[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 87 (Tuesday, May 5, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26695-26697]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09538]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0172]

Port Access Route Study: Seacoast of New Jersey Including
Offshore Approaches to the Delaware Bay, Delaware

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to determine whether existing or additional vessel routing measures are
necessary along the seacoast of New Jersey and approaches to the
Delaware Bay. The PARS will consider whether existing or additional
routing measures are necessary to improve navigation safety due to
factors such as planned or potential offshore development, current port
capabilities and planned improvements, increased vessel traffic,
existing and potential anchorage areas, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. Vessel
routing measures are implemented to reduce the risk of marine
casualties. Examples of potential measures include traffic separation
schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, deep-water routes,
precautionary areas, and areas to be avoided. The recommendations of
the study may lead to future rulemakings or international agreements.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before July
6, 2020. Requests for a public meeting must be submitted on or before
June 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0172 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of study, call or email Mr. Jerry Barnes, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Matt Creelman, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

ACPARS Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
AIS Automatic Identification System
COMDTINST Commandant Instruction
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
MTS Marine Transportation System
PARS Port Access Route Study
TSS Traffic Separation Scheme
USCG United States Coast Guard

II. Background and Purpose

    A. Requirements for Port Access Route Studies: Under Section 70003
of Title 46 of the United States Code, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation schemes
(TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from
U.S. ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs recognizes the
paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the designated
areas.
    Before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs, the Coast Guard
must conduct a PARS, i.e., a study of potential traffic density and the
need for safe access routes for vessels. Through the study process, the
Coast Guard must coordinate with federal, state, and foreign state
agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. The primary purpose of this coordination is, to the
extent practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with
other reasonable waterway uses such as anchorages, construction and
operation of renewable energy facilities and other uses.
    In addition to aiding the Coast Guard in establishing new or
adjusting fairways or TSSs, this PARS may recommend establishing or
amending other vessel routing measures. Examples of other routing
measures include two-way routes, recommended tracks, deep-water routes
(for the benefit primarily of ships whose ability to maneuver is
constrained by their draft), precautionary areas (where ships must
navigate with particular caution), and areas to be avoided (for reasons
of exceptional danger or especially sensitive ecological and
environmental factors).
    B. Previous Port Access Route Studies: The Coast Guard last studied
the Seacoast of New Jersey and approaches to the Delaware Bay in 1994,
and published the final results in 1995 (60 FR 49237, September 22,
1995). The study was conducted in response to a number of near
collisions and at least one collision between an outbound tug-barge and
an inbound deep draft ship in the eastern approach lane of the TSS. The
previous study is available for review upon request (refer to FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    In 2016, the Coast Guard published a notice of its Atlantic Coast
Port Access Route Study (ACPARS) (81 FR 13307, March 14, 2016) that
analyzed the Atlantic Coast waters seaward of existing port approaches
within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and announced the report
as final in 2017 (82 FR 16510, April 5, 2017). This multiyear study
began in 2011, included public participation, and identified the
navigation routes customarily followed by ships engaged in commerce
between international and domestic U.S. ports. The study is available
at https://navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARS Reports. The ACPARS analyzed
waters located seaward of existing port approaches within the EEZ along
the entire Atlantic Coast. Data and information from stakeholders,
including Automatic Identification System (AIS) data from vessel
traffic, were used to identify and verify deep draft and coastwise
navigation routes that are typically followed by ships engaged in
commerce between international and domestic U.S. ports. Additional
analysis of sea space for vessels to maneuver in compliance with the
International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea led to the
development of marine planning guidelines and recommendations for
shipping safety fairways.
    C. Need for a New Port Access Route Study: In 2019, the Coast Guard
announced a new study of routes used by ships to access ports on the
Atlantic Coast of the United States (84 FR 9541, March 15, 2019). This
new study supplements and builds on the ACPARS. As part of the study,
the Coast Guard will conduct several PARS to examine ports along the
Atlantic Coast that are economically significant or support military or
critical national defense operations and related international entry
and departure transit areas that are integral to the safe and efficient
and unimpeded flow of commerce to/from major international shipping
lanes.

III. Information Requested

    The purpose of this notice is to announce commencement of this PARS
to examine the seacoast of New Jersey and approaches to the Delaware
Bay in conjunction with the implementation of recommendations of the
ACPARS, and to solicit public comments. Similar to the ACPARS, this
PARS will use AIS data and information from stakeholders to identify
and verify customary navigation routes as well as potential conflicts
involving alternative activities, such as Offshore Renewable Energy
Installations. We encourage you to participate in the study process by
submitting comments in response to this notice. Comments should address
impacts to navigation along the seacoast of New Jersey and approaches
to the Delaware Bay resulting from factors such as: Planned or
potential offshore development including wind turbine placements and
transmission corridors, current port capabilities and planned
improvements, increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, potential conflicts or disruptions in
uncharted or informal anchorage areas, or navigational difficulty.

IV. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    A. Submitting Comments: If you submit comments to the online public
docket, please include the docket number for this notice (USCG-2020-
0172), indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. We accept anonymous comments.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and insert ``USCG-2020-0172'' in the ``search box.'' Click ``Search''
and then click ``Comment Now.'' We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    B. Public Meetings: The Coast Guard may hold a public meeting(s) if
there is sufficient public interest. You must submit a request for one
on or before June 4, 2020. You may submit your request for a public
meeting online via http://www.regulations.gov. Please explain why you
believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a
public meeting would aid in the study, we will hold a meeting at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    C. Viewing Comments and Documents: To view the comments and
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2020-0172'' and click ``Search.'' Click the

``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
    D. Privacy Act: 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 submissions in response to this document, see DHS's
Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26,
2018). Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be 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 or a final rule is published.

V. Seacoast of New Jersey Including Offshore Approaches to the Delaware
Bay, Delaware PARS: Timeline, Study Area, and Process

    The Fifth Coast Guard District and Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay
will conduct this PARS. The study will commence upon publication of
this notice and may take 12 months or more to complete.
    The study area is described as an area bounded by a line connecting
the following geographic positions:

 74[deg] W 40[deg]18' N
 71[deg]16' W 38[deg]57' N
 71[deg]16' W 38[deg]16' N
 75[deg]7' W 38[deg]16' N

thence along the coast line back to the origin.
    This area extends approximately 175 nautical miles seaward
including the offshore area of New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland used
by private, commercial and public vessels transiting to and from these
ports. An illustration showing the study area is available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Additionally, the study area is
available for viewing on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal at http://portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/. See ``USCG Proposed Areas and
Studies'' under the ``Maritime'' portion of the Data Layers section.
    This PARS will analyze navigation routes to/from the seacoast of
New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland including approaches to the Delaware
Bayconnecting to the proposed fairways outlined in the ACPARS including
international routes to/from the United States. Current capabilities
and planned improvements to handle maritime conveyances will be
considered. Analyses will be conducted in accordance with COMDTINST
16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and Maintain the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National Policy. Instruction
available at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF.
    We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate the status quo (no additional
fairways or routing measures) and conclude that no changes are
necessary. It is also possible that the study may recommend one or more
changes to address navigational safety and the efficiency of vessel
traffic management. The recommendations may lead to future rulemakings
or international agreements.
    This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: Dated: April 28, 2020.
Keith M. Smith,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2020-09538 Filed 5-4-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)] [Notices] [Page 39423] [FR Doc No: 2017-17475]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-2245-000]

Moffett Solar 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-

Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204

Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding

Moffett Solar 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,

with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes

a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future

issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,

DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's

Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone

filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that

document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with

regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18

CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of

liability, is August 31, 2017.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and

interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an

intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the

eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the

intervention or protests.

    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and

5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.

    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in

the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in

the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the

Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an

eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive

email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).

For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,

call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 11, 2017.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-17475 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 239 (Monday, December 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77260-77264]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0451; FRL-9939-28]

Polyamide Ester Polymers; Tolerance Exemption

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of several polyamide ester polymers as
listed in this final rule. Spring Trading Co. on behalf of Croda, Inc.
submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (FFDCA), requesting an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum
permissible level for residues of the listed chemicals on food or feed
commodities.

DATES: This regulation is effective December 14, 2015. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before February 12, 2016,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0451, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. Can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0451 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
February 12, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0451, by one of
the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of Wednesday, August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51763)
(FRL-9931-74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the receipt of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
10834) filed by Spring Trading Co., 203 Dogwood Trl., Magnolia, TX
77354 (on behalf of Croda, Inc., 315 Cherry Ln., New Castle, DE 19720).
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.960 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of the
following polyamide ester polymers: Fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, polymers with ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol (CAS
Reg. No. 363162-42-9); fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine, neopentyl glycol and
stearyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 678991-29-2); fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with
ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 951153-32-5); Fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-docosanol and
ethylenediamine (CAS Reg. No. 1699751-19-3); Fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with cetyl alcohol., neopentyl
glycol and trimethylenediamine (CAS Reg. No. 1699751-23-9); fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with
hexamethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol (CAS Reg. No. 1699751-24-0);
fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers
with cetyl alcohol and ethylenediamine (CAS Reg. No. 1699751-25-1);
fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers
with neopentyl glycol, stearyl alcohol and trimethylenediamine (CAS
Reg. No. 1699751-28-4); fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with 1-docosanol and trimethylenediamine (CAS Reg. No.
1699751-29-5); fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with 1-docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and
neopentyl glycol (CAS Reg. No. 1699751-31-9) and fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with docosanoic acid, 1,3-
propanediol and sorbitol (CAS Reg. No. 1685271-04-8).
    That document included a summary of the petition prepared by the
petitioner and solicited comments on the petitioner's request. No
comments were received by the Agency in response to the notice of
filing.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and use in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance and to ``ensure that there is a reasonable
certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from
aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .'' and
specifies factors EPA is to consider in establishing an exemption.

III. Risk Assessment and Statutory Findings

    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be shown that the risks from aggregate
exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable
circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human health. In order
to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert
ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in
conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to
determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate
exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of
a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action and considered its validity, completeness and reliability
and the relationship of this information to human risk. EPA has also
considered available information concerning the variability of the
sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including
infants and children. In the case of certain chemical substances that
are defined as polymers, the Agency has established a set of criteria
to identify categories of polymers expected to present minimal or no
risk. The definition of a polymer is given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and the
exclusion criteria for identifying these low-risk polymers are
described in 40 CFR 723.250(d).
    The polyamide ester polymers listed in this final rule conform to
the definition of a polymer given in 40 CFR 723.250(b) and meets the
following criteria that are used to identify low-risk polymers.
    1. The polymer is not a cationic polymer nor is it reasonably
anticipated to become a cationic polymer in a natural aquatic
environment.

    2. The polymer does contain as an integral part of its composition
the atomic elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen.
    3. The polymer does not contain as an integral part of its
composition, except as impurities, any element other than those listed
in 40 CFR 723.250(d)(2)(ii).
    4. The polymer is neither designed nor can it be reasonably
anticipated to substantially degrade, decompose, or depolymerize.
    5. The polymer is manufactured or imported from monomers and/or
reactants that are already included on the TSCA Chemical Substance
Inventory or manufactured under an applicable TSCA section 5 exemption.
    6. The polymer is not a water absorbing polymer with a number
average molecular weight (MW) greater than or equal to 10,000 daltons.
    7. The polymer does not contain certain perfluoroalkyl moieties
consisting of a CF3- or longer chain length as specified in 40 CFR
723.250(d)(6).
    Thus, polyamide ester polymers listed in this final rule (i.e.,
fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with
ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine, neopentyl
glycol and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd.,
dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine and stearyl
alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-
docosanol and ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd.,
dimers, polymers with cetyl alcohol., neopentyl glycol and
trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with hexamethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with cetyl
alcohol and ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd.,
dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with neopentyl glycol, stearyl alcohol
and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with 1-docosanol and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with 1-
docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and neopentyl glycol; and fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with docosanoic acid, 1,3-
propanediol and sorbitol) meet the criteria for a polymer to be
considered low risk under 40 CFR 723.250. Based on their conformance to
the criteria in this unit, no mammalian toxicity is anticipated from
dietary, inhalation or dermal exposure to these polymers.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    For the purposes of assessing potential exposure under this
exemption, EPA considered that these polymers could be present in all
raw and processed agricultural commodities and drinking water, and that
non-occupational non-dietary exposure was possible. The minimum number
average MW (in amu) of each of these polymers is 1,400 daltons.
Generally, a polymer of this size would be poorly absorbed through the
intact gastrointestinal tract or through intact human skin. Since these
polymers conform to the criteria that identify a low-risk polymer,
there are no concerns for risks associated with any potential exposure
scenarios that are reasonably foreseeable. The Agency has determined
that a tolerance is not necessary to protect the public health.

V. Cumulative Effects From Substances With a Common Mechanism of
Toxicity

    Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when considering
whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency
consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative effects of
a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found these polymers to share a common mechanism of
toxicity with any other substances, and these polymers does not appear
to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the
purposes of this tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that
these polymers does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

VI. Additional Safety Factor for the Protection of Infants and Children

    Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an
additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the
case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the data base unless EPA concludes
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. Due to the expected low toxicity of these polymers, EPA has
not used a safety factor analysis to assess the risk. For the same
reasons the additional tenfold safety factor is unnecessary.

VII. Determination of Safety

    Based on the conformance to the criteria used to identify a low-
risk polymer, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to the U.S. population, including infants and children, from
aggregate exposure to residues of fatty acids, C18-unsatd.,
dimers, polymers with ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with
ethylenediamine, neopentyl glycol and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with
ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-docosanol and ethylenediamine; fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with cetyl alcohol,
neopentyl glycol and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, polymers with hexamethylenediamine and stearyl
alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated,
polymers with cetyl alcohol and ethylenediamine; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with neopentyl
glycol, stearyl alcohol and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-docosanol and
trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with 1-docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and
neopentyl glycol; and fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with docosanoic acid, 1,3-propanediol and sorbitol.

VIII. Other Considerations

A. Existing Exemptions From a Tolerance

    Not applicable.

B. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

C. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program,

and it is recognized as an international food safety standards-setting
organization in trade agreements to which the United States is a party.
EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from a Codex MRL;
however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain the reasons
for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with ethylenediamine and
stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine, neopentyl glycol and
stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-docosanol and
ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers
with cetyl alcohol, neopentyl glycol and trimethylenediamine; fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with
hexamethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with cetyl alcohol and
ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with neopentyl glycol, stearyl alcohol and
trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with 1-docosanol and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with 1-
docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and neopentyl glycol; or fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with docosanoic acid, 1,3-
propanediol and sorbitol.

IX. Conclusion

    Accordingly, EPA finds that exempting residues of fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with ethylenediamine and
stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine, neopentyl glycol and
stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-docosanol and
ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers
with cetyl alcohol, neopentyl glycol and trimethylenediamine; fatty
acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with
hexamethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol; fatty acids, C18-
unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with cetyl alcohol and
ethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
hydrogenated, polymers with neopentyl glycol, stearyl alcohol and
trimethylenediamine; fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers,
polymers with 1-docosanol and trimethylenediamine; fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers with 1-
docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and neopentyl glycol; and fatty acids,
C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with docosanoic acid, 1,3-
propanediol and sorbitol from the requirement of a tolerance will be
safe.

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

XI. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2015.
G. Jeffrey Herndon,
Director Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.960, alphabetically add the following polymers to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.960  Polymers; exemptions from the requirement of a
tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Polymer                              CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with              363162-42-9
 ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers     678991-29-2
 with ethylenediamine, neopentyl glycol and stearyl
 alcohol, minimum number average molecular weight (in
 amu) 1,400.............................................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers     951153-32-5
 with ethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol, minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400.........
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-          1699751-19-3
 docosanol and ethylenediamine, minimum number average
 molecular weight (in amu) 1,400........................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with cetyl       1699751-23-9
 alcohol, neopentyl glycol and trimethylenediamine,
 minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400.
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with             1699751-24-0
 hexamethylenediamine and stearyl alcohol, minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400.........
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers    1699751-25-1
 with cetyl alcohol and ethylenediamine, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, hydrogenated, polymers    1699751-28-4
 with neopentyl glycol, stearyl alcohol and
 trimethylenediamine, minimum number average molecular
 weight (in amu) 1,400..................................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-          1699751-29-5
 docosanol and trimethylenediamine, minimum number
 average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400................
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with 1-          1699751-31-9
 docosanol, hexamethylenediamine and neopentyl glycol,
 minimum number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400.
Fatty acids, C18-unsatd., dimers, polymers with             1685271-04-8
 docosanoic acid, 1,3-propanediol and sorbitol, minimum
 number average molecular weight (in amu) 1,400.........

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-30924 Filed 12-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 185)]
[Notices]
[Page 54882]
[DOCID:fr23se08-132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at the
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, MS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. Section 47153(c),
notice is being given that the FAA is considering a request from the
Greenwood-Leflore Airport to change the use of an area on the airport
to non-aeronautical use.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 23, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Jackson Airports
District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS 39208-
2307.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Bardin Redditt, Airport Manager at the
following address: 502-A Airport Road, Greenwood, MS 38930.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Orr, Program Manager, Jackson
Airports District Office, 100 West Cross Street, Suite B, Jackson, MS
39208-2307,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The request to change use may be reviewed
in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Greenwood-Leflore Airport in Greenwood,
Mississippi, is considering a proposal for the expansion of the lease
area of a commercial tenant presently located on the airport. The lease
area of this tenant will increase from 12.82 acres to 28.71 acres. The
business operation of this aeronautical tenant necessarily includes a
non-aeronautical component. Of this 28.71 acres proposed for lease,
7.50 acres of paved apron and adjacent unpaved areas will be changed to
non-aeronautical use. The Airport has already partially offset the loss
of this pavement by the recent construction of a new general aviation
(GA) apron. This proposal will require the displacement of one
aeronautical user. The Airport has provided an offer to this
aeronautical user for the purchase of his facilities. Additional ramp
area and space for hangar construction is available on the new GA
apron. The increased revenue generated by the proposed lease expansion
will be used for operations and maintenance and capital improvements on
the Airport.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.'' In addition,
any person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other
documents germane to the request in person at the offices of the
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, Greenwood, Mississippi.

    Issued in Jackson, Mississippi, on September 11, 2008.
Rans D. Black,
Manager, Jackson Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. E8-22060 Filed 9-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA 22030
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

TO:			Paul Shriner and Jan Matuszko, USEPA
FROM:		John Sunda, SAIC and Kelly Meadows
DATE: 		June 11, 2010

SUBJECT:		Cooling Tower Noise, Plume and Drift Abatement Costs

EPA tasked SAIC and Tetra Tech with evaluating how costs for noise, plume and drift abatement technologies may be developed for a universe of facilities potentially subject to closed-cycle cooling under the proposed existing facility rulemaking.  This memo presents a brief overview of abatement technologies and associated costs and presents possible approaches for incorporating these costs into the proposed rule.

Noise Abatement

Background

When installing cooling towers at power plants close to residential and commercial areas, consideration must be given to noise impacts.  For plants close to residential areas, local noise ordinances may be as low as 50 dBA, especially at night.  For a conventional mechanical draft cooling tower, sound levels of about 60 dBA can be expected at a distance of 500 ft (SPX 2010a).  Distance to the nearest receptor is an important factor, as the noise dissipates as the distance increases.  The general rule-of-thumb is that at distances of less than half the length of the tower, the noise level will dissipate roughly 3 dBA for each doubling of the distance, and at distances greater than half the tower length, the noise level will dissipate roughly 6 dBA for each doubling of the distance.  Based on this rule-of-thumb, the nearest receptor would need to be at least 1,600 ft from the unmodified conventional tower described above (60 dBA at 500 ft) to meet a noise limit of 50 dBA.

Cooling tower noise consists of two components: one is the sound of the fans and fan drives, and the other is the sound of the water splashing down through the tower.  Noise abatement technologies used primarily for reducing fan noise may include:

   * Low noise fans and gear boxes
   * Fan deck barriers
   * Inlet and outlet attenuation
   * Building a larger tower to allow use of smaller Hp fans and/or reduced fan tip speed
   * Cooling tower designs that do not use fans (e.g., natural draft towers).

Noise abatement technologies used primarily for reducing water splashing noise include:

   * Sound walls
   * Splash attenuation
   * Inlet attenuation.

Various combinations of these technologies may be selected, depending on the site conditions, equipment design, noise reduction requirements, and economic considerations.

Table 1 presents estimates using the rule-of-thumb for distances of 150, 350, and 500 ft, and 1,000 ft for a conventional mechanical draft cooling tower, a moderate reduction design (-10 dBA) and an aggressive noise abatement design (-16 dBA).

Table 1. Rough Estimate of Noise Levels at Varying Distances For Cooling Towers With and Without Noise Abatement Technology
                               Receptor Distance
                             Conventional Design
                           Moderate Noise Abatement
                                  (- 10 dBA)
                 Aggressive Noise Abatement Design ( - 16 dBA)
                                      Ft
                                      dBA
                                      dBA
                                      dBA
                                   1,600 [a]
                                      50
                                      40
                                      34
                                   1,000 [a]
                                      54
                                      44
                                      38
                                     500
                                      60
                                      50
                                      44
                                    350 [a]
                                      65
                                      55
                                      49
                                    150 [a]
                                      71
                                      61
                                      55
      [a] Estimated values based on rule-of-thumb.

The data in Table 1 estimating the noise reduction attainable and distances are intended for illustrative purposes only.  The determination of the degree of noise reduction required, if any, must be based on site-specific data and may vary greatly from site to site.  In practice, noise abatement requires a sophisticated analysis by a specialist.  A more detailed analysis using the octave band analysis and the proposed tower design, location, noise receptor locations, and consideration of nearby buildings and topography would need to be performed to obtain a more definitive answer regarding necessary tower design requirements.

Estimated Costs

EPRI's cost estimation tool for cooling towers does not include costs for noise abatement. An example design provided by a cooling tower vendor indicated that reducing the noise level by 10 dBA from 60 to 50 dBA at 500 ft could increase the tower costs by approximately 60% (SPX 2010b).  In this case, the design included a reduction in the fan speed requiring a physically larger tower, an added fan deck, perimeter barrier walls, and splash attenuation.  If greater reduction is required, the cooling tower vendor cited a design that reduced noise by 16.3 dBA at a distance of 500 ft that would increase costs of the cooling tower by nearly 100% (SPX 2010a).

By comparison, the 2001 316(b) Phase I technical documentation ("Economic and Engineering Analyses of the Proposed §316(b) New Facility Rule" Table A-4) provided relative cost factors for various cooling tower types and indicated that the addition of 10 dBA noise abatement should increase cooling tower capital costs by a factor of 30% and O&M costs by a factor of 7% when compared to a standard mechanical draft cooling tower.   Using these data points as bounding estimates, the noise abatement tower capital cost factors can range from 30% to 60% to 100% represent a range of noise reduction and abatement technology combinations.

The amount of noise abatement required is a function of both the local community noise code and the distance from the tower to the nearest sound receptor that must meet the specified noise code.  Noise abatement costs will be highest if a tower must be located near areas with highly restrictive noise codes, such as residential areas.  The location and orientation of the receptors surrounding the tower are also important, as some noise abatement technology components may be needed only on one side of the tower, which can help reduce costs.

As noted above, noise abatement costs may range from 30-100% of cooling tower capital costs.  The median tower component cost (including the basins) of a closed-cycle system retrofit is estimated by EPA to be approximately $80/gpm of recirculating cooling water flow (SAIC 2010).  Based on the 30% and 60% factors, the added costs for a 10 dBA noise abatement design can range from $24/gpm to $48/gpm.  These differences represent different noise abatement strategies, with the higher cost example relying on larger towers and lower fan speeds, which should reduce the operating costs when compared to the lower cost approach which cited a 7% increase in O&M including the fan energy component.  Since these costs are based on well-known design principles, the higher capital, lower O&M cost example has been selected as the best choice for estimating noise abatement costs in the proposed approach outlined below.  While the larger tower may require a minor increase in the cost of materials maintenance, the reduced air velocities and reduce fan tip speed in the larger tower should reduce fan energy and fan maintenance requirements.  Thus, the net effect of this noise abatement technology design on cooling tower O&M costs is expected to be minimal.

Plume Abatement

Background

Cooling towers dissipate heat via evaporation, resulting in warm, humid air being discharged from the towers.  Under certain conditions, the plume is visible and may persist for some time or distance.  In some cases, this may be a concern for visibility on roads or at airports, icing of roadways or other structures (as the plume condenses), or for aesthetics.

Plume abatement can be accomplished by various means and is often accomplished using a hybrid wet/dry cooling tower that combines air from both dry cooling and wet cooling to produce a less saturated tower exhaust air stream.

Estimated Costs

EPRI's cost estimation tool for cooling towers does not include costs for plume abatement. For plume abatement technology, the total cost of the tower component is estimated to increase by a factor of 2.0-3.5.  For this discussion of proposed changes to the cost methodology, a factor of 2.5 was selected for estimating the cost of conventional cooling towers with plume abatement, resulting in an additional cost of 1.5 times $80/gpm which is equal to $120/gpm.

Hybrid cooling towers will have higher O&M costs for the energy requirements and equipment maintenance compared to conventional mechanical draft cooling towers.  A cooling tower vendor estimated that the pumping head would increases by 8 ft and the fan energy requirement would increase by 10% (SPX 2010a).  This results in an increase in the EPA estimate for cooling tower energy requirement of 0.0000031 MW/gpm.  It was also estimated that the non-energy O&M cost would increase by 50% to 100% due to the larger tower and maintenance of coils and dampers (SPX 2010a).  A factor of 80%, which is close to the midpoint of the range cited and equal to an increase of $1.00/gpm, was assumed for the increase in non-energy O&M for plume abatement towers.

Space Requirements

Conventional mechanical draft hybrid wet/dry plume abatement towers must be configured in an in-line configuration.  For large volumes of cooling water, this requires a series of long towers that require an area that is long enough for the towers and wide enough to allow for spacing if two towers are set side by side.  If the towers are placed too close together, plume recirculation can occur and significantly reduce tower performance.  Potential solutions include a new design by SPX called ClearSky Air2Air, which provides plume abatement and can be configured in the back-to-back configuration, and round towers which are described in more detail below.

In a recent cooling tower retrofit study for Units 2 and 3 at the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, a more compact round tower configuration was the selected technology.  The tower design included a round counterflow forced draft configuration, hybrid wet/dry plume abatement with low noise fans, and sound attenuation baffles.  These more expensive round hybrid towers were selected over conventional mechanical draft towers due to space limitations at the site which required a more compact design.  The vendor's design-and-construct estimate for these round hybrid cooling towers was $205 Million (2009 dollars) for a 702,000 gpm tower (Enercon 2010).  This is equal to a tower unit cost of $292/gpm or roughly 3.65 times the estimated conventional tower cost of $80/gpm.  These higher cost towers are representative of the cost of plume abatement, noise abatement, and compact size requirements combined, and are within the range cited above for plume abated towers considering they include noise abatement as well.

Application to Proposed Rule Costing Methodology

Table 2 provides a summary of the increase in cooling tower costs for the options described above and the estimated total costs when they are applied to the "average" retrofit cost estimation factors used by EPA for conventional mechanical draft cooling towers.  The "difficult" retrofit costs are also shown for comparison.  EPA has selected the "average" difficulty retrofit cost factors as ones that take into consideration the range of variations in site-specific conditions that affect the degree of difficulty in retrofitting to closed-cycle cooling.  Some facility retrofits will cost more and some less, but on a national basis these costs should balance out.

The EPRI costs are based on a cooling tower retrofit cost analysis prepared by Maulbetsch Consulting for approximately 50 facilities, which categorized cooling tower retrofits into "easy," "average," and "difficult" cost categories.  Data presented by Maulbetsch indicates that noise and plume abatement technologies are used for some of the plant costs (Maulbetsch 2003, Maulbetsch 2008).  Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some noise and plume abatement technologies may be included as part of the technology mix associated with the Maulbetsch cost estimates used to derive these costs, particularly those that fall toward the "difficult" end of the range of costs.  However, if requirements for cooling tower retrofits are more widely and strictly applied (i.e., noise or plume abatement is more prevalent), particularly in high density population areas, the proportion of retrofits near the "difficult" end of the cost range may be greater than the mix in the Maulbetsch study cost database.

Table 2. Summary of EPA Cooling Tower Costs Plus the Added Costs of Noise and Plume Abatement

                         Capital Cost  (2009 Dollars)
                         Fixed O&M (2009 Dollars)
               Variable O&M  -  Chemicals[1] (2009 Dollars)
                    Variable O&M - Pump & Fan Power

                          Dollars/gpm (% Increase[2])
                                  Dollars/gpm
                                  Dollars/gpm
                                    MW/gpm
Average Retrofit[3]
                                   $263 (0%)
                                    $1.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000237
Difficult Retrofit[3]
                                  $411 (56%)
                                    $1.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000237
Add for Noise Abatement
                                     $48
                                      $0
                                      0.0
                                      0.0
Add for Plume Abatement
                                     $120
                                     $1.0
                                      0.0
                                   0.0000031
Add for Round Plume and Noise Abatement[4]
                                     $212
                                     $1.0
                                      0.0
                                   0.0000031
Average with Noise Abatement
                                  $311 (18%)
                                    $1.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000237
Average with Plume Abatement
                                  $383 (47%)
                                    $2.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000268
Average with Both Plume and Noise Abatement
                                  $431 (64%)
                                    $2.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000268
Average with Plume and Noise Abatement with Space  Limitations  -  Round[4]
                                  $475 (81%)
                                    $2.265
                                     $1.25
                                   0.0000268
[1] Non-power variable O&M costs are for additional treatment chemical for optimized tower operation at higher cycles of concentration.
2  Percent increase compared to "average" difficulty retrofit.
3 Values shown are same as used in previous cost estimates except that the previous fixed O&M total is now split into variable O&M for Chemicals and Fixed O&M.
4 Based on round tower with plume and noise abatement.

Noise abatement may be necessary at locations near residential, urban, or other areas.  However, it is difficult to determine (on a national scale) which facilities would incur noise abatement costs using the current set of information.  Noise ordinances are typically administered at the state or even local level and would require a site-specific analysis to determine if they would be applicable at a given facility.

Plume abatement will primarily be a concern in locations where the plume may create safety problems such as reduced visibility on nearby roadways or icing on roads and bridges.  Thus, facilities located near major roadways and bridges will be candidates for this requirement.  As with noise abatement, it is difficult to determine (on a national scale) which facilities meet this criterion using the current set of information.

The availability of space and whether conventional or round towers would be feasible will be very site-specific and must take into consideration property size, shape, adjacent development, and topography.  Requirements for the demolition and/or moving of existing structures and infrastructure may be more likely to be a requirement at sites with space constraints.  Facilities that are located close to areas of higher population density are more likely to have limitations on availability of space, since available space not currently used by the plant and adjacent property will tend to be developed.

A detailed evaluation of each site would be required to determine which requirements would apply to that site.  One possible source of data that may be used to identify facilities that may be candidates for some combination of these requirements would be to use census data to identify facilities that are located within areas of higher population density.

As can be seen in Table 2, the selected retrofits for noise abatement, plume abatement, and both noise and plume abatement increase the estimated costs of an "average" retrofit by 18%, 46%, and 64%, respectively.  If space constraints require a round tower that includes plume and noise abatement, the increase may be up to 81% using the assumptions in this analysis.  By comparison, the "difficult" retrofit represents an increase of 56% and falls in the middle of this range of options.

There are two basic approaches that could be used to identify facilities that would be assigned higher costs for the proposed rulemaking, using surrogate data or using an alternative wet cooling tower design; these are described below.

Using Surrogate Data

Facility data necessary to determine specific tower requirements is not readily available and it may not be practical to apply the noise abatement, plume abatement, or round tower costs shown in Table 2 to plants individually.  A simpler solution would be to identify candidate facilities that may be more likely to require some mix of these technology modifications using a surrogate measure such as local population density data.  Aggregate cost factors representing one or combinations of these requirements could then be applied.

One approach would be to assume that the "difficult" retrofit capital costs ($411/gpm) or the combined plume/noise abatement costs ($431/gpm) would be representative of the costs of requiring some combination of noise and plume abatement at facilities that would otherwise require an "average" difficulty retrofit.  For all of these facilities, the increased O&M costs associated with plume abatement in Table 2 should also apply.

Alternative Wet Cooling Tower Design

A second approach would be to assume that facilities would install an alternative wet cooling tower design.  The model wet cooling tower technology that forms the basis for the EPA compliance technology is the rectangular mechanical draft cooling tower configured either in an in-line or back-to-back configuration.  For these types of cooling towers, the most common type of plume abatement technology involves use of separate dry (coils) and wet cooling sections with the exhaust of each being mixed prior to discharge.

Back-to-back configuration is not advised due to poor mixing that occurs because the dry section air is introduced on only one side.  This limits the use of this technology to locations where the available space is compatible with in-line mechanical draft towers.  Other wet cooling tower technologies that provide plume abatement but have different space requirements are described below.

SPX ClearSky

A new design by SPX called ClearSky Air2Air provides plume abatement and can be configured in the back-to-back configuration.  This design places the dry cooling component directly above the wet component of the tower rather than along the side, thus allowing for a back-to-back configuration.  This technology re-condenses a portion of the evaporated water and was designed to provide for water conservation, but was found to reduce plume visibility as well.  It is a promising technology, especially with respect to reducing water consumption.  The technology has only been demonstrated on a full-scale basis at a single location in New Mexico and remains a somewhat unproven technology and may require time to develop acceptance within the industry.

Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Natural draft cooling towers (NDCTs) have higher capital costs and lower O&M costs than conventional mechanical draft towers.  The lower O&M costs are due to the elimination of fan energy costs.  At locations where there are no noise or plume abatement requirements, NDCTs are more economical than conventional mechanical draft cooling towers only for large base-load plants with a service life of 40 or more years (SPX 2010b).

NDCTs are suitable alternatives for plume abatement because the high air outlet location and large size of the plume reduces the possibility that the plume will approach the ground or be recirculated.  When equipped with sound barrier walls, NDCTs also serve as an effective noise abatement technology option.  At locations where both plume and noise abatement is required, the economic benefits of NDCTs become more favorable -- even more so if the cost of constructing a new flue gas stack associated with new air pollution control equipment is avoided by disposing treated flue gas through the tower.  However, as noted above, noise and plume abatement requirements are often the result of proximity to urban or residential areas where there may be building height restrictions and/or substantial public resistance to the installation of such large structures, potentially limiting the applicability of this technology.

Hybrid Round Forced Draft Cooling Towers

Round mechanical draft cooling towers function in a similar way to conventional towers, with the air entering radially from all sides.  Fans may be clustered around the center point of the tower (induced draft) or at the perimeter openings (forced draft).  The latter is commonly used for hybrid round plume abatement towers.  These towers have the following advantages:

   * Useful where available space is compact and site does not allow for the long narrow configuration of mechanical draft towers.
   * While the air outlet is closer to the ground than natural draft towers, the large diameter and compact nature of the combined plume increases plume height over conventional mechanical draft towers, reducing plume recirculation and eliminating spacing concerns associated with conventional towers.
   * Increased plume height improves the distribution of drift, making this technology useful where better dispersion of saltwater drift is desired.

In one example cited above, the estimated cost of round plume and noise abatement towers was about $44/gpm higher than the estimated cost for combined plume and noise abatement rectangular mechanical draft towers.

Fan Assisted Natural Draft Cooling Towers

Fan assisted natural draft cooling towers are a hybrid of mechanical draft and natural draft towers and are similar in design to NDCTs but have a much lower height and use fans during periods when conditions require them.  These towers have the following advantages:

    * Useful where space requirement is compact and site does not allow for the long narrow configuration of mechanical draft towers.
    * Tower height is limited.
    * Lower fan energy requirement than mechanical draft towers.
    * Suitable for locations where climatic conditions would result in insufficient buoyant forces in an NDCT, requiring fan assist to provide sufficient airflow.  In this case, the cost of the added height of NDCT is not justified.

These towers do not provide for plume abatement, but like NDCTs, they have a higher discharge location and the plume is larger and more buoyant, making it less prone to approach the ground or recirculate compared to conventional mechanical draft towers.

Drift Abatement

Background

The cooling tower engineering cost estimates use the EPRI cost spreadsheet methodology for the capital costs for "average" or "difficult" installation.  The Spreadsheet Instructions accompanying the EPRI Tower Calculation Worksheet state: "Most modern cooling towers are equipped with drift eliminators which are specified to limit drift to 0.0005% of the circulating water flow."  Since the EPRI costs are for modern cooling towers and the default drift rate in the spreadsheet is 0.0005%, EPA can reasonably assume that the compliance cost estimates include costs for drift eliminators.

For comparison, cooling towers that do not employ drift eliminators emit significantly more water droplets.  Table 3 below illustrates typical drift rates for towers with and without drift abatement.

Table 3. Cooling Tower Drift Factors
                                  Tower Type
                           Drift Estimation Factor*
Natural Draft
0.3 to 1.0%
Mechanical Draft
0.1 to 0.3%
Tower with Drift Eliminator
0.005%
Tower with High Efficiency Drift Eliminator
0.0005%
* Drift (gpm) = Recirculation (gpm) x Drift Estimation Factor / 100

Note that while the EPRI methodology assumes high efficiency drift eliminators, no data has been collected on the prevalence of standard drift eliminators versus high efficiency drift eliminators in use at existing facilities or at recently constructed towers.  However, in addition to the EPRI documentation, BPJ suggests that new towers would likely use the high efficiency eliminators, as the additional costs of installing and operating them can be included in the initial cooling system design and the incremental costs over standard efficiency would be small. Additionally, air quality requirements at a given site may require high efficiency eliminators as part of Best Available Technology.

Estimated Costs

As noted above, costs for high-efficiency drift abatement are already included in the costs calculated by the EPRI cost tool.  No further action is required.

Conclusion

Noise, plume and drift abatement technologies can add significant costs to a cooling tower retrofit design.  A number of site-specific factors come into play to determine the selection of technology, but appropriate assumptions for estimating national-level compliance costs can be made regarding the impacts of these abatement technologies to the overall cost of the retrofit.

References

CH2MHill. Response to Request for Information to Supplement RIPDES Permit Application - Manchester Street Station (RIPDES Permit No. RI0000434). August 2009

Enercon Services, Inc. Engineering Feasibility and Cost of Conversion of Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to a Closed-loop Condenser Cooling Water Configuration. February 12, 2010.

Marley NC(R) Fiberglass Cooling Tower. Engineering Data & Specifications. 2010
http://spxcooling.com/pdf/uk_NCF-TS-10.pdf

Maulbetsch, J. S.  Issues Associated with Retrofitting Coastal Power Plants.  Once-through Cooling: Results Symposium. University of California. Davis, California.
January 16, 2008

SAIC. John Sunda. Memo RE: "Estimation of Net Difference in Capital and O&M Costs for Once-through Versus Closed Cycle Cooling for New Generating Units at Existing Power Plants and for Repowering of Existing Generating Units" March 5, 2010

SPX Inc. Kent A. Martens, P. E., Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling. Telephone Contact report with John Sunda, SAIC. January 15, 2010a

SPX Inc. Kent A. Martens, P. E., Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling. Telephone Contact report with John Sunda, SAIC. February 26, 2010b

SPX Inc. Kent A. Martens, P. E., Chief Technical Advisor - Evaporative Cooling. Personal Communication. Email to John Sunda, SAIC. January 27, 2010b

US Census Bureau. Census 2000 Urban and Rural Classification. 2000
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 81 (Wednesday, April 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 23578]
[FR Doc No: 2011-10066]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1824-001.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC.
    Filed Date: 04/14/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110414-5160.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, April 26, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: RP11-1867-001.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits tariff filing per 154.203:
Compliance Filing to Scheduling and Curtailment of Service Revisions to
be effective 4/2/2011.
    Filed Date: 04/15/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110415-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: CP09-54-008.
    Applicants: Ruby Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Second Petition to Amend the Application of Ruby
Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Filed Date: 04/01/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110401-5282.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, April 29, 2011.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 18, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-10066 Filed 4-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P