviation for the 12 measurements made for each sample was used in calculating the error on the average concentration. The plots are bar graphs where the average concentration is represented in bold and the range of possible concentration is represented as a line on each side of the average. The large difference in mercury concentration among the samples did not allow adequate representation of the data on one plot in that the samples showing a low release of mercury would not have been differentiated. Therefore, two plots are presented for each temperature one representing the samples with low release of mercury, and the other representing the samples releasing larger amounts of mercury.

Because some treated samples were unavailable in May when the fust test was performed, another series of tests was conducted in September. Each time the same QA/ QC samples were measured with the samples, which explained the presence of the blank and two mercury standards. The thermal treatment samples from SepraDyne are associated with the blank and mercury standard A and were run in May. The three other treated soils  sulfur polymer cement by BNL, solidification and stablization by ATG, and solidification and stabilization by NFS were run in September and are associated with the blank and mercury standard B.

5.2 Rq&. s of Tests Performed at 2 ° C After 1,3, and 7 days, a series of measurements was performed. The data obtained are summarized in the appendix ( Table A. l), and Figs. 1 and 2 plot the average values obtained for each series as well as the domain of error associated with the measurements.

6 t`

*

J

 I..

L L

 PL( W) S/ S SAN PE(` JJV) S/ S SAN Pl( WV) S/ S SAN p& a) s/ s at/

Pe( n3) s/ s Elltl PM@ s/ s wd PL(` JJV) 3dS lN8 PC( W) 3dS lN9 PC( W) 3dS lN9 PL a ww P& 9 ww P l 9 ww pi ( f q) auAae& S ps ( ng) auhawdag pi ( ng) WAaeJdaS pi ( WV) auA@ adaS p& ( WV) CNhaE. Jdag p l ( uJV) aui@ JdaS PL V Yuw P& V Yum P 1 v ww 1 7 .

I I L  L I I

I L I I I I r P F 1 F E . Zi 3 d .

. m El 5.3 Results of Tests Performed at 20 ° C The samples tiere maintained at room temperature ( 21.5 " C) for this set of experiments. The data obtained at 1,3, and 7 days are summari zed in Table A. 2 of the appendix. Figures 3 and 4 plot the average values obtained for each series.

5.4 Results of Tests Performed at 60 ° C For this series of tests, the data showed more fluctuation than for the two other temperatures. Opening the water bath probably caused the temperature of the samples to drop; furthermore, the smaller volume of air sampled introduced a larger error in the mercury concentration measured. The data obtained are compiled in Table A 3 of the appendix and illustrated in Figs. 5 and 6.

6. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS i c Some parameters in these experiments were not controlled closely enough, thus providing only semi quantitative results that could not be used to determine if a waste form Was actually at or below the TLV concentration. Some of the samples were actually tested a long time after the treatment was completed, with the storage of the samples being uncontrolled during that time. The samples were size reduced to fit the experiment and may not represent the actual waste form in its definitive form. In order to accurately determine the concentration of mercury, larger volumes of air should be sampled. However, this would not be compatible with the experiment in the laboratory, which would require regeneration of the sensor after each measurement when using the mercury vapor analyzer supplied by Arizona Instruments. If a measurement was needed to compare the mercury released by the waste form with the TLV, it should be done on the actual waste form  monolith or not  after completion of the process. The waste form should also be maintained under controlled conditions  temperature, humidity, time  until the measurement is performed.

In this study, the results obtained at room temperature are probably me most accurate and reproducible since there was little fluctuation in temperature during the measurements. Sample volumes of 0.2 10 mL were used for the experiments. The error in the measured volume was estimated to be in the range of 20 25% for the smaller volumes and  5% for the higher volumes analyzed.

. As discussed in Sect. 4, the mercury vapor analyzer is sensitive to within 0.003 mg/ m3. This value needs to be corrected by the dilution factor; the resulting sensitivities for each volume analyzed are shown in Table 5. During the early phase of testing, smaller volumes were removed and analyzed without realizing that the sensitivity of the instrument suffered, as shown in Table 5. In subsequent tests, larger volumes were used to eliminate the issue of sensitivity. As a result, data associated with early measurements are higher than those in which larger volumes were used, making some data comparisons diffkult.

9 0.1 0.02 0 Fig. 3. Mercury concentration in headspace at 20 ° C samples with lower concentrations. PL El PJEPUW 6H PE 9 PJEPUW 6H P l 9 PJEPUW 6H P/ L( W) lN9 I! OS P~ l~~ Jwl PE oElhN9 l! OS PW~ Jwl P i+ MiNa iw pw= Jwn PL@ JV) SdN l! OS PW= JW l PE(` WkJN l! OS PW= JWn P l( Wk= IN l! OS PWaJYJn PL@ JvhNa l! OS P~ I~~ Jwl PG& whNa l! OS PW~ Jw l P l( whNa I!= Pw= Jwl PL V PJEPUW 6H PC V PJEPUW 6H P 1 V PJePWS 6H 11 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 u 5 Y k! m x 8 z ro m  0 7 a Fig. 5. Mercury concentration in headspace at 60 ° C samples with lower concentrations.  .

I . .

. . .

I  L I .

= I2 ., L PL 8 PJEPWS 6H PC 8 PJePUW fjH P L 8 PJ= PWS 6H

PL@ JVklN I! OS PwaJwn PI( W) SJN I!= PWWWl P l@ Jt'kdN l! OS PW~ JWl PL bJV) lNG I!= PWaJWfl PS bJJt'hN! Zl I!= PW~ JUJfl P I(` WfhNEl l! OS PW! aJWn w( n3) 9m w pw= Jwn Pc( n3kuv I!= pw= Jwn P L( n3) 91v 19s PaaJiun ,

PL V PJePWS 6H PC V PJePWS 6H PC V PJSPWS 6H 13 Table 5. Instrument sensitivity as a function of the volume analyzed Sample size ( mL) Sensitivity ( mg/ m3) .

0.2 1.31 0.3 0.875 1 0.2625 2 0.1313 3 0.0875 10 0.0263 6.1 QA/ QC Pure Mercury Sampies The concentration of mercury in the headspace of the mercury standard was found to be  1 3 mg/ m' at the lowest temperature, compared with the theoretical values of 2.42,2.67, and 2.94 at 1,2, and 3 " C, respectively. At ambient temperature, which was  2 l 22 " C, the measurements were found to be in the 17 to 2 1 mg/ m3 range, compared with the theoretical values of 15.54 and 19.91 at 22 and 25 " C, respectively. Larger deviations from the theoretical values were found for the samples maintained at 60 " C, which were determined to be lower. These deviations were probably due to the smaller volume of headspace gas analyzed; only 0.2 mL was used so that the sensor would not become saturated too rapidly. It was also noticed that the temperature of the bath dropped when the cover was removed during the measurements.

6.2 QA/ QC Blank Samples The samples tested in May on days 1 and 3 appear to have high mercury concentrations, while the results at day 7 are closer to zero. A problem with the instrument is a possible explanation for the high concentration value; however, both the sensitivity of the instrument and the volume of sample actually analyzed account for the insignificant difference in value. As shown in Table 5, the sensitivity of the instrument for 1 mL is 0.26 mg/ m'. This volume was used for the measurement of the blank on day 1 at a temperature of 2 ° C. On day 3, a volume of 3 mL was analyzed and the sensitivity for that volume was  0.09 mg/ m'. Finally on day 7, a volume of 10 mL was sampled, which corresponded to a sensitivity of 0.026 mg/ m'. The same volume of 10 mL was used for the blank at 20 ° C. For the September blank sample, a volume of 10 mL was used at 2 and 20 ° C.

14 6.3 Untreated Soil 1 The untreated soil was a sand like matrix with  10% moisture. The larger pebbles had been removed through use of a 2 mm sieve. The data obtained for the untreated soils showed that the soils released as , much mercury vapor in the headspace as pure mercury, even though the total concentration of mercury in the soil was only  4500 mg/ kg. As expected, the release of mercury vapor was independent of the predominant radionuclide contaminating the soil. Some very small droplets of elemental mercury were found in the soil, confirming the data obtained. Another interesting observation is that the 10% moisture content did not modify the concentration ofmercury in the headspace. These observations should emphasize the importance of immobilizing the mercury even when present at low concentrations into a form that is stable and able to retain all the mercury present in the waste. For waste samples contaminated with elemental mercury, as in this demonstration, the measurement of mercury vapor in the headspace of the waste form could also serve as a way to ensure that complete conversion of elemental mercury was achieved through the process.

L Two years ago, the Mercury Working Group conducted a demonstration in which commercial vendors tested their processes for amalgamating elemental mercury ( 1). One vendor used amalgamation with metals, but the process did not yield 100% conversion and some small droplets of mercury were visible in association with the amalgam formed. These samples showed as much mercury vapor in the headspace as that found for pure mercury. Such data corroborate the hypothesis that this type of measurement could serve as an indicator of the completion of the amalgamation process when stabilizing elemental mercury.

c These findings corroborate the results obtained by Gorin et al. ( 7) and others ( 3,6). In this experiment, very rapid kinetics of equilibrium existed between the sample and the headspace, and equilibrium was reached within 1 day. A study performed at Vanderbilt University ( 3) provides an explanation concerning the mechanisms of mercury stabilization, depending on which chemical forms of mercury exist in the waste.

P 6.4 Thermal Desorption  SepraDyne Process The soil treated by thermal desorption was a sandy, dusty, black material that had been sifted through a 2 mm sieve. This process was the baseline for the treated samples since it is the current EPA approved treatment process for waste contaminated with levels of mercury above 260 ppm. The concentration of mercury vapor in the headspace was found to be the same as the blank and involved the same sensitivity issue since the volumes used were the same as those analyzed in May. The difference with the blank is that a volume of 2 mL was analyzed on day 1 at 2 ° C with a corresponding sensitivity of  0.13 mg/ m'.

6.5 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Sulfur Polymer Cement  BNL Process The soil treated by sulfur polymer cement was cast in a monolith form the size of a l gal can. The material was broken into pieces small enough to use a jaw crusher to fit the 2 mm sieve. As found in the results for FY 1999, mercury contaminated wastes treated with sulfide yielded the most stable waste forms. The waste treated with sulfur polymer cement showed very little or no release of mercury vapor, even at higher temperatures. Its effectiveness is comparable to that of the thermal desorption process.

15 6.6 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Portland Cement Based Additives  ATG Process The soil treated with this process was received in the form of a gray, crushed material with hard clumps, much like cement based materials. The moisture content of the sample was less than 5%. Larger particles had to be size reduced in a mortar to fit the 2 mm sieve. Even though the total amount of mercury was not elevated, this process appeared to release the most mercury of the samples tested. At 2O" C, the release measured slightly above the TLV of 0.05 mg/ m'. This could indicate that the elemental mercury was not completely amalgamated prior to the solidification of the cement matrix.

6.7 Solidification/ Stabilization Using Proprietary Additives  NFS Process

The sample received from this process was a sand like material that was darker than the original soil. Unlike the sulfur polymer cement and the ATG processes, this process generated a flowing, rather than a hard, final material. The moisture content 15% was slightly higher than that in the original soil. This process appeared to be successful in binding the elemental mercury in a form in which mercury vapors cannot be generated since at higher temperatures, the release is not significant and is comparable to that achieved via thermal desorption processes.

7. CONCLUSIONS Two contaminated waste soils, each with a mercury level of about. 4500 ppm, were used for testing different processes that claimed to reduce the mercury to levels below the regulatory limit: that is, 0.025 mg/ L in the TCLP leachate of the sample as stated in EPA method SW846 13 11. One vendor measured the mercury reacting ionic species that could combine with mercury, and the total did not account for all the mercury present in the waste. During the testing, some tiny droplets of elemental mercury could be seen in the untreated soil. e The four processes evaluated  thermal desorption by SepraDyne, solidification/ stabilization using sulfur polymer cement by BNL, solidification/ stabilization using portland cement additives by ATG, and solidification/ stabilization using proprietary additives by NFS  as reported by the vendor to the Mercury Working Group, reached the goal of achieving TCLP results below the regulatory limit ( 0.025 mg/ L). In this study, when the samples were subjected to a modified TCLP test, the concentrations of mercury in the TCLP leachates were found to be slightly above 0.025 mg/ L in some cases.

The EPA was also interested in comparing the TCLP results with some measurements of the mercury vapor concentration in the headspace of the waste form. Measurements of the mercury vapor in the headspace of the untreated soils showed that the soils attained about the same equilibrium vapor pressure of mercury as the elemental mercury standard used in the experiment. The samples treated by either process ( thermal desorption or solidification/ stabilization) showed greatly reduced vapor concentrations ( up to a factor of about 350). The soil treated by ATG appeared to exhibit the highest mercury vapor pressure at ambient temperature, while the other processes gave results comparable to those obtained by thermal desorption. 16 Because of the larger experimental uncertainty related to the instrument sensitivity for the lower concentration results, a direct comparison of the results with the TLV is not appropriate. If comparison with the TLV was required, the test would have to be performed under strict conditions where parameters such as temperature, humidity, physical state of the waste form, and elapsed time between the treatment and testing are controlled and kept constant for all processes tested.

1.

2.

3.

e 4.

*

5.

6.

7. 8. REFERENCES C. H. Mattus, Measurements of Mercury Releasedfrom Amalgams and SuIfde Compounds, ORNL/ TM 13 728, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, April 1999.

W. P. Hamilton and A. R. Bowers, " Determination of Acute Hg Emissions from Solidified/ Stabilized Cement Waste Forms," Wmte MaPlagement 17( l), 25 32 ( 1997).

S. E. Lindberg et al., Pathways of Mercury in Solid Waste Disposal, ORNL Sampling Operations Summary and Preliminary Data Report for PaMSWbD 4 Brevard County Landfill, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, February 6, 1999.

Mercury Amalgamation, Mixed Waste Focus Area, Technology Development Requirements Document, INEL/ EXT 97 003 14, Rev. 0, March 1997.

D. M. Considine and G. D. Con& dine, eds., Encyclopedia of Chemistry, 4th ed., Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1984.

A. A. Kriger and R. R. Turner, Field Analysis of Mercury in Water, Sediment and Soil Using Static Headspace Analysis, CONF 940729 2,1994.

A. H. Gorin, J. H. Leckey, and L. E. Nulf Final Disposal Options for Mercury/ Uranium Mixed Wastesj? om the Oak Ridge Reservation, Y DZ 1106, Oak Ridge Y 12 Plant, August 1994.

17 APPENDIX i * . t . . R d Table A. l. Summary of data for the samples maintained at 2 ° C lample Size 1 day  05/ 09/ 00 VW 3 days  OS/ l l/ 00 Wgl 7 days  05/ 15/ 00 Wgl lame WI readings ( w/ m31 readings ( w/ m3) readings ( w/ m3)

Hank  A ( 1) 1 d: 1 0.008 0.004 0 0.003 0.328 0.004 0 0 0.004 0.058 0 0 0 0 0.000 Hank A ( 2) 3d: 3 0.004 0.004 0 0.004 0.263 0.004 0.003 0 0 0.051 0 0 0 0 0.000 Hank A ( 3) 7 d: 10 0.006 0 0.003 0 0.197 0.004 0.004 0.004 0 0.088 0 0 0.004 0 0.009 Average 0.263 0.066 0.003 sx 0.217 0.056 0.010 Error 0.14 0.04 0.01 Aercury standard A ( 1) ld: 2 0.046 0.041 0.048 0.03 1.805 0.038 0.042 0.049 0.046 1.914 0.079 0.08 0.077 0.076 2.275 nercury standard A ( 2) 3 d: 2 0.035 0.036 0.035 0.035 1.542 0.047 0.043 0.044 0.048 1.991 0.077 0.075 0.077 0.078 2.239 nercury standard A ( 3) 7d: 3 0.04 0.041 0.04 0.04 1.761' 0.044 0.041 0.046 0.042 1.892 0.085 0.081 0.081 0.081 2.392 Average 1.703 1.932 2.302 sx 0.211 0.133 0.078 Error 0.13 0.08 0.05 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 1) 1 d: 2 0.063 0.064 0.063 0.059 2.723 0.051 0.05 0.048 0.051 2.188 0.099 0.1 0.097 0.096 2.858 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 2 0.059 0.058 0.061 0.059 2.592 0.037 0.026. 0.029 0.033 1.367 0.1 0.103 0.103 0.1 2.960 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 3) 7d: 3 0.062 0.057 0.059 0.048 2.472 0.09 0.083 0.082 0.084 3.708 0.114 0.1 0.114 0.11 3.194 Average 2.596 2.421 3.004 sx 0.176 0.979 0.174 Error 0.11 0.62 0.11 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 1) 1 d: 2 0.065 0.062 0.055 0.063 2.680 0.034 0.039 0.039 0.038 1.641 0.087 0.085 0.084 0.085 2.486 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 2) 3d: 2 0.052 0.056 0.061 0.057 2.472 0.042 0.04 0.039 0.035 1.706 0.098 0.1 0.097 0.096 2.851 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 3) 7d: 3 0.066 0.062 0.062 0.065 2.789 0.046 0.04 0.039 0.042 1.827 0.073 0.071 0.053 0.059 1.867 Average 2.647 1.724 2.401 sx 0.187 0.132 0.431 Error 0.12 0.08 0.27 Table A. 1 ( cont.)

Sample Size 1 day  05/ 09/ 00 NitI 3 days  05/ l l/ 00 W& l 7  days 05/ 15/ 00 Wgl name WI readings ( mg/ m3) readings * ( ms/ m3) readings ( mg/ rr+)

Untreated soil NFS( Am)( 1) 1 d: 2 ,, 0.078 0.077 0.074 0.077 3.347 0.05 0.051 0.054 0.053 2.275 0.092 0.096 0.09 0.09 2.683 Untreated soil NFS( Am)( 2) 3 d: 2 0.06 0.056 0.055 0.056 2.483 0.055 0.049 0.052 0.047 2.220 0.096 0.085 0.086 0.08 2.530 Untreated soil NFS( Am)( 3) 7d: 3 0.055 0.053 0.049 0.052 2.286 0.038 0.035 0.023 0.023 1.302 0.071 0.067 0.064 0.057 1.889 Average 2.705 1.932 2.367 sx 0.468 0.486 0.370 Error 0.30 0.31 0.24 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 1) l& 2 0.051 0.055 0.053 0.053 2.319 0.043 0.079 0.08 0.081 3.095 0.087 0.083 0.066 0.063 2.180 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 2) 3d: 2 0.055 0.05 0.043 0.052 2.188 0.094 0.052 0.041 2.727 0.08 0.053 0.065 0.052 1.823 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 3) 7d: 3 0.059 0.051 0.052 0.05 2.319 0.08 0.077 0.07 0.075 3.303 0.109 0.078 0.068 0.07 2.370 Average 2.275 3.042 2.124 sx 0.160 0.716 0.442 Error 0.10 0.45 0.28 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 1) 1 d: 2 0.008 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.219 0.005 0 0 0 0.036 0.003 0.004 0 0 0.015 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 2) 3 d: 3 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.175 0.003 0.004 0.004 0 0.080 0 0 0 0 0.000 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 3) 7 d: 10 0.004 0.003 0 0.102 0.004 0.004 0.003 0 0.080 0 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.165 0.066 0.005 sx 0.076 0.057 0.012 Error 0.05 0.04 0.007 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 1) 1 d: 2 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.197 0.003 0 0.003 0 0.044 0 0 0 0 0.000 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 2) 3d: 3 0.005 0.003 0 0.003 0.120 0 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.080 0 0 0 0 0.000 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 3) 7 d: 10 0.004 0 0 0 0.044 0.006 0 0 0 0.044 0 ' 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.120 0.056 0.000 SX 0.091 0.061 0.000 Error 0.06 0.04 0.000 Table A l ( cont.)

Sample Size 1 day  09/ 26/ 00 U& l 3 days  09/ 28/ 00 Wsl 7 days  10/ 02/ 00 Wgl name 0. m readings ( mg/ m3) readings ( w2/ m3) readings ( mg/ m3) Blank  B ( 1) 1 d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Blank B ( 2) 3 d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Blank B ( 3) 7d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.000 0.000 0.000 sx 0.000 0.000 0.000 Error 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mercury standard B ( 1) 1 d: 3 0.13 0.113 0.111 0.108 3.369 0.094 0.09 0.091 0.104 2.764 0.105 0.1 0.095 0.095 2.880 Mercury standard B ( 2) 3d: 3 0.111 0.099 0.098 0.116 3.092 0.094 0.091 0.087 0.085 2.603 0.098 0.102 0.1 0.1 2.917 Mercury standard B ( 3) 7d: 3 0.093 0.094 0.09 0.88 8.436 0.098 0.101 0.095 0.098 2.858 0.102 0.1 0.101 0.105 2.975 Average 4.966 2.742 2.924 sx 6.250 0.157 0.089 Error 3.97 0.099 0.06 BNL SPC ( Am)( 1) l& 10 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.004 0 0.003 0.004 0.024 BNL SPC ( Am)( 2) 3d: lO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.013 0.004 0 0 0.003 0.015 BNL SPC ( Am)( 3) 7d: 10 0.003 0.003 0 0.003 0.020 0 0.003 0.004 0 0.015 0 0 0 0 0.000 k Average 0.007 t! h 0.009 0.013 sx 0.011 0.014 0.016 Error 0.007 0.009 . 0.01 ATG S/ S ( Eu)( 1) 1 d: 10 0.009 0 0 0 0.020 0.013 0 0 0 0.028 0 0 0 0 0.000 ATG S/ S ( Eu)( 2) 3d: 10 0.003 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.039 0 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.033 0 0 0 0 0.000 ATG S/ S ( Eu)( 3) 7 d: 10 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.063 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.057 0 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.041 0.039 0.000 sx 0.027 0.034 0.000 Error 0.017 0.021 0.00 NFS S/ S ( Am)( 1) 1 d: 10 0.008 0.005 0.007 0.008 0.061 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.013 0.081 0 0 0 0 0.000 NFS S/ S ( Am)( 2) 3 d: 10 0.008 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.063 0.008 0.013 0.02 0.008 0.107 0 0 0 0 0.000 NFS S/ S ( Am)( 3) 7d: 10 0.008 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.055 0.013 0.008 0.011 0.01 0.092 0 0 0 0 0.000~

Average 0.060 0.093 0.000 sx 0.011 0.033 0.000 Error 0.007 0.021 0.00 1 Table A 2. Summary of data for the samples maintained at 20 ° C ample Size 1 day  05/ 09/ 00 W& l 3 days  05/ l l/ 00 [& I 7 days  05/ 15/ 00 Wgl ame W J readings ( midm3> readings tmdm3> readings tmg/ m3: Ilank  A ( 1) 1 d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.042 0 0 0 0 0.000 ilank A ( 2) 3 d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.039 0 0 0 0 0.000 Ilank A ( 3) 7 d: 10 0 0 0 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.042 0 0 0 0 0.000 4verage 0.000 0.041 0.000 SX 0.000 \ 0.011 0.000 Error 0.000 0.007 0.000 lercury standard A ( 1) 1 d: 1 0.207 0.204 0.203 0.199 17.784 0.194 0.199 0.19 0.197 17.063 0.204 0.198 0.207 0.212 17.959 Mercury standard A ( 2) 3 d: 1 0.205 0.2 ,0.194 0.198 17.434 0.218 0.218 0.219 0.22 19.141 0.212 0.211 0.199 0.204 18.069 llercury standard A ( 3) 7d: 1 0.199 0.197 0.2 0.192 17.238 0.219 0.208 0.204 0.206 18.309 0.199 0.208 0.191 0.189 17.216 Average 17.49 18.17 17.75 SX 0.369 0.920 0.652 Error 0.234 0.584 0.414 Jntreated soil ATG@ u)( 1) 1 d: 1 0.216 0.218 0.218 0.224 19.163 0.186 0.166 0.179 0.191 15.794~ 0.178 0.187 0.183 0.179 15.903 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 1 0.223 0.221 0.227 0.227 19.644 0.188 0.176 0.18 0.183 15.903 0.188 0.177 0.173 0.177 15.641 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 3) 7 d: 1 0.223 0.221 0.219 0.223 19.381 0.134 0.176 0.148 0.139 13.059 0.182 0.163 0.168 0.158 14.678 4verage 19.40 14.92 15.41 sx 0.293 1.636 0.771 Error 0.186 1.039 0.489 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 1) 1 d: 1 0.215 0.224 0.22 0.212 19.053 0.185 0.186 0.188 0.18 16.166 0.225 0.22 0.21 0.202 18.747 Jntreated soil BFiL@ h)( 2) 3 d: 1 0.215 0.215 0.213 0.212 18.703 0.208 0.198 0.222 0.198 18.069 0.208 0.204 0.201 0.199 17.763 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 3) 7 d: 1 0.202 0.217 0.208 0.203 18.156 0.162 0.159 0.16 0.158 13.978 0.203 0.199 0.198 0.194 17.369 4verage 18.64 16.07 17.96 sx 0.533 1.752 0.770 Error 0.339 1.112 0.489 u 1 Table A 2 ( cont.) * . i Sample Size 1 day  05lO9lOO Fkl 3 days  05/ l 1100 FM 7 days  05/ 15/ 00 [& I name ( mL) readings ( mg/ m' readings ( mg/ m' readings mg/ m'

UntreatedsoilNFS( Am)( 1) 1 d: 1 0.22 0.209 0.209 0.206 18.463 0.196 0.197 0.19 0.19 16.909 0.19 0.198 0.191 0.191 16.844 Untreated soilNFS( Am)( 2) 3 d: 1 0.21 0.202 0.212 0.205 18.134 0.194 0.197 0.193 0.195 17.041 0.199 0.199 0.192 0.199 17.259 Untreated soilNFS( Am)( 3) 7 d: 1 0.202 0.204 0.202 0.205 17.784 0.2 0.199 0.196 0.189 17.150 0.187 0.182 0.188 0.189 16.319 Average 18.13 17.03 16.81 sx 0.440 0.300 0.465 Error 0.280 0.190 0.295 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 1) 1 d: 1 0.208 0.212 0.21 0.208 18.331 0.222 0.219 0.229 0.213 19.316 0.222 0.188 0.203 0.203 17.850 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 1 0.223 0.25 0.252 0.245 21.219 0.218 0.218 0.217 0.208 18.834 0.199 0.208 0.204 0.209 17.938 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 3) 7 d: 1 0.237 0.247 0.252 0.244 21.438 0.216 0.174 0.175 0.184 16.384 0.218 0.2 0.182 0.18 17.063 Average. . 20.33 18.18 17.62 sx 1.558 1.587 1.082 Error 0.989 1.008 0.687 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 1) 1 d: 10 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.009 0.006 0.007 0.005 0.059 0 0 0 0 0.000 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 2) 3d: lO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.057 0 0 0 0 0.000 3epraDyne ( Am)  ( 3) 7d: lO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.048 0 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.000 0.055 0.000 sx 0.000 0.015 0.000 Error 0.000 0.010 0.000 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 1) 1d: lO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.039 0 0 0 0 0.000 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 2) 3 d: 10 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.048 0 0 0 0 0.000 ; epraDyne ( Eu)  ( 3) 7d: lO 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.039 0 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.000 0.042 I 0.000 sx 0.000 0.011 0.000 Error 0.000 0.007 0.000 Table A 2 ( cont.)

ample Size 1 day  09/ 26/ 00 WI 3 days  09l28lOO D k1 7 days  1 O/ 02/ 00 FM ame ( mL) readings . ( mg/ m3) readings ( mg/ m3) readings ._ ( mg/ m3)

llank B ( 1) 1d: lO 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 ilank B ( 2) 3d: lO 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 ilank B ( 3) 7d: lO 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0. 0 0.000 Iverage 0.000 0.000 0.000 sx 0.000 0.000 0.000 Error 0.00 0.00 0.00 lercury standard B ( 1) 1 d: 1 0.234 0.225 0.231 0.235 20.234 0.222 0.188 0.228 0.222 18.813 0.248 0.257 0.252 0.237 21.744 lercury standard B ( 2) 3 d: 1 0.226 0.235 0.223 0.225 19.884 0.23 0.265 0.256 0.244 21.766 0.252 0.239 0.236 0.229 20.913 4ercury standard B ( 3) 7 d : 1 0.223 0.227 01222 0.223 19.578 0.222 0.222 0.215 0.221 19.250 0.243 0.231 0.219 0.223 20.038 9verage 19.90 19.94 20.898 sx 0.417 1.671 1.008 Error 0.27 1.06 0.64 INL SPC ( Am) ( 1) 1 d: 10 0.003 0.007 0.005 0.007 0.048 0 0 0 0.003 0.007 0.003 0.004 0.003 0 0.022 INL SPC ( Am) ( 2) 3d: lO 0 0 0.009 0.005 0.031 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.003 0.003 0.003 0 0.020 INL SPC ( Am) ( 3) 7 d: 10 0.004 0.004 0.005 0 0.028 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.031 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.033 9verage 0.036 : 0.012 0.025 sx 0.025 0.015 0.012 Error 0.02 0.01 0.01 LTG S/ S ( Eu)( 1) 1 d: 10 0 0.006 0.012 0.009 0.059 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.092 .0.005 0.014 0.008 0.006 0.072 irG S/ S ( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 10 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.01 0.079 0 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.039 0.015 0.013 0.009 0.011 0.105 , TG S/ S ( Eu)( 3) 7d: 10 0.013 0.012 0.017 0.015 0.125 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.050 0 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.024 4verage 0.088 0.061 0.067 sx 0.037 0.028 0.040 Error 0.02 0.02 0.03 JFS S/ S ( Am)( 1) 1 d: 10 0 0 0.007 0.012 0.042 0 0.003 0.004 0 0.015 0 0 0 0 0.000 iFS S/ S ( Am)( 2) 3d: 10 0.004 0.01 0.008 0.01 0.070 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 IFS S/ S ( Am)( 3) 7d: lO 0 0.003 0.007 0.009 0.042 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.051 0.005 0.000 SX 0.036 0.012 0.000 * . L * * .

Table A 3. Summary of data for the samples maintained at 60 ° C lample Size 1 day  05lO9lOO [ J& d 3 days  05/ l l/ 00 U& l 7 days  05/ 15/ 00 U W lame tniL) readings ( mdm3) readings tmg/ m3) readings ( mg/ m'> blank  A ( 1) 1 d: 1 0.006 0 0 0 0.131 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.186 0 0 0 0 0.000 Hank A ( 2) 3 d: 2 b. 009 0.006 0.011 0.005 0.678 0.007 0.008 0.005 0.005 0.273 0 0 0 0 0.000 blank A ( 3) 7 d: 2 0.011 0.011 0.012 0.013 1.028 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.197 0 0 0 0 0.000 hverage 0.61 0.22 0.00 sx 0.412 0.067 0.000 Error 0.26 0.04 0.00 dercury standard A ( 1) 1 d: 0.3 0.456 0.441 0.458 0.501 135.33 0.533 0.569 0.545 0.513 236.3 0.492 0.484 0.422 0.403 197.0 hercury standard A ( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.412 0.464 0.5 0.567 141.68 0.433 0.456 0.409 0.397 185.4 0.307 0.253 0.31 0.256 123.2 / lercury standard A ( 3) 7d: 0.2 0.462 0.525 0.484 0.493 143.21 0.343 0.325 0.34 0.386 152.5 0.312 0.401 0.386 0.271 149.8 Average 140 191 157 sx 11.422 35.773 35.409 Error 7 23 22 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 1) 1 d: 0.3 0.499 0.501 0.504 0.488 145.25 0.442 0.386 0.415 0.428 182.8 0.532 0.518 0.452 0.449 213.4 Jntreated soil ATG( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.45 0.459 0.469 0.45 133.29 0.333 0.332 0.361 0.379 153.7 0.381 0.337 0.341 0.299 148.5 Jntreatedsoil ATG( Eu)( 3) 7 d: 0.2 0.588 0.501 0.594 0.59 165.74 0.319 0.329 0.342 0.319 143.2 0.301. 0.298 0.278 0.273 125.8 4verage 148 160 163 sx 15.006 18.397 39.130 Error 10 12 25 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 1) 1 d: 0.3 0.303 0.345 0.359 0.348 98.80 0.31 0.234 0.255 0.231 112.7 0.366 0.334 0.317 0.305 144.6 Jntreated soil BNL( Am)( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.302 0.317 0.378 0.403 102.08 0.226 0.275 0.277 0.251 11215 0.301 0.283 0.251 0.258 119.5 Jntreatedsoil BNL( Am)( 3) 7d: 0.2 0.335 0.35 0.321 0.373 100.55 0.238 0.25 0.244 0.259 108.4 0.252 0.227 0.215 0.195 97.2 4verage 100 111 120 sx 8.643 9.965 21.456 Error 5 6 14 Table A 3 ( cont.)

Sample Size 1 day  05/ 09/ 00 F& l 3 days  05/ l l/ O0 B& t1 7 days  05/ 15/ 00 Wgl name G a readings ( Wd readings ( mg/ m3) readings ( mg/ m3. Untreated soil NFS( A&)( 1) 1 d: 0.3 0.357 0.356 0.386 0.337 104.71 0.262 0.282 0.297 0.318 126.8 0.38 0.36 0.349 0.329 155.1 Untreated soilNFS( Ar&( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.438 0.423 0.414 0.454 126.07 0.296 0.287 0.301 0.314 131.0 0.318 0.334 0.319 0.309 140.0 Untreated soil NFS( Am)( 3) 7 d: 0.2 0.36 0.357 0.272 0.244 89.91 0.25 0.231 0.236 0.247 105.4 0.241 0.249 0.234 0.249 106.4 Average 107 121 134 sx 17.608 12.73 21.051 Error 11 8 13 Untreated soil BNL@ u)( 1) 1 d: 0.3 0.464 0.46 0.515 0.462 138.61 0.388 0.396 0.382 0.328 163.4 0.376 0.36 0.349 0.365 158.6 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.574 0.555 0.559 0.45 155.90 0.373 0.354 0.346 0.337 154.2 0.313 0.318 0.3 0.273 131.7 Untreated soil BNL( Eu)( 3) 7 d: 0.2 0.408 0.408 0.391 0.44 120.09 0.294 0.286 0.297 0.284 127.0 0.678 0.576 0.509 0.436 240.5 Average 138 148 177 sx 17.508 17.26 51.708 Error 11 11 33 ( Am) ( 1)  SepraDyne 1 d: 1 0.009 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.438 0 0 0 0.004 0.044 0.005 0.004 0 0.009 0.197 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 2) 3 d: 2 0.01 0 0 0 0.219 0.004 0.009 0.005 0 0.197 0.009 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.263 SepraDyne ( Am)  ( 3) 7d: 2 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.007 0.004 0.008 0.008 0.295 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.006 0.295 Average 0.22 0.18 0.25 sx 0.306 0.145 0.103 Error 0.19 0.09 0.07 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 1) 1d: l 0 0 0 0 0.000 0.009 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.241 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.004 0.273 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 2) 3d: 2 0 0.007 0 0.009 0.350 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.208 0.009 0.007 0.006 0.007 0.317 SepraDyne ( Eu)  ( 3) 7d: 2 0 0 0.005 0.008 0.284 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.230 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.186 Average 0.21 0.23 0.26 sx 0.308 0.059 0.077 I Error 0.20 0.04 0.05 I t f Table A 3 ( cont.)

Sample Size 1 day  09/ 26/ 00 U& l 3 days  09/ 28/ 00 D M 7 days  10/ 02/ 00 Wgl name WA readings ( mg/ m") readings ( mg/ m3) readings ( mg/ m3)

Blank  B ( 1) ld: 3 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Blank B ( 2) 3d: 3 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Blank B ( 3) 7d: 3 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 Average 0.000 0.000 0.000 sx 0.000 0.000 0.000 Error 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mercury standard B ( 1) 1 d: 0.2 0.289 0.33 0.374 0.378 149.953 0.364 0.37 0.375 0.39 163.953 0.275 0.398 0.45 0.452 172.266 Mercury standard B ( 2) 3 d: 0.2 0.24 0.277 0.287 0.358 127.094 0.336 0.331 0.314 0.317 141.969 0.332 0.363 0.387 0.363 158.047 Mercury standard B ( 3) 7d: 0.2 0.319 0.309 0.287 0.291 131.906 0.365 0.346 0.325 0.35 151.594 0.351 0.348 0.32 0.34 148.641 Average 136.3 152.5 159.651 sx 17.557 10.264 21.395 Error 11.15 6.52 13.59 BNL SPC ( Am)`( l) Id: 3 0 0.024 0.037 0.044 0.766 0.01 0.011 0.012 0.009 0.306 0 0 0 0 0.000 BNL SPC ( Am) ( 2) 3d: 3 0 0 0.003 0.014 0.124 0.019 0.02 0.016 0.015 0.510 0.005 0 0 0 0.036 BNL SPC ( Am) ( 3) 7d: 3 0.037 0.022 0.028 0.021 0.788 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.459 0.005 0 0 0 0.036 Average 0.559 0.425 0.024 sx 0.442 0.096 0.054 Error 0.28 0.06 0.03 4TG S/ S ( Eu)( 1) l& 3 0.093 0.055 0.059 0.047 1.852 0.224 0.091 0.053 0.069 3.186 0.065 0.066 0.092 0.065 2.100 4TG S/ S ( Eu)( 2) 3d: 3 0.02 0.038 0.048 0.03 0.992 0.06 0.077 0.085 0.05 1.983 0.087 0.05 0.06 0.047 1.779 4TG S/ S ( Eu)( 3) 7d: 3 0.039 0.053 0.061 0.043 1.429 0.057 0.065 0.057 0.072 1.830 0.062 0.06 0.059 0.047 1.663 Average 1.424 2.333 1.847 sx 0.512 1.315 0.390 Error 0.33 0.84 0.25 I\ IFS S/ S ( Am)( 1) ld: 3 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 $ 000 VFS S/ S ( Am)( 2) 3d: 3 0 0 0 0.004 0.029 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0.004 0.005 0.066 VFS S/ S ( Am)( 3) 7d: 3 0 0 0 0.004 0.029 0 0 0 0.006 0.044 0 0 0 0.003 0.022 Average 0.019 0.015 0.029 sx 0.043 0.048 0.052 Error 0.03 0.03 0.0 ORNL/ T@ f 2OOY17 I INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION 1. T. B. Conley 2. R. T. Jubin 3. C. M. Kendrick 4. P. Kirk 5. K. T. Klasson 6 10. C. H. Mattus 11. L. E. McNeese 12 13. M. I. Morris 14. S. M. RObinson 15. R. D: Spence 16. Central Research Library 17. Laboratory Records  RC 18 19. Laboratory Records  for submission to OSTI P EXTERNAL DISTRfBUTION c 20. John Austin, U. S. EPA, OSW/ 5302W,. 401 M Street, Washington, DC 20460 21. Mary Cunningham, U. S. EPA, OSW/ 5302W, 401 M Street, Washington, DC 20460 22. Ron Fontana, DOE Idaho Operations,` 850 Energy Drive, Idaho Falls; lD% 34Oi 1235 23. G. A. Hulet, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 2525 N. Freemont, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 3875 * 24. D. A. Hutchins, U. S. DOE, 55 Jefferson Avenue, MS EW97, Oak Ridge, TN 37830 25. N. Jacobs, Nuclear Fuel Services, 1205 Banner Hill Road, Erwin, TN 37650 26. Paul Kalb, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 34 North Railroad St, Upton, NY 11973 27. David S. Kosson, Vanderbilt University, Box 1831 Station B, Nashville, TN 37235 28. Josh Lewis, U. S. EPA, OSW/ 5302W, 401 M Street, Washington, DC 20460` 29. Bill Ocwa, DOE Idaho Operations, 2525 N. Freemont,` Idaho Falls, ID 83415 3875 30. Lynn Schwendiman, DOE Idaho Operations, 2525 N. Freemont, Idaho Falls, ID 83415 3875 3 1. R. Eric Williams, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, 2525 N. Freemont, ' Idaho Falls, ID 83415 3875 32. William Smith, ATG, 47375 Fremont Blvd., Fremont, CA 94538 33. David Maknius, SepraDyne Corp., 12801 Stemmons Frwy, Suite 803, Farmers Branch, TX 75234. ,


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41709-41711]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0413; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASW-9]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace and Establishment of
Class E Airspace; Waco, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D and Class E airspace and
establishes Class E airspace at airports in Waco, TX. This action is
the result of a biennial airspace review. The name and geographic
coordinates of various airports are also being updated to coincide with
the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 7, 2021. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, 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 Airspace Policy Group, Federal

Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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
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 amends the Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at
Waco Regional Airport, Waco, TX; establishes Class E surface area
airspace at TSTC Waco Airport, Waco, TX; establishes Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Marlin Airport,
Waco, TX; and amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Waco Regional Airport, TSTC Waco Airport, and
McGregor Executive Airport, Waco, to support instrument flight rule
operations at these airports.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (86 FR 28722; May 28, 2021) for Docket No. FAA-2021-0413 to
amend the Class D and Class E airspace and establish Class E airspace
at airports in Waco, TX. Interested parties were invited to participate
in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the
proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

Differences From the NPRM

    The verbiage for the extension north of McGregor Executive Airport
contained within the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface is being changed from ``. . . and within 6 miles each
side of the 185[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC extending from the
6.6-mile radius of McGregor Executive Airport to the Waco VORTAC . .
.'' to ``. . . and within 6 miles each side of the 185[deg] radial from
the Waco VORTAC extending from the Waco VORTAC south to the 6.6-mile
radius of McGregor Executive Airport . . .'' to clarify the airspace
description for charting purposes. As the change does not affect the
airspace as proposed, it is incorporated into this rule.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71:
    Amends the Class D airspace to within a 4.2-mile (decreased from a
4.5-mile) radius of Waco Regional Airport, Waco, TX; adds an extension
1 mile each side of the 149[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles southeast of the airport; removes
the city associated with the airport to comply with changes to FAA
Order 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and replaces
the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart
Supplement'';
    Amends the Class D airspace legal description at TSTC Waco Airport,
Waco, TX, by removing the airport name from the airspace legal
description header to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2N; removes
the city associated with the airport in the airspace legal description
to comply with changes to FAA Order 7400.2N; updates the name of the
airport (previously TSTC-Waco Airport) to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database; and replaces the outdated term ``Airfield/
Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Amends the Class E surface area airspace to within a 4.2-mile
(decreased from a 4.5-mile) radius of Waco Regional Airport; adds an
extension 1 mile each side of the 149[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 4.2-mile radius to 4.3 miles southeast of the
airport; removes the TSTI-Waco Airport, Waco, TX, and the associated
airspace from the airspace legal description (A separate airspace legal
description is being created to reduce confusion regarding Class D and
E service availability at the two airports.); and replaces the outdated
term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with ``Chart Supplement'';
    Establishes Class E surface area airspace within a 4.4-mile radius
of TSTC Waco Airport;
    Establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface within a 6.3-mile radius of Marlin Airport, Waco, TX; and
within 1.8 miles each side of the 123[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC
extending from the 6.3-mile radius from Marlin Airport to 13.1 miles
northwest of the airport;
    And amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface to within a 6.7-mile (decreased from a 11.5-mile)
radius of Waco Regional Airport; removes the extension north of the
VORTAC as it is no longer needed; adds an extension 3.7 miles each side
of the 014[deg] bearing from the Waco RGNL: RWY 19-LOC extending from
the 6.7-mile radius from Waco Regional Airport to 15.3 miles north of
the Waco Regional Airport; adds an extension 2.5 miles each side of the
328[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC extending from the 6.7-mile radius
from Waco Regional Airport to 10 miles northwest of the Waco VORTAC;
within a 6.9-mile (decreased from a 7.9-mile) radius of TSTC Waco
Airport; removes the Leroi NDB and the associated extension as they are
no longer needed; adds an extension 1 mile each side of the 179[deg]
bearing from the McGregor Executive Airport, Waco, TX, extending from
the 6.6-mile radius from McGregor Executive Airport to 6.7-miles south
of McGregor Executive Airport; adds an extension 6 miles each side of
the 005[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC extending from the Waco VORTAC
to 10 miles north of the Waco VORTAC; adds an extension 6 miles each
side of the 185[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC extending from the
Waco VORTAC south to the 6.6 mile radius from the McGregor Executive
Airport; removes the Marlin Airport and associated airspace from the
airspace legal description as it no longer adjoins this

airspace and separate airspace has been established for this airport;
and updates the names of Waco Regional Airport (previously Regional
Airport), TSTC Waco Airport (previously TSTC-Waco Airport) and McGregor
Executive Airport (previously McGregor Municipal Airport) and the
geographic coordinates of Waco Regional Airport and the Waco VORTAC to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    These actions are the result of biennial airspace reviews.
    FAA Order 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 regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 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 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Waco, TX [Amended]

Waco Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]36'44'' N, long. 97[deg]13'49'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.2-mile radius of Waco Regional Airport,
and within 1 mile each side of the 149[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 4.2-mile radius from the airport to 4.3 miles
southeast of the airport. This Class D airspace area is effective
during the specific dates in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be published in the Chart
Supplement.

ASW TX D Waco, TX [Amended]

TSTC Waco Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]38'16'' N, long. 97[deg]04'27'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of TSTC Waco Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Waco Regional Airport Class D
airspace and Class E surface area airspace. This Class D airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Waco, TX [Amended]

Waco Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]36'44'' N, long. 97[deg]13'49'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.2-
mile radius of Waco Regional Airport, and within 1 mile each side of
the 149[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the 4.2-mile
radius from the airport to 4.3 miles southeast of the airport. This
Class E airspace area is effective during the specific dates in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be published in the Chart Supplement.

ASW TX E2 Waco, TX [Established]

TSTC Waco Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]38'16'' N, long. 97[deg]04'27'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.4-
mile radius of TSTC Waco Airport, excluding that airspace within the
Waco Regional Airport Class D airspace and Class E surface area
airspace. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be published in
the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Waco, TX [Established]

Marlin Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]20'26'' N, long. 96[deg]51'07'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Marlin Airport, and within 1.8 miles
each side of the 123[deg] radial of the Waco VORTAC extending from
the 6.3-mile radius to 13.1 miles northwest of the airport.

ASW TX E5 Waco, TX [Amended]

Waco Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]36'44'' N, long. 97[deg]13'49'' W)
Waco RGNL: RWY 19-LOC
    (Lat. 31[deg]36'07'' N, long. 97[deg]13'49'' W)
Waco VORTAC
    (Lat. 31[deg]39'44'' N, long. 97[deg]16'08'' W)
TSTC Waco Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]38'16'' N, long. 97[deg]04'27'' W)
McGregor Executive Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]29'06'' N, long. 97[deg]19'00'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Waco Regional Airport, and within 3.7
miles each side of the 014[deg] bearing from the Waco RGNL: RWY 19-
LOC extending from the 6.7-mile radius of Waco Regional Airport to
15.3 miles north of Waco Regional Airport, and within 2.5 miles each
side of the 328[deg] radial from the Waco VORTAC extending from the
6.7-mile radius of Waco Regional Airport to 10 miles northwest of
the Waco VORTAC, and within a 6.9-mile radius of TSTC Waco Airport,
and within a 6.6-mile radius of McGregor Executive Airport, and
within 1 mile each side of the 179[deg] bearing from the McGregor
Executive Airport extending from the 6.6-mile radius of McGregor
Executive Airport to 6.7 miles south of McGregor Executive Airport,
and within 6 miles each side of the 005[deg] radial from the Waco
VORTAC extending from the Waco VORTAC to 10 miles north of the Waco
VORTAC, and within 6 miles each side of the 185[deg] radial from the
Waco VORTAC extending from the Waco VORTAC south to the 6.6-mile
radius of McGregor Executive Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 28, 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-16393 Filed 8-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 84 (Friday, May 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24917-24918]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10123]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0891; FRL-9927-06-OEI]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, Import, Export,
Recycling, Destruction, Transhipment, and Feedstock Use of Ozone-
Depleting Substances (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
information collection request (ICR), ``Recordkeeping and Periodic
Reporting of the Production, Import, Export, Recycling, Destruction,
Transhipment, and Feedstock Use of Ozone-Depleting Substances
(Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.

1432.31, OMB Control No. 2060-0170 to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2015. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before June 30, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing the Docket ID No. listed
above, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by
mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Staci Gatica, Stratospheric Protection
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (6205J), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: This ICR authorizes the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements established in the regulations stated in 40 CFR part 82,
subpart A and as required by the United States' commitments under The
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Protocol). This information collection allows EPA to monitor the
United States' compliance with the Protocol and Title VI of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA).
    Under its Protocol commitments, the United States is obligated to
cease production and import of Class I controlled substances excluding
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that are subject to essential use
exemptions, methyl bromide that is subject to critical use exemptions
or exemptions for quarantine and preshipment uses, previously used
material, and material that will be transformed, destroyed, or exported
to developing countries. The Protocol also establishes limits and
reduction schedules leading to the eventual phaseout of Class II
controlled substances with similar exemptions beyond the phaseout. The
CAA has its own limits on production and consumption of controlled
substances that EPA must adhere to and enforce.
    Under 40 CFR 82.13, producers, importers, exporters, and
distributors of Class I ozone-depleting substances (ODS) must meet
quarterly, annual, and/or transactional recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
    The reporting and recordkeeping requirements for Class I ODS will
enable EPA to: (1) Ensure compliance with the restrictions on
production, import, and export of Class I controlled substances; (2)
allow exempted production and import for certain uses and the
consequent tracking of that production and import; (3) address industry
and Federal concerns regarding the illegal import of mislabeled used
controlled substances; (4) satisfy the United States' obligations to
report data under Article 7 of the Montreal Protocol; (5) fulfill
statutory obligations under Section 603(b) of the CAA for reporting and
monitoring; (6) provide information to report to the U.S. Congress on
the production, use, and consumption of Class I controlled substances
as statutorily required in Section 603(d) of Title VI of the CAA.
    The reported data will enable EPA to maintain compliance with the
Protocol requirements for annual data submission on the production of
ODS and analyze technical use data to ensure that exemptions are used
in accordance with requirements included in the annual authorization
rulemakings.
    Respondents/affected entities: Chemical Producers, Importers, and
Exporters (CFCs); Research and Development (Laboratories); and MeBr
Producers, Importers, Exporters, Distributors, and Applicators.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1143 (total).
    Frequency of response: Quarterly, annually, occasionally.
    Total estimated burden: 2583 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $277,085 (per year), includes $5,535
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collections Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-10123 Filed 4-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P