DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Rip rap c. y. 10 2 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Outfall Structure 1 Costs Cost of limestone rock ( rip rap) $/ c. y. 32.4 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 5 Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Outfall Structure $/ unit $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 17 Total Direct Costs $ 19,981 $ 68,451 $ 133,078 $ 197,706 $ 262,333 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 299.71 $ 1,026.77 $ 1,996.18 $ 2,965.58 $ 3,934.99 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost $ 999.04 $ 3,422.56 $ 6,653.92 $ 9,885.28 $ 13,116.64 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 1,299 $ 4,449 $ 8,650 $ 12,851 $ 17,052 Total Capital Cost $ $ 21,280 $ 72,901 $ 141,728 $ 210,556 $ 279,384 Total Capital Cost $/ bbl $ 0.0709 $ 0.0607 $ 0.0590 $ 0.0584 $ 0.0581 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor hours man yrs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 Labor cost $/ yr $ 40,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 9 Total Annual Costs $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.0133 $ 0.0033 $ 0.0017 $ 0.0011 $ 0.0008 Number of Wells Surface Discharge DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost ($/ yr) $/ bbl Cost ($/ yr) $/ bbl 823 $ 21,280 0.07085087 $ 4,000 0.01332 3,291 $ 72,901 0.06068109 $ 4,000 0.00333 6,583 $ 141,728 0.05898613 $ 4,000 0.00166 9,874 $ 210,556 0.05842114 $ 4,000 0.00111 13,166 $ 279,384 0.05813865 $ 4,000 0.00083 0.06141557 0.00405 Capital Operating Surface Discharge y = 20.911x + 4072.6 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Costs DRAFT August 2002 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Option Specifications Average Estimated Flow gpm 12 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Required storage period days 180 Estimated pond volume ft3 831,602 3,326,409 6,652,817 9,979,226 13,305,635 Evaporation ft/ yr 4 Infiltration ft/ yr 4 Actual depth of pond feet 16 Design depth ( includes infiltration/ evap) feet 24.00 Slope of pond sides ( horizontal: 1ft vertical) feet 3 Calculated width/ length at bottom of pond feet 75 245 365 460 545 Calculated width/ length at surface of pond feet 171 341 461 556 641 Calculated volume ft3 840,132 3,679,812 6,937,092 10,251,072 13,767,012 Depth added for 25 yr, 24 hr storm in 3 Adjusted volume ft3 392,590 2,122,605 4,192,043 6,328,207 8,612,449 Pond size acre ft 9.02 48.75 96.27 145.33 197.79 Pond size c. y. 14,540 78,615 155,261 234,378 318,980 Land required ( pond surface area) acres 0.67 2.67 4.88 7.10 9.43 Rip rap c. y. 10 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ s. f. 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 Excavation cost, pond $/ c. y. 0.99 $ 14,395 $ 77,829 $ 153,708 $ 232,034 $ 315,790 Mobilization cost $ 194 $ 194 $ 194 $ 194 $ 194 $ 194 Rip rap $/ c. y. 32.4 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 $ 324 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 227 $ 902 $ 1,649 $ 2,399 $ 3,188 Number of Wells Storage Ponds DRAFT August 2002 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Number of Wells Total Direct Costs $ 31,297 $ 143,876 $ 285,130 $ 428,833 $ 578,005 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 469 $ 2,158 $ 4,277 $ 6,432 $ 8,670 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost $ 1,565 $ 7,194 $ 14,256 $ 21,442 $ 28,900 Total Indirect Cost $ 2,034 $ 9,352 $ 18,533 $ 27,874 $ 37,570 Total Cost $ 33,331 $ 153,228 $ 303,663 $ 456,707 $ 615,575 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 0.1110 $ 0.1275 $ 0.1264 $ 0.1267 $ 0.1281 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor hours man yrs 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Labor cost $/ yr $ 40,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Total Annual Costs $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.0133 $ 0.0033 $ 0.0017 $ 0.0011 $ 0.0008 DRAFT August 2002 Notes 1 Water ( bpd) Cost ($/ yr) $/ bbl Cost ($/ yr) $/ bbl 823 $ 33,331 0.1109763 $ 4,000 0.0133181 3,291 $ 153,228 0.1275445 $ 4,000 0.0033295 6,583 $ 303,663 0.1263819 $ 4,000 0.0016648 2 9,874 $ 456,707 0.1267181 $ 4,000 0.0011098 13,166 $ 615,575 0.1280984 $ 4,000 0.0008324 2 16 0.1239438 0.0040509 1 1 2 16 16 16 16 16 16 2 8 5 5 5 1 Capital Operating Option 4  Storage Ponds y = 46.938x  4212.7 R2 = 0.9999 $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost DRAFT August 2002 Notes 8 8 2 9 DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 700 1 Injection formation coal seam 1 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 1 250 1 Wells required 1 1 1 2 2 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Reinjection well costs $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 134,976 $ 222,941 $ 340,226 $ 507,512 $ 624,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 2,025 $ 3,344 $ 5,103 $ 7,613 $ 9,372 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 6,749 11,147 17,011 25,376 31,240 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 8,773 $ 14,491 $ 22,115 $ 32,988 $ 40,612 Total Cost $ 143,750 $ 237,432 $ 362,341 $ 540,500 $ 665,409 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 0.4786 $ 0.1976 $ 0.1508 $ 0.1500 $ 0.1385 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.1442 $ 0.0943 $ 0.0860 $ 0.0832 $ 0.0818 Number of Wells Shallow Well Reinjection DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost ($/ yr) ($/ bbl) Cost ($/ yr) ($/ bbl)

823 $ 143,750 0.47861914 $ 43,320 0.1442346 3,291 $ 237,432 0.19763383 $ 113,279 0.0942917 6,583 $ 362,341 0.15080294 $ 206,559 0.0859679 9,874 $ 540,500 0.14996743 $ 299,838 0.0831932 13,166 $ 665,409 0.13846859 $ 393,117 0.0818059 0.22309839 0.0978987 Capital Operating Shallow Well Reinjection y = 43.134x + 98842 R2 = 0.9958 $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 $ 800,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost Shallow Well Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost ($) DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 3000 1 Injection formation Fox Hills 19 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 111 693 19 Wells required 1 1 1 1 1 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Reinjection well costs $ 442,000 $ 442,000 $ 442,000 $ 442,000 $ 442,000 $ 442,000 19 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 526,976 $ 614,941 $ 732,226 $ 849,512 $ 966,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 7,905 $ 9,224 $ 10,983 $ 12,743 $ 14,502 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 26,349 30,747 36,611 42,476 48,340 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 34,253 $ 39,971 $ 47,595 $ 55,218 $ 62,842 Total Cost $ 561,230 $ 654,912 $ 779,821 $ 904,730 $ 1,029,639 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 1.8686 $ 0.5451 $ 0.3246 $ 0.2510 $ 0.2143 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Medium Depth Well Reinjection Number of Wells DRAFT January 2003 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.1442 $ 0.0943 $ 0.0860 $ 0.0832 $ 0.0818 DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost Operating Cost 823 $ 561,230 1.868630557 $ 43,320 0.1442346 3,291 $ 654,912 0.545136684 $ 113,279 0.09429167 6,583 $ 779,821 0.324554372 $ 206,559 0.08596785 9,874 $ 904,730 0.251026934 $ 299,838 0.08319325 13,166 $ 1,029,639 0.214263216 $ 393,117 0.08180594 0.640722353 0.09789866 Medium Well Reinjection y = 37.95x + 530003 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,200,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost Medium Well Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost ($) DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 9500 19 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 321 3209 19 Injection formation Minnelusa Wells required 1 1 1 1 1 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Reinjection well costs $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 19 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 984,976 $ 1,072,941 $ 1,190,226 $ 1,307,512 $ 1,424,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 14,775 $ 16,094 $ 17,853 $ 19,613 $ 21,372 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 49,249 53,647 59,511 65,376 71,240 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 64,023 $ 69,741 $ 77,365 $ 84,988 $ 92,612 Total Cost $ 1,049,000 $ 1,142,682 $ 1,267,591 $ 1,392,500 $ 1,517,409 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 3.4927 $ 0.9511 $ 0.5276 $ 0.3864 $ 0.3158 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.1442 $ 0.0943 $ 0.0860 $ 0.0832 $ 0.0818 Deep Well Reinjection Number of Wells DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost Operating Cost 823 $ 1,049,000 3.4926745 $ 43,320 0.144235 3,291 $ 1,142,682 0.9511477 $ 113,279 0.094292 6,583 $ 1,267,591 0.5275599 $ 206,559 0.085968 9,874 $ 1,392,500 0.3863639 $ 299,838 0.083193 13,166 $ 1,517,409 0.315766 $ 393,117 0.081806 1.1347024 0.097899 Deep Well Reinjection y = 37.95x + 1E+ 06 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 500,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,500,000 $ 2,000,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost Deep Well Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 700 1 Injection formation coal seam 1 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 0 250 1 Wells required 1 1 1 2 2 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Well makeover costs $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 109,976 $ 197,941 $ 315,226 $ 457,512 $ 574,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 1,650 $ 2,969 $ 4,728 $ 6,863 $ 8,622 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 5,499 9,897 15,761 22,876 28,740 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 7,148 $ 12,866 $ 20,490 $ 29,738 $ 37,362 Total Cost $ 117,125 $ 210,807 $ 335,716 $ 487,250 $ 612,159 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 0.3900 $ 0.1755 $ 0.1397 $ 0.1352 $ 0.1274 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.1442 $ 0.0943 $ 0.0860 $ 0.0832 $ 0.0818 Shallow Well Makeover Costs Number of Wells DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost Operating Cost 823 $ 117,125 0.389970454 $ 43,320 0.1442346 3,291 $ 210,807 0.175471658 $ 113,279 0.09429167 6,583 $ 335,716 0.139721859 $ 206,559 0.08596785 9,874 $ 487,250 0.13519265 $ 299,838 0.08319325 13,166 $ 612,159 0.127387502 $ 393,117 0.08180594 0.193548825 0.09789866 Shallow Well Makeover y = 40.542x + 79057 R2 = 0.9988 $ 0 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 500,000 $ 600,000 $ 700,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost Shallow Makeover Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 3000 1 Injection formation Fox Hills 19 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 111 693 19 Wells required 1 1 1 1 1 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Well makeover $ 221,000 $ 221,000 $ 221,000 $ 221,000 $ 221,000 $ 221,000 19 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 305,976 $ 393,941 $ 511,226 $ 628,512 $ 745,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 4,590 $ 5,909 $ 7,668 $ 9,428 $ 11,187 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 15,299 19,697 25,561 31,426 37,290 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 19,888 $ 25,606 $ 33,230 $ 40,853 $ 48,477 Total Cost $ 325,865 $ 419,547 $ 544,456 $ 669,365 $ 794,274 Total Cost $/ bbl $ 1.0850 $ 0.3492 $ 0.2266 $ 0.1857 $ 0.1653 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Total Annual Costs $/ bbl $ 0.1442 $ 0.0943 $ 0.0860 $ 0.0832 $ 0.0818 Medium Depth Well Makeover Costs Number of Wells DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost Operating Cost 823 $ 325,865 1.084976162 $ 43,320 0.1442346 3,291 $ 419,547 0.349223085 $ 113,279 0.09429167 6,583 $ 544,456 0.226597572 $ 206,559 0.08596785 9,874 $ 669,365 0.185722401 $ 299,838 0.08319325 13,166 $ 794,274 0.165284816 $ 393,117 0.08180594 0.402360807 0.09789866 Medium Depth Well Makeover y = 37.95x + 294638 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,000,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Medium Makeover Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost DRAFT January 2003 Parameter Unit Value 2 8 16 24 32 Notes Option Specifications Estimated flow per well gpm 12 1 Estimated flow gpm 24 96 192 288 384 Estimated flow gpd 34,560 138,240 276,480 414,720 552,960 Estimated flow bpd 823 3,291 6,583 9,874 13,166 Piping per well ft 2640 2 Piping required ft 5,280 21,120 42,240 63,360 84,480 Land required acres 1 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 10 Well depth ft 9500 19 Reinjection well capacity gpm/ well 321 3209 19 Injection formation Minnelusa Wells required 1 1 1 1 1 Storage time for tank hrs 1 2 Feed tank gal 1440 5760 11520 17280 23040 Building size required sq. ft. 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 11 Costs Piping cost  installed $/ ft 3.06 $ 16,157 $ 64,627 $ 129,254 $ 193,882 $ 258,509 8 Land acquisition $/ acre 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 $ 338 1 Tanks and chlorinators $ $ 20,930 $ 29,694 $ 41,379 $ 53,064 $ 64,749 9,21 Well makeover $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 $ 450,000 19 Tank costs $ $ 4,404 $ 7,278 $ 11,111 $ 14,944 $ 18,776 12,21 Pump costs $ $ 10,508 $ 38,363 $ 75,504 $ 112,644 $ 149,785 18 Equipment building $/ sq. ft. 32.64 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 $ 32,640 6 Total Direct Costs $ 534,976 $ 622,941 $ 740,226 $ 857,512 $ 974,797 Insurance 1.5 % of total direct cost $ 8,025 $ 9,344 $ 11,103 $ 12,863 $ 14,622 8 Contingency 5 % of total direct cost 26,749 31,147 37,011 42,876 48,740 8 Total Indirect Cost $ 34,773 $ 40,491 $ 48,115 $ 55,738 $ 63,362 Total Cost $ 569,750 $ 663,432 $ 788,341 $ 913,250 $ 1,038,159 Total Cost ($/ bbl) $ 1.90 $ 0.55 $ 0.33 $ 0.25 $ 0.22 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs Labor man yrs 0.5 2 Labor cost $/ yr 40,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 9 Chemicals ( biocides, chlorine) $/ gal 0.001849 $ 23,320 $ 93,279 $ 186,559 $ 279,838 $ 373,117 19,21 Deep Well Makeover Costs Number of Wells DRAFT January 2003 Total Annual Costs $ 43,320 $ 113,279 $ 206,559 $ 299,838 $ 393,117 Total Annual Costs ($/ bbl) $ 0.14 $ 0.09 $ 0.09 $ 0.08 $ 0.08 DRAFT January 2003 Water ( bpd) Cost Operating Cost 823 $ 569,750 1.89699814 $ 43,320 0.1442346 3,291 $ 663,432 0.55222858 $ 113,279 0.0942917 6,583 $ 788,341 0.32810032 $ 206,559 0.0859679 9,874 $ 913,250 0.2533909 $ 299,838 0.0831932 13,166 $ 1,038,159 0.21603619 $ 393,117 0.0818059 0.64935082 0.0978987 Deep Well Makeover y = 37.95x + 538523 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ 600,000 $ 800,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,200,000 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 Water ( bpd)

Total Capital Cost Deep Makeover Operating Cost y = 28.34x + 20000 R2 = 1 $ 0 $ 50,000 $ 100,000 $ 150,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 $ 300,000 $ 350,000 $ 400,000 $ 450,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 Water ( bpd)

Operating Cost DRAFT January 2003 Tank costs from Plas Tanks Size 1997 Cost 2001 Cost 529 2793 3015.845745 1028 3285 3547.101064 2540 4920 5312.553191 5074 7743 8360.792553 10147 9664 10435.06383 20293 15041 16241.07979 40000 27949 30178.9734 10000 Pumps from Development Document for Coastal Subcategory Size ( bpd) 1995 Cost 2001 Cost 200 5158 5838.702602 500 5912 6692.208178 1000 15259 17272.7342 5000 47543 53817.26208 10000 95086 107634.5242 18000 190172 215269.0483 30000 285258 322903.5725 42000 427887 484355.3587 Tank Costs y = 0.6654x + 3445.4 R2 = 0.9929 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Tank Size ( gal)

Cost (

2001 $) Pump Costs y = 11.284x + 1222.6 R2 = 0.9974 0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 Size ( bpd)

Cost (

2001 $) DRAFT January 2003 Chemicals for Reinjection from Caribou Oil and Gas Chemical Cost $ Barrels Injected Gallons Injected $/ gal 12756 164404 6904968 0.001847 10197 156567 6575814 0.001551 14353 167503 7035126 0.00204 11305 164190 6895980 0.001639 14664 161212 6770904 0.002166 average 0.001849 Surface Tanks with Chlorinators from CDM Cost $ GPM $/ gpm 10,000 10 1000 40,000 100 400 200,000 1500 133 Chlorinator cost vs gpm y = 121.72x + 18009 R2 = 0.9913 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 GPM Cost DRAFT January 2003 NOTES 1 Information obtained from operators ( Coalbed Methane Operators Information Survey Results, September 2001) and phone calls.

2 Best professional judgment ( BPJ) assumption.

3 A 6 foot depth was assumed based on the maximum depth of frost penetration.

4 The amount of land required was computed as the area disturbed during trenching.

5 Costs obtained from RSMeans Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, 20th Edition 2001.

6 Costs obtained from BNI Building News Mechanical/ Electrical Costbook, 2001. Costs adjusted to Sheridan, Wyoming.

7 Percentage obtained from General Electric Corporation, DCN 15900 in EPA docket W 99 23.

Percentage is based on Brown and Caldwell estimate and is based on historical data, MEANS, and other cost references.

8 Obtained from RSMeans Building Construction Cost Data, 59th Edition, 2001.

9 10 11 From requirement list from US Filter price quote.

12 Costs obtained from Plas Tanks Industries, Inc for fiberglass reinforced plastic tanks. Updated to 2001 costs.

13 Costs obtained from US Filter and include prefilters ( 3 carbon filters, 4 manganese greensand filters, and 2 catridge filters)

14 Costs obtained from the Department of Energy Energy Information Administration.

15 Costs obtained from a US Filter proposal for a RO/ Continuous Deionization system.

16 See pond calculation sheets. Ponds are assumed to be square with sloped sides.

17 E mail correspondence with Duane Zavadil 10/ 04/ 01.

18 Obtained from Development Document for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category .

19 Obtained from Caribou Land & Livestock Montana, LLC.

20 Based on information from Wiemers Engineering LLC.

21 See attached graphs.

The amount of land required was computed as the area disturbed during trenching plus one additional acre for the equipment building.

Costs obtained from CDM Camp Dresser & McKee Petroleum Association of Wyoming Coal Bed Methane Producers,

Technical Support for Antidegradation Review for Barium .


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 223 (Friday, November 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 81756]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27802]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-256-000]

Darby Power, 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
Darby Power, 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 November 30, 2016.
    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: November 10, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27802 Filed 11-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


3/11/2009 ChemSAC Minutes (Pome Fruit)

1.  Revisions to Crop Group 11:  Pome Fruit (B. Schneider)

Bernie Schneider presented the proposed revisions to Crop Group 11
submitted by IR-4, along with his recommendations.  The most significant
changes are the expansion of the number of commodities and the change in
term from ‘Oriental Pear’ to ‘Asian Pear’.  No changes are
recommended to the representative commodities or to the number of field
trials needed.  Bernie recommended against the expansion of the terms
for crabapple, as they are covered in the food and feed vocabulary
available at   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed"
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/foodfeed .  Canada provided written
comments in advance of the meeting and concurred with all of Bernie’s
recommendations.  However, since Bernie recommends modifications to the
HED SOP 99.6 -  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1  “Classification of Food Forms
with Respect to Level of Blending”, based on the modifications to the
crop group, Canada asked to be included in any future discussions on
modifying the SOP.  Mike Doherty asked about potentially higher residues
on the smaller pome fruit varieties, but after some discussion it was
agreed that the crop field trials on the representative crops should be
sufficient to cover the range of residues.  In conclusion, the ChemSAC
concurred with all of Bernie’s recommendations.  Coming attractions
for future crop group modifications include Stone Fruits, Tree Nuts,
Tropical Fruits, and Herbs/Spices.

9/10/2008 ChemSAC Minutes (Fruiting Vegetables)

2. Fruiting Vegetable Crop Group Revisions (Bernie Schneider).  Bernie
Schneider presented a proposal from IR-4 revising the members of the
fruiting vegetable crop group.  Previously there has been a number of
orphan and/or ethnic food crops omitted from the current crop group.
There have been a number of attempts to revise the crop group adding
many of these ethnic food crops.  IR-4 has submitted 5 proposals which
are captured in the document titled “ChemSAC Review of the USDA IR-4
Crop Grouping Proposal to Amend the Fruiting Vegetable Crop Group 8, and
Analysis of the USDA IR-4 Petition to Amend the Crop Group Regulation 40
CFR §180.41 (c) (8) and Commodity Definitions [40 CFR §180.1 (g)] from
Bernard Schneider dated July 30, 2008.  The following are the proposals
submitted by IR-4 and the HED recommendations presented to the ChemSAC:

IR-4 Proposal 1:

1. “Amend the name of the crop group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (8) from
“Crop Group 8, Fruiting Vegetables (Except Cucurbits) to “Crop Group
8, Fruiting Vegetable Group.”

Recommendation for Proposal 1:

	I recommend that the ChemSAC concur to amend the Crop Group Regulation
[40 CFR 180.41 (c) (8)] to revise the name of the Fruiting vegetables
(Except Cucurbits) to Crop Group 8, Fruiting Vegetable Group, and the
tolerance expression term will be “Vegetable, fruiting, group 8”.
The term except cucurbits is not necessary in the group name and has not
been used for establishing tolerances for this fruiting vegetable group
since 2002.  There is also a distinct Cucurbit vegetable group 9 that
will be updated in a future petition.

The ChemSAC concurred to amend the name.

IR-4 Proposal 2:

2.” Amend the existing crop group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (8) that
consists of the following six commodity entries:

1). Eggplant, Solanum melongena

2). Groundcherry, Physalis spp

3). Pepino, Solanum muricatum

4). Pepper, Capsicum spp., includes bell pepper, chili pepper, cooking
pepper, pimento, sweet pepper

5). Tomatillo, Physalis ixocarpo

6). Tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum

To an expanded crop group that consists of the following 19 commodity
entries with updated scientific names:

African eggplant, Solanum macrocarpon L.

Bush tomato, Solanum centrale J.M. Black

Cocona, Solanum sessiliflorum Dunal

Currant tomato, Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium (L.) Mill.

Eggplant, (including cultivars and/or hybrids of this), Solanum
melongena L.

Garden huckleberry, Solanum scabrum

Groundcherry, Physalis spp.

Martynia, Proboscidea louisianica (Mill.) Thell.

Naranjilla, Solanum quitoense Lam.

Okra, Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench

Pea eggplant, Solanum torvum

Pepino, Solanum muricatum Aiton

Peppers (including all peppers i.e. bell, non-bell, hot, sweet, etc.,
and cultivars and/or hybrids of these), Capsicum spp.

Roselle, Hibiscus sabdariffa L.

Scarlet eggplant, Solanum aethiopicum

Sunberry, Solanum retroflexum

Tomatillo, Physalis philadelphica Lam.

Tomato (including cultivars and/or hybrids of this) Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill. var. esculentum

Tree tomato, Cyphomandra betacea (Cav.) Sendtn.

And varieties and/or hybrids of these commodities

Recommendation for Proposal 2:

	Based on similarities and characteristics of the Solanaceae or
Nightshade plant family which includes most of the fruiting vegetable
group, cultural practices, edible food and lack of animal feed portions,
residue levels, geographical location, pest problems, established
tolerances, and for international harmonization purposes, I recommend
that ChemSAC concur to amend the expansion of the Fruiting vegetable
crop group 8 from six commodities to twenty-one commodities.  Goji berry
another Solanaceae family member was also assessed and I recommend it to
be added to this group.  Peppers in the original crop group was a single
commodity entry and should be changed to pepper, bell and pepper,
nonbell to the group to better reflect how EPA regulates peppers.  The
twenty-one members are listed below:

African eggplant, Solanum macrocarpon L.

Bush tomato, Solanum centrale J.M. Black

Cocona, Solanum sessiliflorum Dunal

Currant tomato, Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium (L.) Mill.

Eggplant (including eggplant cultivars, varieties, or hybrids of these),
Solanum melongena L.

Garden huckleberry, Solanum scabrum Mill.

Goji berry, Lycium barbarum L

Groundcherry, (including groundcherry cultivars, varieties, or hybrids
of these), Physalis alkekengi L., P. grisea (Waterf.) M. Martinez, P.
peruvian L., P. pubescent L.

Martynia, Proboscidea louisianica (Mill.) Thell.

Naranjilla, Solanum quitoense Lam.

Okra, Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench

Pea eggplant, Solanum torvum Sw.

Pepino, Solanum muricatum Aiton

Pepper, bell (including pepper cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of
these), Capsicum annuum var. annuum L., Capsicum spp.

Pepper, nonbell (including pepper cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of
these Capsicum chinese, C. annuum var. annuum , C. frutescens C.
baccatum, C. pubescens., Capsicum spp.

Roselle, Hibiscus sabdariffa L.

Scarlet eggplant, Solanum aethiopicum L.

Sunberry, Solanum retroflexum Dunal

Tomatillo, Physalis philadelphica Lam.

Tomato (including tomato cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these)
Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. var. esculentum

Tree tomato, Solanum betaceum Cav.

	Including cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these commodities

The ChemSAC concurred with Bernie’s recommendation of adding goji
berry to the IR-4’s proposal in addition to separating pepper into
bell pepper and nonbell pepper.

IR-4 Proposal 3:

3. “Amend the representative commodities from the Fruiting Vegetables
(Except Cucurbits) Group in 40 CFR 180.41 (c) (8) (i) from “Tomato;
bell pepper; one cultivar of nonbell pepper”, to “Tomato; bell
pepper; one cultivar of nonbell pepper or one cultivar of small variety
eggplant (i.e. Epic, Vernal, Nadia, or Ichiban)”.

Recommendation for Proposal 3:

	I recommend ChemSAC concur to adopt “Tomato (standard size and one
cultivar of small tomato); bell pepper; and one cultivar of small
nonbell pepper” as the representative commodities for the amended
Fruiting vegetable Crop Group 8.  These three representative commodities
account for > 99 % of the harvested acres for the members of the amended
Fruiting vegetable group.  The representative commodities are based on
similarities in fruit and cultural practices and geographical locations,
as well as their high production (both acres and yield) and consumption.
 	One cultivar of small variety eggplant (i.e. Epic, Vernal, Nadia, or
Ichiban) is not required to obtain a crop group tolerance but it will be
an alternative representative commodity for Crop subgroup 8C.  Eggplant
will be covered by a nonbell pepper, which will also be the
representative commodity for Crop subgroups 8B and 8C.  However, a
cultivar of small variety eggplant (i.e. Epic, Vernal, Nadia, or
Ichiban) may also be used to obtain the Nonbell pepper/eggplant subgroup
8C.  HED recommends not including specific small variety or cultivar of
eggplants in the representative commodity list such as “Epic, Vernal,
Nadia, or Ichiban” because cultivars can change and not be available
from commercial seed companies.  Also, some of the cultivars that were
recommended such as ‘Nadia’ are not truly small eggplant varieties.
There are some eggplant varieties that are small baseball size and some
as small as cherry tomatoes that would be preferred representative
commodities.  The representative commodities for Crop subgroup 8C should
be “One cultivar of small nonbell pepper or one cultivar of small
eggplant.”

The ChemSAC concurred with the recommendations.

IR-4 Proposal 4:

4. Establish the following three new subgroups under the Fruiting
vegetable group as follows:

Subgroup 8A: Tomato Subgroup 8A (representative commodity: Tomato)

Bush tomato, Solanum centrale J.M. Black

Cocona, Solanum sessiliflorum Dunal

Currant tomato, Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium (L.) Mill

Garden huckleberry, Solanum scabrum Mill.

Goji berry, Lycium barbarum L.

Groundcherry, Physalis spp.

Naranjilla, Solanum quitoense Lam.

Sunberry, Solanum retroflexum Dunal

Tomatillo, Physalis philadelphica Lam.

Tomato (including cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of this)
Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. var. esculentum

Tree tomato, Solanum betaceum Cav

And varieties and/or hybrids of these commodities

Subgroup 8B: Pepper Subgroup 8B (representative commodities: Bell pepper
and one cultivar of nonbell pepper)

Martynia, Proboscidea louisianica (Mill.) Thell.

Okra, Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench

Pepino, Solanum muricatum Aiton

Peppers (including all peppers i.e. bell, nonbell, hot, sweet, etc., and
cultivars and/or hybrids of these), Capsicum spp.

Roselle, Hibiscus sabdariffa L.

And cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these commodities

Subgroup 8C: Eggplant Subgroup 8C (representative commodities: One
cultivar of nonbell pepper or one cultivar of small variety eggplant
(i.e. Epic, Vernal, Nadia, or Ichiban).

African eggplant, Solanum macrocarpon

Eggplant (including cultivars and/or hybrids of this), Solanum melongena
L.

Pea eggplant, Solanum torvum Sw.

Scarlet eggplant, Solanum aethiopicum

And cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of these commodities

Recommendation for Proposal 4A – Tomato subgroup 8A:

	I recommend that ChemSAC concur to establish three new subgroups, and
the first subgroup will be the Tomato subgroup 8A with tomato being the
representative commodity.  I also recommend the tomato representative
commodity include the following: “standard size and one cultivar of
small tomato.”  This subgroup is based on the major commodity tomato
which combines the fruit that vary from the small cherry tomato
varieties to the standard size oblong tomato.  The tomatoes have varying
shape from pear shaped to softball shaped.  Tomatoes are the most
commonly grown fruiting vegetable in the world and are increasing in
popularity because they are completely edible and used in most ethnic
cuisines.  They are all likely to have similar pest problems.

	The eleven members of this Tomato subgroup will include:

Bush tomato; Cocona; Currant tomato; Garden huckleberry; Goji berry;
Groundcherry; Naranjilla; Sunberry; Tomatillo; Tomato; Tree tomato; and
includes cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these commodities.

ChemSAC concurred with the recommendations for this subgroup.

Recommendation for Proposal 4B – Pepper Subgroup 10B:

	I recommend that ChemSAC concur to establish the second new subgroup,
but change the name from Pepper subgroup 8B to the Pepper/eggplant
subgroup 8B, with bell pepper and one cultivar of small nonbell pepper
being the representative commodities.

	This second Crop subgroup is based on the wide variation in peppers in
size, shape, and use as well as its similar cultural practices.  Peppers
are a very popular worldwide and total production is second to tomatoes
with increase use in various ethnic cuisines, and in per capita
consumption.  The commodity pepper should be listed as bell pepper and
nonbell pepper to avoid confusion in terminology as well as distinguish
their use and in dietary risk assessment models.

The ten commodities of this Pepper/eggplant subgroup will include:
African eggplant, Bell pepper; Eggplant, Martynia; Nonbell pepper; Okra;
Pepino; Roselle, and Scarlet eggplant as well as cultivars, hybrids
and/or varieties of these commodities.

ChemSAC concurred with the recommendations for this subgroup.

Recommendation for Proposal 4C – Eggplant Subgroup 8C:

	I recommend that ChemSAC concur to establish the third new subgroup,
which will be the Nonbell pepper/eggplant subgroup 8C, with Nonbell
pepper or eggplant being the representative commodity for this subgroup.
 This third Crop subgroup is based on the wide variation in eggplants
from pea shaped to large football shaped varieties and all have similar
cultural practices.  Eggplants are the third most widely grown fruiting
vegetable in this group.  Nonbell peppers can substitute for eggplant as
the representative commodity because the variation in size of the pepper
and eggplant varieties are very similar.  Eggplants can now be found in
sizes as small as large peas (pea eggplant).  If eggplants are to be
used as the representative commodity a small cultivar of eggplant is
needed.  The USDA IR-4 petition suggested having small cultivars of
eggplants such as Epic, Vernal, Nadia, or Ichiban.  HED does not
recommend placing these specific cultivars in the as part of the
representative commodity in the Federal Register.  Instead I recommend
the representative commodities for Crop subgroup 8C to be “one
cultivar of small nonbell pepper or one cultivar of small eggplant.”

	The nine commodities of this Nonbell pepper/eggplant subgroup will
include: African eggplant; Eggplant; Martynia, Nonbell pepper, Okra, Pea
eggplant; Pepino, Roselle, and Scarlet eggplant, as well as cultivars,
hybrids and/or varieties of these commodities.

ChemSAC concurred with the recommendations for this subgroup.

IR-4 Proposal 5 for Commodity Definitions:

5. In 40 CFR 180.1 (g) revise the Commodity Definitions for Tomato 5a,
and Pepper 5b as described below:

Revise the Pepper and Tomato Commodity Definitions in 40 CFR 180.1 (g)
as described below:

5a. Peppers Definition: Tolerances and exemptions established for
pesticide chemicals in or on Peppers apply to the following commodities:
from “All varieties of peppers including pimentos and bell, hot, and
sweet peppers.”

To:

5a. Pepper Definition: Tolerances and exemptions established for
pesticide chemicals in or on Pepper apply to the following commodities:
“Okra; Pepino; Peppers (including all peppers i.e. bell, nonbell, hot,
sweet, etc., and cultivars and/or hybrids of these), and Roselle.”

5b. Tomatoes Definition:  from Tolerances and exemptions established for
pesticide chemicals in or on “Tomatoes, tomatillos.”

To:

5b. Tomato  Definition: Tolerances and exemptions established for
pesticide chemicals in or on “Bush Tomato; Cocona; Currant tomato;
Garden huckleberry; Groundcherry; Naranjilla; Sunberry; Tomatillo;
Tomato (including cultivars and/or hybrids of this); and Tree tomato.”

Recommendation for Proposal 5a – Pepper Commodity Definition:

	I recommend ChemSAC reject the proposal to add additional commodities
to the IR-4 peppers commodity definition [40 CFR Part 180.1(g)] because
we are recommending instead to establish a new Pepper/eggplant crop
subgroup 8B.  However, we recommend adding nonbell pepper to the
definition to help avoid any confusion with amending the whole Fruiting
vegetable group and the use of bell and nonbell pepper as specific
commodities.  Also, I have added the peppers such as tabasco that
registrants sometimes request a separate tolerance.  Now with the
proposed revision to the Fruiting vegetable crop group I recommend
amending the 180.1(g) pepper definition to:

“Pepper……All cultivars, varieties and/or hybrids of pepper
including pimento bell, nonbell, chili, hot, tabasco, paprika, and sweet
pepper.”

ChemSAC concurred with this commodity definition.

Recommendation for Proposal 5b – Tomato Commodity Definition:

	I recommend ChemSAC reject the proposal to add additional commodities
to the IR-4 tomatoes commodity definition [40 CFR Part 180.1(g)] because
we are recommending instead to establish a new Tomato crop subgroup 8A
and the additional commodities will be part of this subgroup.  The
current commodity definition for tomato to include tomatillo is
adequate.

ChemSAC also concurred with this recommendation.

2/21/2007 ChemSAC Minutes (Oilseeds)

2.  Oilseed Crop Group 20 (Bernard Schneider):  Bernard Schneider
discussed the information documented in “ChemSAC Review of the USDA
IR-4 Crop Grouping Proposal to Establish a New Crop Group – Oilseed
Group 20” and “Crop Grouping – Part IV:  Analysis of the USDA IR-4
Petition to Amend the Crop Group Regulation 40 CFR 180.41 (c) and
Commodity Definitions [40 CFR 180.1] Related to New Crop Group 20
Oilseed, MRID 467897-01.”  Both ChemSAC and PMRA recommended to
establish an oilseed crop group and agreed with the proposed commodities
to be included in this crop group.  In addition, it was agreed that
rapeseed (canola varieties only), sunflower seed, and cottonseed will
serve as the representative commodities for the oilseed crop group and
as the representative commodities for the following oilseed crop
subgroups, respectively:  (1) crops with seeds enclosed in pods or
pod-like capsules, (2) seeds partially exposed during growing season,
and (3) cottonseed.

10/3/2007 ChemSAC Minutes (Citrus)

2. Proposed Revision to the Citrus Fruit Crop Group 10 ( B. Schneider).

Bernie Schneider discussed his analysis of the USDA IR-4 petition to
amend the Citrus fruit crop group 10.  Five proposals were discussed and
they are listed below with the ChemSAC conclusions.  Proposal 1
recommended that ChemSAC concur to amend the Crop Group Regulation [40
CFR 180.41 (c) (10)] to revise the name of the Citrus fruit crop group
to delete references to Citrus spp., and Fortunella spp.  This will
eliminate confusion on the various citrus genera in the Rutaceae family.
 The amended crop group has citrus members from the following five
genera: Citrus spp., Eremocitrus spp., Fortunella spp., Microcitrus
spp., and Poncirus spp. Proposal 1 was approved by ChemSAC.

Proposal 2 was to amend the current Citrus crop group 10 from 12
commodities to 28 commodities.  These commodities are Australian desert
lime, Australian finger lime, Australian round lime, Brown River finger
lime, Calamondin, Citron, Citrus hybrids, Grapefruit, Japanese summer
grapefruit, Kumquat, Lemon, Lime, Mediterranean Mandarin, Mount White
lime, New Guinea wild lime, Orange, sour, Orange, sweet, Pummelo,
Russell River lime, Satsuma mandarin, Sweet lime, Tachibana orange,
Tahiti Lime, Tangelo, Tangerine (Mandarin), Tangor, Trifoliate orange,
Uniq fruit, and varieties, cultivars and/or hybrids of these.  Based on
similarities and characteristics of the Rutaceae plant family which
includes all the citrus fruits, cultural practices, edible food and
animal feed portions, residue levels, geographical location, pest
problems, established tolerances, and for international harmonization
purposes, it was recommended that ChemSAC concur to amend the Citrus
Crop Group 10 from twelve commodities to 28 commodities with the
inclusion of Uniq fruit, which is a cross between tangerine and pummelo
also called Ugli® fruit mostly imported from Jamaica.  Proposal 2 was
approved by ChemSAC.

Proposal 3 requested that the representative commodities from the
current crop group which are sweet orange, lemon, and grapefruit to
amended to orange or tangerine/mandarin, lemon or lime, and grapefruit
in the proposed expanded group.  It was recommended that ChemSAC concur
to adopt orange or tangerine/mandarin, lemon or lime, and grapefruit as
the representative commodities for the Citrus Fruit Crop Group 10.
These three representative commodities account for > 99 % of the
harvested acres for the members of the Citrus Fruit Group.  The
representative commodities are based on similarities in fruit and
cultural practices and geographical locations, as well as their high
production (both acres and yield) and consumption.  The representative
commodities selected for this crop group, orange or tangerine/mandarin,
lemon or lime, and grapefruit, are revised from the existing citrus crop
group, and are comparable with the commodities that the subgroups are
based on in Codex Citrus Fruits Group, and MRL considerations as well as
the European Union (EU) List of Commodity Regulations.  The expanded
Citrus Fruits Group and the representative commodities proposed in this
petition will facilitate the harmonization of the US and the Codex crop
classification systems.  Proposal 3 was approved by ChemSAC.

Proposal 4 recommended for the establishment for three new crop
subgroups as Subgroup 10A: Orange Subgroup 10A (representative crops:
Orange or tangerine/mandarin); Subgroup 10B: Lemon/Lime Subgroup 10B
(rep crops: Lemon or lime); and Subgroup 10C: Grapefruit Subgroup 10C
(rep crop: Grapefruit).  The Orange subgroup 10A with orange or
tangerine/mandarin being the representative commodity is based on one of
the botanically recognized horticultural group which combines the
oranges. This subgroup includes the sweet orange types that are the most
commonly grown citrus in the world as well as the tangerines or
mandarins that have over 100 cultivars and are increasing in popularity
because they are easy to peel and eat out of hand and some are also
processed into juice.  The tangerines are very similar to the sweet
oranges.  They are also likely to have similar pest problems.  This
subgroup will include the seedless mandarins like clementines and
various tangerine hybrids such as tangor, a hybrid of mandarin and
orange (‘Murcott’), and tangelos which are hybrids of mandarin and
grapefruit (‘Minneola’).  The twelve members of this subgroup will
include: Calamondin, Citron, Citrus hybrids, Mediterranean Mandarin,
Orange, sour, Orange, sweet, Satsuma mandarin, Tachibana orange,
Tangelo, Tangerine (Mandarin), Tangor, Trifoliate orange, and varieties,
cultivars, and/or hybrids of these crops.  The Lemon/lime subgroup 10B,
with lemon or lime being the representative commodity is based on the
recognized horticultural group that includes lemons and limes.  The
twelve commodities in this subgroup will be Australian desert lime,
Australian finger lime, Australian round lime, Brown River finger lime,
Kumquat, Lemon, Lime, Mount White lime, New Guinea wild lime, Russell
River-lime, Sweet lime, Tahiti Lime, and varieties, cultivars, and/or
hybrids of these commodities.  The Grapefruit subgroup 10C, with
grapefruit being the representative commodity is the third new subgroup.
 The grapefruit is distinct enough based on size and use to be the made
into a third subgroup.  This third grapefruit subgroup is also based on
a widely recognized horticultural class, which include several
commodities that are grouped based on their rind or flesh colored pulp
pigments.  Utilization of all these grapefruit citrus fruit crops is
similar in that they are grown for their fresh fruit, juice, molasses,
syrups, oil, essence, and marmalade.  The tangelo being a cross between
tangerine and grapefruit will be added both to the Orange/tangerine
subgroup 10A and the Grapefruit subgroup 10C.  The five commodities in
this subgroup will be Grapefruit, Japanese summer grapefruit, Pummelo,
Tangelo, and Uniq fruit, and varieties, cultivars, and/or hybrids of
these commodities.  ChemSAC agreed to approve all three new citrus crop
subgroups.

Proposal five considered amending or adding new Commodity Definitions 40
CFR § 180.1 (g) for Citrus fruits; Tangerine; Grapefruit, Lemon, Lime,
and Orange.  It was recommended to reject the established commodity
definition [40 CFR § 180.1 (g)] and proposed updated commodity
definition for citrus fruits.  It is essentially a repeat of the
commodities in the Citrus fruit group 10, and while it may be useful for
labeling citrus fruits is no longer a tolerance term, because we have an
expanded citrus fruit group and several other commodity definitions such
as tangerine are more specific to certain citrus.  The term citrus
fruits should not be used for setting a tolerance.  It was recommended
to establish a revised Tangerine commodity definition under 40 CFR §
180.1 (g) as follows:

Tangerine..................................Tangerine (mandarin or
mandarin orange), clementine, Mediterranean mandarin, Satsuma mandarin,
tangelo, tangor, and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of tangerines
with other fruits.

This will help in clarifying what other citrus fruits the tangerine will
cover.  It was recommended to establish a Grapefruit commodity
definition under 40 CFR § 180.1 (g) as follows:

Grapefruit..................................Grapefruit, pummelo,
shaddock, tangelo, Uniq fruit, and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids
of grapefruit with other fruits.

This will also clarify what commodities are covered by grapefruit
tolerances and follows the EPA Commodity Reviewer’s Guide approved by
ChemSAC, 2006.  The inclusion of cultivars, varieties and hybrids will
leave no doubt which specific related varieties are covered.  It was
recommended to establish a revised Lemon commodity definition under 40
CFR § 180.1 (g) as follows:

Lemon..................................Lemon, lime, and cultivars,
varieties, and/or hybrids of lemon with other fruits.  This commodity
definition is mainly to show lemons also can cover limes.  The list of
many of the limes is not necessary for lemon because they are included
in the lime commodity definition.  It was recommended to establish a
revised Lime commodity definition under 40 CFR § 180.1 (g) as follows:

Lime..................................Lime, Australian desert lime,
Australian finger lime, Australian round lime, Brown River finger lime,
lemon, Mount White lime, New Guinea wild lime, Russell River lime, Sweet
lime, Tahiti lime, and varieties and/or hybrids of these limes with
other fruits.

It was recommended to establish a revised Orange commodity definition
under 40 CFR § 180.1 (g) as follows:

Orange.................................Orange, sweet orange, sour
orange, tachibana orange, trifoliate orange, and cultivars, varieties
and/or hybrids of these oranges with other fruits.

ChemSAC agreed to reject the Citrus fruit commodity definition and
agreed to adopt the commodity definitions for tangerine, lemon, lime,
and orange.

2/21/2007 ChemSAC Minutes (Oilseeds)

2.  Oilseed Crop Group 20 (Bernard Schneider):  Bernard Schneider
discussed the information documented in “ChemSAC Review of the USDA
IR-4 Crop Grouping Proposal to Establish a New Crop Group – Oilseed
Group 20” and “Crop Grouping – Part IV:  Analysis of the USDA IR-4
Petition to Amend the Crop Group Regulation 40 CFR 180.41 (c) and
Commodity Definitions [40 CFR 180.1] Related to New Crop Group 20
Oilseed, MRID 467897-01.”  Both ChemSAC and PMRA recommended to
establish an oilseed crop group and agreed with the proposed commodities
to be included in this crop group.  In addition, it was agreed that
rapeseed (canola varieties only), sunflower seed, and cottonseed will
serve as the representative commodities for the oilseed crop group and
as the representative commodities for the following oilseed crop
subgroups, respectively:  (1) crops with seeds enclosed in pods or
pod-like capsules, (2) seeds partially exposed during growing season,
and (3) cottonseed.