[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 66 (Friday, April 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13673-13675]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06687]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2019-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1915]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 5, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1915, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,

(202) 646-7659, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Crittenden County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 13-04-8739S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2016 and June 29,
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Crittenden       Crittenden County Courthouse,
 County.                                  Clerk's Office, 107 South Main
                                          Street, Suite 203, Marion, KY
                                          42064.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Livingston County, Kentucky and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 13-04-8739S Preliminary Date: September 30, 2016 and June 29,
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Smithland......................  City Hall, 310 Wilson Avenue,
                                          Smithland, KY 42081.
Unincorporated Areas of Livingston       Livingston County Judge
 County.                                  Executive's Office, 321 Court
                                          Street, Smithland, KY 42081.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Cass County, North Dakota (All Jurisdictions)
  Project: 10-08-0041S Preliminary Date: January 29, 2016 and July 18,
                                  2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Amenia.........................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
City of Argusville.....................  City Auditor's Office, 602 Lynn
                                          Dawn Drive, Argusville, ND
                                          58005.
City of Arthur.........................  Community Hall, 340 Main
                                          Street, Arthur, ND 58006.
City of Casselton......................  City Hall, 702 1st Street
                                          North, Casselton, ND 58012.
City of Davenport......................  City Hall, 115 4th Avenue,
                                          Davenport, ND 58021.
City of Fargo..........................  City Hall, 225 4th Street
                                          North, Fargo, ND 58102.
City of Harwood........................  City Hall, 108 Main Street,
                                          Harwood, ND 58042.
City of Horace.........................  City Hall 215 Park Drive East,
                                          Horace, ND 58047.
City of Hunter.........................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
City of Kindred........................  City Hall, 31 5th Avenue North,
                                          Kindred, ND 58051.
City of Mapleton.......................  City Hall, 651 2nd Street,
                                          Mapleton, ND 58059.
City of Reiles Acres...................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
City of West Fargo.....................  City Hall, 800 4th Avenue East,
                                          Suite 1, West Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Addison....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Amenia.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.

Township of Arthur.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Berlin.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Casselton..................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Davenport..................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Durbin.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Everest....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Gardner....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Harmony....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Harwood....................  Clerk, Zoning and
                                          Administrator's Office, 126
                                          Brooktree Park, Harwood, ND
                                          58042.
Township of Highland...................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Hunter.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Maple River................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Mapleton...................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Noble......................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Normanna...................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Pleasant...................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Raymond....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Reed.......................  Reed Township Hall, 1851 County
                                          Road 17 North, West Fargo, ND
                                          58078.
Township of Rush River.................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Walburg....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Warren.....................  Warren Township Chairman's
                                          Office, 9605 81st Street
                                          South, Horace, ND 58047.
Township of Watson.....................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
Township of Wiser......................  Cass County Planning Office,
                                          1201 Main Avenue West, West
                                          Fargo, ND 58078.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-06687 Filed 4-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 148 (Friday, July 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 46211]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16682]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0062]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on July 16, 2020, the Florida
Department of Transportation, Central Florida Rail Corridor/SunRail
(CFRC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad
safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2020-0062.
    Specifically, CFRC seeks relief from the requirements of 49 CFR
236.109, Time releases, timing relays, and timing devices; Sec.
236.377, Approach locking; Sec.  236.378, Time locking; Sec.  236.379,
Route locking; Sec.  236.380, Indication locking; and Sec.  236.381,
Traffic locking, on vital microprocessor-based systems. Many of CFRC's
interlockings, control points, and other locations are controlled by
solid-state vital microprocessor-based systems. These systems utilize
programmed logic equations in lieu of relays or other mechanical
components for control of both vital and non-vital functions. The logic
does not change once a microprocessor-based system has been tested and
locking tests are documented on installation. CFRC proposes to verify
and test signal locking systems and non-configurable timers controlled
by microprocessor-based equipment by use of alternative procedures
every 4 years after initial baseline testing or program change as
follows:
     Verifying the cyclic redundancy check/check sum/universal
control number of the existing location's specific application logic to
the previously-tested version.
     Testing the appropriate interconnection to the associated
signaling hardware equipment outside of the processor for switch
indication, track indication, searchlight signal indication, approach
locking (if external) to verify correct and intended inputs to and
outputs from the processor are maintained.
     Analyze and compare the results of the 4-year alternative
testing with the results of the baseline testing performed at the
location and submit the results to FRA.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 14, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.dot.gov/privacy. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-16682 Filed 7-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


						DOCKET: EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609

                 TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR SECTION 194.23
                  EPA REVIEW OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE
                    WASTE SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETER TAUFAIL

                         Contract Number: EP-D-10-042
                           Work Assignment No. 5-12

      Prepared for:U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyOffice of Radiation and Indoor AirCenter for Waste Management and Regulations1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460Kathleen EconomyWork Assignment ManagerPrepared by:S. Cohen & Associates1608 Spring Hill Road Suite 400Vienna, Virginia 22182

                                      July 2017
PREFACE

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is required to submit a Compliance Recertification Application (CRA) to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) facility every five years including an updated assessment of future WIPP performance. During EPA's review of DOE's CRA-2014 performance assessment (PA), events associated with the February 2014 repository fire and radionuclide release have closed portions of the underground facility. This temporary closure has created a situation where certain parts of the underground facility could not be accessed for ground control. Panel 9 may be abandoned along with plans to modify the design change used for panel closures in panels 3, 4, 5 and 6.

Because the CRA PAs are predictions of post-closure repository performance and the EPA knows there will be modifications to the current repository design, modifying the CRA-2014 PA at this time to incorporate alternative parameter values would not add more reality to predictions of repository post-closure performance. Consequently, the EPA adopted the CRA-2014 PA as originally submitted by DOE as the baseline, rather than have DOE conduct a revised PA baseline calculation (PABC). In lieu of requesting a PABC-2014, the EPA requested that DOE conduct a set of sensitivity studies to address some of the significant technical concerns arising from the EPA's CRA-2014 review. The inputs to these sensitivity studies broadly address many of the EPA's technical concerns that could potentially impact long-term repository performance. The Agency has reviewed the results of these studies and determined that there exists an adequate level of confidence -- that is, a reasonable expectation -- that the repository will continue to comply with EPA regulations. These results are addressed in a companion Technical Support Document, "Review of EPA Sensitivity Studies of DOE CRA-2014 WIPP Compliance Recertification Performance Assessment."

Additionally, the EPA recommends further work that can be conducted to evaluate many of the technical concerns identified in the EPA's review of the CRA-2014 PA, as well as incorporate future repository design changes. The EPA will work with DOE to determine the best path forward for resolution of EPA's concerns, which could include additional data reviews, independent technical reviews, and possibly additional sensitivity analyses to reach a consensus for the next CRA. It is anticipated that the results of these efforts will be incorporated into the CRA-2019 PA or otherwise be made available during EPA's review of the CRA-2019 PA.

This Technical Support Document (TSD) addresses the Agency's technical review of the parameter value DOE adopted to represent the waste shear strength DOE's CRA-2014 PA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report documents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) review of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) revised waste shear strength lower uncertainty boundary used in the CRA-2014 performance assessment (PA). The shear strength of the waste is used to calculate the amount of waste eroded by flowing drilling mud from the sidewall of a borehole that intersects the WIPP repository. Because the eroded waste reaches the ground surface, waste shear strength is an important parameter used in calculating potential repository releases. At the time of the initial WIPP certification it was acknowledged that the lower bound of the shear strength uncertainty range (0.05 Pa) was likely too low but was also likely a bounding value because it assumed complete waste degradation. More detailed knowledge now available from WIPP PA modeling results shows that complete waste degradation is expected to be rare in the anoxic WIPP subsurface environment during the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. A higher bounding value for the low end of the range would therefore be warranted and DOE authorized Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to conduct a series of laboratory tests to provide a more appropriate value.

SNL designed and built a flume that specifically simulates the sidewall erosion resulting from vertical flow up a borehole. In SNL's flume, the eroding fluid enters a vertical channel from the bottom and flows up past a specimen of surrogate waste material held in a cylindrical sample holder in the sidewall of that channel. Selection of surrogate materials for degraded waste considered inventory, underground conditions, and theoretical and experimental results. The surrogate waste material was manually advanced into the vertical flume channel at a rate that corresponded to the rate of erosion. The shear strength is defined as the applied shear stress at the time that erosion begins.

Based on the result of the tests, DOE proposed increasing the lower bound of the waste shear strength uncertainty range from 0.05 Pa to 2.22 Pa and used this revised value in the CRA-2014 PA. The revised value was the arithmetic mean of a series of five tests on surrogate waste samples representing 50% degraded waste. EPA accepted these tests as appropriate for determining a lower bound value but questioned the use of the mean test result as representative of a lower bound when some samples in the series resulted in even lower values. EPA requested DOE to instead establish a lower bound equal to the lowest measured shear strength of 1.60 Pa for the five samples and DOE accepted this change. EPA does not expect this change to materially affect PA results because decreasing the lower bound from 2.22 Pa to 1.60 Pa does not significantly change the range of the shear strength distribution which has an upper bound of 77 Pa. EPA requested this change to provide consistency with the principle that in a bounding uncertainty analysis the lower bound should have a value that is reasonable and even lower values should not be expected. EPA disagreed with DOE's proposed use of the mean result of five tests because even lower values had been measured and could therefore be expected. EPA accepts the use of DOE's mean result in the CRA-2014 PA but expects DOE to use the lower bound of 1.60 Pa in the CRA-2019 PA.

                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE	ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	iv
1.0 INTRODUCTION	1
2.0 BACKGROUND	2
3.0 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES SHEAR STRENGTH LABORATORY TESTS	2
3.1 Test Equipment and Conduct	2
3.2 Test Results and SNL Recommendations	5
4.0 EPA EVALUATION OF SNL's SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS	6
4.1 Evaluation of SNL Test Equipment and Conduct	6
4.2 Evaluation of SNL Test Results and Recommendations	10
5.0 CONCLUSIONS	16
REFERENCES	18

                                LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.	Photograph of SNL's test flume equipment.
Figure 2a.	Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample Flume 50-01 yielding a critical shear stress of 1.60 Pa.
Figure 2b.	Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample 75-091312 yielding a critical shear stress of 1.84 Pa.
Figure 3a.	Fraction of uncorroded iron remaining in the WIPP repository over the 10,000-year regulatory time frame.
Figure 3b.	Fraction of undegraded CPR remaining in the WIPP repository over the 10,000-year regulatory time frame.
Figure 4a.	Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample WF-50-02 yielding a critical shear stress of 2.54 Pa.
Figure 4b.	Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample WF-50-203-01 yielding a critical shear stress of 3.09 Pa.

                                LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. SNL Flume Test Results Using the Bilinear Fit Method
Table 2. Shear Strengths of 50% Degraded Samples Pre-compacted at 2.3 MPa

                               LIST OF ACRONYMS

CCA		Compliance Certification Application
CFR		Code of Federal Regulations
CPR	Cellulosics, Plastics, and Rubber
CRA		Compliance Recertification Application
CTAC	Carlsbad Area Office Technical Assistance Contractor
DOE	U.S. Department of Energy
EPA		Environmental Protection Agency
PA 		Performance Assessment
PABC	Performance Assessment Baseline Calculation
SEN		Sensitivity
SNL	Sandia National Laboratories
TRU	Transuranic
WIPP	Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) developed the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) repository for the permanent disposal of transuranic (TRU) waste. The repository is located in deeply buried deposits of bedded salt in the Salado Formation in southeastern New Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) regulates containment of TRU waste at WIPP in accordance with the radioactive waste disposal standards at Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 40, Parts 191 and 194. EPA first certified the WIPP as complying with these standards and approved it for TRU waste disposal in 1998. The regulations require recertification of WIPP at five year intervals following the first waste shipment in 1999, with the most recent recertification occurring in 2014. EPA's decision to recertify WIPP is based in part on the results of an assessment of the projected ability of the facility to meet the Agency's waste isolation standards over the 10,000-year post-closure regulatory time frame. The ability to meet these standards is determined by the results of numerical modeling conducted for the DOE by Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). This modeling simulates the repository's future performance in a process called Performance Assessment (PA). The most recent assessment was included in DOE's 2014 Compliance Recertification Application (CRA) and is called the CRA-2014 PA.

This report documents EPA's review of the revised lower boundary DOE has assigned for the range of uncertainty in waste shear strength in the CRA-2014 PA. Waste shear strength is an important parameter used in calculating potential releases of waste materials from the WIPP repository. Drilling mud flowing up a borehole applies a hydrodynamic shear stress to the borehole wall that could result in erosion of the wall material. If a future exploratory borehole intersects a WIPP waste panel and passes through consolidated waste, erosion of the waste at the borehole-waste interface could occur and may result in the transport of solid waste materials to the ground surface entrained in the drilling mud. As a consequence, radionuclides may be released to the accessible environment. The released waste materials are called cavings in WIPP PA and this erosion process is included as a potential radionuclide release mechanism in WIPP performance modeling. Cavings releases are important components of total releases in WIPP PA because they can occur in any intersecting borehole independent of gas pressure and brine saturation. Waste shear strength is a key parameter for calculating the quantity of waste released as cavings and is identified in WIPP PA as the parameter BOREHOLE:TAUFAIL. In this review, this parameter will more simply be called TAUFAIL.

Over time, competing processes within the WIPP repository will tend to both decrease and increase the waste shear strength. Degradation due to chemical and biological processes will tend to weaken the waste while other processes such as compaction and cementation will tend to strengthen it. As discussed below, the focus of DOE's shear strength analysis was on establishing a more realistic lower bound to the uncertainty boundaries of this parameter and therefore on the processes that would tend to weaken the waste. The strengthening effects of compaction were considered in DOE's analysis but other processes that could strengthen the waste were conservatively not included.

The rate of degradation and loss of strength depend on the type of waste and the nature of the degradation processes, both of which are variable. The amount of strength loss is therefore uncertain. To address this uncertainty and in view of its importance to WIPP performance, TAUFAIL was sampled in previous PAs as an uncertain parameter with a log-uniform distribution that ranged between 0.05 to 77 Pa. The range of this distribution was intended to be bounding. The upper end of this range was based on particle size distributions determined by an expert elicitation panel assuming that the degradation of waste is limited (CTAC 1997).  The lower end, which is of particular interest in this review, assumed that waste degradation is complete and was based on the hydrodynamic shear strength of San Francisco bay mud (Partheniades and Paaswell 1970). Bay mud is a natural material with a low shear strength and was used as a surrogate to represent completely degraded WIPP waste. This distribution has remained unchanged from the time of the initial 1999 WIPP Compliance Certification Application (CCA) and was also used in the subsequent 2004 and 2009 Compliance Recertification Applications (CRAs).

2.0 BACKGROUND

At the time of the initial WIPP certification a peer review acknowledged that the low end of the shear strength range (0.05 Pa) was likely too low but was also likely a bounding value as intended (Wilson et al. 1997). More detailed knowledge now available from WIPP PA modeling results has shown that complete waste degradation is expected to be rare in the anoxic WIPP subsurface environment during the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. This is true for iron-based metallic wastes, which constitute a large fraction of the total metallic waste volume, as well as organic wastes consisting of cellulosics, plastics, and rubber (CPR). The predicted presence of undegraded iron and organic wastes at the end of the regulatory time frame indicates that complete degradation is unlikely to occur. Examples of relevant modeling results supporting this conclusion were provided by DOE in response to EPA completeness questions, and are discussed in Section 4.2 below. San Francisco bay mud may therefore not be an appropriate surrogate for establishing the low end of the uncertainty range for TAUFAIL.

To provide an updated lower bound for the range of values for TAUFAIL, the DOE requested Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) to perform experimental laboratory flume tests to better determine the hydrodynamic shear strength of surrogate WIPP wastes representing varying degrees of degradation. These tests, their results, and the proposed application of those results to the WIPP PA are described by Herrick et al. (2012). The supporting information for this review was taken principally from Herrick et al. (2012), the Agency's onsite review of SNL's laboratory test procedures and equipment, and the DOE's responses to EPA completeness questions on the CRA-2014 PA regarding this parameter.

3.0 SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES SHEAR STRENGTH LABORATORY TESTS

3.1 Test Equipment and Conduct

This section provides a summary overview of the testing program performed by SNL to determine the hydrodynamic shear strength of degraded WIPP wastes. A comprehensive description of the program is presented in Herrick et al. (2012). Herrick et al. (2012, p. 1) state that hydrodynamic shear strength can only be measured in the laboratory by flume testing. SNL designed and built a flume for those tests that specifically simulates the sidewall erosion resulting from vertical flow up a borehole. In SNL's flume, the eroding fluid enters a vertical channel from the bottom and flows up past a specimen of surrogate waste material held in a cylindrical sample holder in the sidewall of that channel. The surrogate waste material was manually advanced into the vertical flume channel at a rate that corresponded to the rate of erosion. A photograph of SNL's test equipment is presented in Figure 1.

The surrogate samples of degraded WIPP waste used in SNL's flume tests were prepared following an approach developed by Hansen et al. (1997). The approach was based on consideration of the anticipated future state of the waste.  Selection of surrogate materials for degraded waste considered inventory, underground conditions, and theoretical and experimental results (Hansen et al. 1997; Hansen 2005). The degraded surrogate for each waste constituent was individually considered. The potential for the waste to be strengthened due to cementation, mineral precipitation, and more durable packaging was not included when developing the surrogates. Consequently, Hansen et al. considered their surrogate degraded waste to represent the most highly degraded, plausible future state of the waste. Surrogate waste formulations were prepared to represent degradation states of 50% and 100% degraded waste by weight (Hansen 2005, Hansen et al. 2003). In the 50% degradation state half the waste was represented as fully degraded and the other half as completely undegraded. In the 100% degradation state all the waste was represented as fully degraded.

The materials used to create the surrogate WIPP waste for SNL's flume tests are described in Herrick et al. (2012, Table 4). The uncorroded metallic components consisted of strips of steel sheet metal, small nails (cut up), and scraps of steel or iron. The corroded metallic components included scrapings from rusted steel or iron, Fe(III)O.OH in the form of goethite or limonite rock samples, and crushed sand- to silt-sized particles. The undegraded CPR components included finely shredded paper, snipped cotton balls, sawdust, rubber bands, shredded plastic grocery bags, and peat. Other waste components included broken glassware representing other inorganic materials, broken concrete and mortar to represent the cement used to solidify the waste, natural soil to represent soils, and corrosion-induced salt precipitates. The degraded CPR components were represented by increased amounts of corrosion-induced salt precipitates and elimination of all undegraded CPR.

SNL's flume tests consisted of the following cases:
 A 50% case where half of the iron is corroded and half of the cellulosics, plastics, and rubber are degraded, per Hansen et al.'s (1997) approach;
 A 100% case where all of the iron is corroded and all cellulosics, plastics, and rubber are degraded, per Hansen et al.'s (1997) approach;
 An additional 75% case where three quarters of  the iron is corroded and three quarters of the cellulosics, plastics, and rubber are degraded, per the methodology developed by Papenguth and Myers and cited in Hansen et al. (1997, Appendix A).

Figure 1. Photograph of SNL's test flume equipment (from Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 2).

Surrogate waste materials were compacted to 2.3 and 5.0 MPa prior to testing. A stress of 2.3 MPa was identified in modeling performed by Herrick et al. (2007) as the minimum pressure the degraded waste would be subjected to, which corresponds to the highest gas generation rate. Alternatively, a stress of 5.0 MPa was identified by Hansen et al. (1997, 2003) as a conservative estimate for the lower bound of pressure that the waste will undergo in the underground.

The flume tests were performed using stepwise increases in the shear stress on the sample. These increases were accomplished by increasing the flow rate in the vertical flume and measuring the applied shear stress and associated erosion rate at each step. The erosion rate was determined by manually advancing the test specimen into the vertical flume such that the sample face remained flush with the wall of the flume. This rate was governed by visual inspection of the eroding sample face in the flume. The results were analyzed using three different methods to estimate the shear stress required to initiate erosion (Herrick et al. 2012, p. 27). This stress is called the critical shear stress and is equal to the shear strength of the test specimen. Although the results of the three methods were often similar, Herrick et al. (2012, p. 79) concluded that the bilinear method originally proposed by Parchure and Mehta (1985) was most applicable to their data. Herrick et al. refer to the bilinear method as the University of Florida or Mehta method.

In the bilinear method, the critical shear stress is the applied stress at the inflection point where erosion begins and is determined by projecting the erosion rate data down to the zero rate axis. Although statistical curve fitting techniques were applied by SNL in this process, judgement is still required to interpret the scatter and requires a knowledge of the characteristics of the surrogate waste and the testing methodology. Examples of SNL's application of the bilinear method to test data are provided in Figures 2a and 2b. The Agency's concerns regarding test interpretation and the role of judgement are discussed in Section 4.1 below.

3.2 Test Results and SNL Recommendations

The flume tests were performed on three different waste surrogates at two different pre-compaction pressures. Between three and seven tests were performed on each combination of surrogate and pre-compaction pressure. The first tests were performed on the weakest, 100% degraded samples; however, problems were encountered with the testing apparatus that invalidated the results of all but one of the tests. Using the bilinear method, the single successful test on a 100% degraded sample yielded a shear strength of 0.17 Pa for a sample compacted to 2.3 MPa (Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 20). However, this sample may have been disturbed during testing and Herrick et al. (2012, p. 37) warn that the result may not be representative. Testing the 75% degraded samples benefited from the refinements employed in the previous tests and all such tests yielded useful results. The 50% degraded samples were tested at the same time as the 100% degraded samples and suffered some of the same problems. However, based on visual inspection SNL concluded that they did not exhibit the same damage as the 100% samples and accepted all results (Herrick et al. 2012, Section 6.4).  The critical shear stress was greater than the maximum applied stress of SNL's testing apparatus for two of the 50% samples pre-compacted to 5.0 MPa and bulk erosion did not occur. For those two samples SNL assigned a shear strength equal to the maximum shear stress of 5.69 Pa that their testing apparatus could apply. The results of SNL's flume tests are summarized in Table 1.

       Table 1. SNL Flume Test Results Using the UF Bilinear Fit Method

                             Degree of Degradation
                              Shear Strength (Pa)

                           Pre-compaction to 2.3 MPa
                           Pre-compaction to 5.0 MPa

                                     Mean
                                     Range
                                     Mean
                                     Range
                                     100%
                                     0.17
                                      n/a
                                      n/a
                                      n/a
                                      75%
                                     1.53
                                  1.06 - 2.00
                                     2.17
                                  1.46 - 2.80
                                      50%
                                     2.22
                                  1.60 - 3.09
                                     5.05
                                  3.79 - 5.69
Source: Herrick et al. 2012

Herrick et al. (2012, p. 80) initially recommended using the arithmetic mean result of 5.05 Pa for the 50% degraded waste surrogate and a pre-compaction pressure of 5.0 MPa as the lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution in WIPP PA. This recommendation was based on the following reasoning: Hansen et al. (1997, 2003) showed that for most performance assessment calculations, half or more of the initial iron and CPR inventory remains after 10,000 years; 5.0 MPa was identified by Hansen et al. (1997, 2003) as a conservative estimate for the lower bound of pressure that the waste will undergo in the underground; and the 50% degraded surrogate waste material pre-compacted to 5.0 MPa was accepted by the Spallings Conceptual Model Peer Review Panel (Yew et al. 2003) and by the EPA for use in establishing parameters for the spallings model.

Herrick et al. (2012) presented their recommendations in an EPA/DOE technical exchange meeting in November, 2012. During that meeting EPA requested DOE to provide additional explanation for selecting a pre-compaction stress of 5.0 MPa as appropriate for determining a lower bound for the distribution of TAUFAIL. In a further evaluation, documented by Herrick and Kirchner (2013), SNL concluded that Hansen et al. (1997) had apparently taken the waste porosity results from the CCA BRAGFLO calculations and calculated the minimum vertical stress necessary to produce the deformation of a drum stack consistent with that porosity. When applying a similar approach to the waste porosity results from the more recent CRA-2009 BRAGFLO calculations, Herrick and Kirchner (2013, p. 5) estimated vertical stresses that were fairly consistent at 4.3 to 4.4 MPa but were somewhat lower than the pre-compaction pressure of 5.0 MPa recommended by Hansen et al. (1997). In view of the direct correlation between increasing pre-compaction pressure and increasing waste shear strength, and also of the need to establish a defensible lower bound for TAUFAIL, Herrick and Kirchner (2013, p. 5) modified their recommendation to instead use the lower average shear strength value of 2.22 Pa from the 50% degraded experimental samples compacted at 2.3 MPa as the lower bound for a uniform distribution of TAUFAIL in WIPP PA. These recommendations were adopted by DOE and used in the CRA-2014 PA.

4.0 EPA EVALUATION OF SNL's SHEAR STRENGTH TESTS

4.1 Evaluation of SNL Test Equipment and Conduct

EPA's evaluation of SNL's flume tests is based on detailed documentation of the test equipment, its design considerations, and the methodology adopted for conducting the tests (Herrick et al. 2012); onsite examination of the test equipment and testing environment; and discussions with SNL's lead investigator Courtney Herrick. EPA believes that the test equipment was carefully conceived and well documented. Given that the previous history of laboratory hydrodynamic shear strength measurements involved horizontal fluid movement over horizontal beds, SNL's adaptation to vertical fluid movement was innovative and it is not surprising that the need for refinements to the test equipment and procedures became evident in the early part of the program. SNL's success in this refinement is apparent in the differences between the results of the early tests on the 50% and 100% degraded samples and the later tests on the 75% degraded samples that were performed after the refinements were accomplished. Examples of test results on 50% and 75% degraded samples are provided for comparison in Figures 2a and 2b. The color-coded data points on the figures correspond to their use in the linear regression analyses used to interpret the test results.

Figure 2a shows the results of testing a 50% degraded, 2.3 MPa pre-compacted sample before the equipment and procedural refinements were completed. The results show a considerable scatter that increases uncertainty in how the results should be interpreted. These results were typical of three out of the five tests performed on 50% degraded, 2.3 MPa pre-compacted samples.

Figure 2b shows the results of testing a 75% degraded, 2.3 MPa pre-compacted sample after the equipment and procedural refinements were completed. The results in Figure 2b show very little scatter and the bilinear fit methodology was applied with textbook clarity. These results were typical of four out of the seven tests performed on 75% degraded, 2.3 MPa pre-compacted samples.

Based on test results of the type illustrated in Figure 2b, the Agency concluded that the equipment and procedural refinements made by SNL were successful. As previously noted, the tests on the 50% degraded samples were conducted before these refinements were completed. Those tests were accepted by SNL despite the difficulties in interpretation because the test specimens did not appear to exhibit the same damage as the 100% degraded samples. However, the differences in the quality of test results before and after the equipment and procedural refinements were completed prompted EPA to perform a detailed review of the 50% degradation tests. This concern is further addressed in the Agency's evaluation of SNL's test procedures, results and recommendations in Section 4.

Also as previously noted, the erosion rate (the vertical axis in Figures 2a and 2b) was determined by the manually controlled rate of advancement of the sample into the vertical flume based on visual inspection of the eroding sample face. In recognizing potential difficulties in deciding when to advance the sample based on a visual interpretation of the degree of erosion of a highly heterogeneous surrogate waste material during testing, EPA submitted the following completeness comment to DOE:

      EPA Comment 1-23-5 Waste Shear Strength. Provide and justify the criteria used in advancing the surrogate waste samples during the shear strength tests when the eroded sample face was not smooth but irregular.

DOE's response, documented in its 2nd Response Submittal to the EPA (DOE 2015, Enclosure 1), stated in summary that the surface of the sample is initially positioned flush with the flume channel wall. The eroding fluid is forced upward through the enclosed channel across the surface of the sample, producing a shear stress across that surface that may cause the sample to erode.

Figure 2a. Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample Flume 50-01 yielding a critical shear stress of 1.60 Pa. Test was performed on 50% degraded material with a pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa. (Source: Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 37a).

Figure 2b. Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample 75-091312 yielding a critical shear stress of 1.84 Pa. Test was performed on 75% degraded material with a pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa. (Source: Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 27a).

Erosion is determined visually. If erosion is observed, additional sample material is advanced laterally by the operator until the surface of the sample is once again flush with the channel wall. Sample advancement is continued as needed to keep pace with erosion of the sample. The
erosion rate is determined from the lateral movement of the sample in the sample container over time. During erosion, the surface of the sample may at times become irregular or pitted due to differential erosion rates that may not be consistent over the entire face of the sample. Because of this tendency, erosion of the leading edge is used to drive the operator's decision to move the sample forward. The leading edge is the lower edge of the sample that is first contacted by the fluid flowing up the channel. The erosion channel and sample holder are identified on Figure 1.

DOE justified this methodology by stating, in summary, that the leading edge is used to decide to advance the sample because the shear stresses acting on this edge are developed over the long, smooth-walled section of the flume channel below the sample. This allows the operator to analytically estimate the shear stresses in advance of the tests, with final corrections to the shear stress calculations being made post-test once all the testing conditions have been measured. An additional advantage of establishing the leading edge as the specific point used by the operator to decide whether to advance the specimen is that it establishes a consistent methodology. This consistent method of evaluation reduces the degree of human judgment that could influence the results.

Relying only on erosion of the small area of the leading edge to determine when to advance the test specimen is a limitation of the test methodology that can lead to increased scatter in test results due to the inherent inhomogeneity of the degraded and undegraded components of the degraded surrogate waste. More scatter would be expected for a 50% degraded surrogate waste than for a 75% or 100% degraded surrogate because of its greater degree of inhomogeneity and the test results support this expectation. The results are representative of only that small part of the test sample at the leading edge where the material can vary from undegraded (and zero erosion) to completely degraded (and rapid erosion). An example of such a wide range of results is illustrated in Figure 2a. Given the adopted leading edge test methodology, SNL has appropriately averaged the scatter in shear test results to approximate what would be seen in a release from a borehole that penetrates the waste area of the repository. Although individual waste containers will vary in type of waste and degree of degradation, the boreholes will typically penetrate stacks of three waste drums since this is the most common type of container in the repository. The subsequent release will therefore represent average degradation conditions across all three drums rather than the conditions in a small part of a single drum. Averaging the results of individual tests by applying a linear fit to the data is therefore appropriate.

Although the Agency believes that a better approach could have been to reduce the scatter by basing the advance rate on the average erosion of the entire specimen face, this would require an additional level of judgement that could be difficult to consistently apply. The Agency also considers that the scatter in test results could in part be due to sample damage that was not evident in SNL's visual examination but that the primary source of the scatter was the heterogeneity of the test samples. The Agency believes that the test results do provide a better basis than San Francisco bay mud for establishing a lower bound for TAUFAIL. The Agency concludes that, given the constraints involved, the testing methodology is acceptable.

4.2 Evaluation of SNL Test Results and Recommendations

As previously noted, DOE proposed using the average shear strength value of 2.22 Pa from the 50% degraded experimental samples pre-compacted at 2.3 MPa as the lower bound for a uniform distribution of TAUFAIL in WIPP PA. The Agency's evaluation of this proposal is described below.

Degraded Waste Surrogates. The materials used to prepare the surrogate waste samples are described in Section 3.1. The surrogate degraded waste formulations of the type used in SNL's flume tests were originally developed by Hansen et al. (1997) in support of a peer review of the tensile failure aspects of the WIPP spallings model used in DOE's 1996 CCA. The surrogate formulations and results of tensile tests on those surrogates were reviewed by the Conceptual Models Peer Review Panel and found to be reasonable (Wilson et al. 1997):

      "The Panel considered the adequacy of the values of waste tensile strength used in the tensile failure calculations. The Panel concluded that there is some uncertainty in the degree to which the values measured on waste surrogates truly represent the actual waste following extended exposure in WIPP, but that generally, the selected values are reasonable for the intended purposes."

The Agency accepted the Peer Panel's 1997 conclusions at the time of the CCA. There remains uncertainty in the degree to which the surrogate formulations represent the actual future state of WIPP waste, however the approaches taken to develop those surrogates were logical and reasonable. The Agency also considered the ramifications of the limited size of the test specimens. The surrogate waste test specimens were 8.25 cm in diameter and could not accommodate the larger pieces of metal or CPR that are actually present in the waste. These larger pieces with larger surface areas would degrade more slowly than the smaller pieces that would fit into the test specimens. Because the more highly degraded waste is weaker, SNL's capability to accommodate only the smaller pieces is more suitable for evaluating the low end of the TAUFAIL range than the high end. Based on these considerations, the Agency concludes that SNL's surrogate formulations are acceptable for use in evaluating the low end of the TAUFAIL range.

Pre-compaction Pressure. EPA accepts SNL's recommendation to use test results for surrogate waste samples pre-compacted to 2.3 MPa instead of 5.0 MPa for the reasons presented by SNL and described above in Section 3.2. The lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution should be bounding and SNL's additional computations demonstrated that, while 5.0 MPa was not bounding, a 2.3 MPa pre-compaction pressure is considerably lower than the 15 MPa lithostatic pressure that may ultimately be applied to the waste upon creep closure of the waste panels. The applied pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa therefore appears to be reasonably bounding for WIPP waste subjected to compaction by creep closure.

Degree of Degradation. EPA reviewed SNL's recommendation to base the lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution on 50% degraded waste by requesting DOE to confirm that substantial fractions of metallic (iron) and organic (CPR) waste materials are predicted to remain undegraded in the WIPP repository after 10,000 years. This request took the form of two additional completeness comments.

      EPA Comment 1-23-5 Waste Shear Strength. Please address the following:
      1. Provide horsetail plots of the remaining fraction of uncorroded iron in the repository throughout the 10,000-year regulatory time frame from the CRA-2009 PABC from each of the three replicates and each scenario.
      2. Provide horsetail plots of the remaining fraction of undegraded CPR in the repository throughout the 10,000-year regulatory time frame from the CRA-2009 PABC from each of the three replicates and each scenario

EPA requested plots from the CRA-2009 PABC because that was the Agency-approved baseline assessment at the time of the Agency's review. PA predictions of the amount of uncorroded iron and undegraded CPR waste over the 10,000-year period would help support the selection of reasonable bounding values for TAUFAIL. DOE provided 36 plots in response to this request, of which 18 showed the fraction of uncorroded iron and 18 showed the fraction of undegraded CPR over the regulatory time frame. Examples of these plots for iron and CPR are presented in Figures 3a and 3b. Each figure shows 100 results for Scenario 2 of Replicate 2. Scenario 2 consists of a single borehole intrusion that penetrates both a waste panel and pressurized brine in the Castile Formation at 350 years after closure. This is called an E1 intrusion. This scenario was chosen because inundation of the waste panel with Castile brine generally provides the most severe corrosion/degradation conditions.

Figure 3a depicts the remaining fraction of uncorroded iron. The mean of the individual vectors (the heavy red line) shows that an average of about 58% of the iron remains uncorroded at 10,000 years. The individual vectors (the light green lines) show that complete corrosion of all iron occurs in only one vector and this is predicted to happen at about 3,000 years after repository closure.

Figure 3b depicts the remaining fraction of undegraded CPR. Here the mean of the individual vectors (the heavy red line) shows that an average of about 75% of the CPR remains undegraded at 10,000 years. The individual vectors (the light green lines) show that complete degradation of all CPR occurs in four vectors beginning at about 7,000 years after repository closure.

For completeness, DOE also provided a similar set of plots from the CRA-2014 PA.
The Agency's review confirmed that most of the iron in the waste was predicted to remain uncorroded for all realizations and all replicates in both PAs throughout the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. In the CRA-2009 PABC, an average of 58 to 64% of the iron remained uncorroded at 10,000 years in all replicates and scenarios, and there was at most only one vector in any given scenario where all of the iron was predicted to corrode. Some of the iron therefore remained uncorroded in at least 99% of the vectors. In the CRA-2014 PA, some of the iron remained uncorroded in at least 97% of the vectors.

A similar result was found for CPR degradation. The Agency's review confirmed that most of the CPR in the waste was predicted to remain undegraded for all realizations and replicates in both PAs throughout the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. In the CRA-2009 PABC, an average of 75 to 82% of the CPR remained undegraded at 10,000 years in all replicates and scenarios, and some of the CPR remained undegraded in at least 96% of the vectors. In the CRA-2014 PA, some of the CPR remained undegraded in at least 95% of the vectors.

Based on the foregoing results showing that more than half of the iron and CPR in the waste is predicted to remain undegraded after 10,000 years, the Agency accepts DOE's use of 50% degraded surrogate waste in determining the lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution as reasonable and appropriate.

Figure 3a. Fraction of uncorroded iron remaining in the WIPP repository over the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. The red line is the mean of all 100 vectors (Source: Herrick 2015a).

Figure 3b. Fraction of undegraded CPR remaining in the WIPP repository over the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. The red line is the mean of all 100 vectors (Source: Herrick 2015b).

Lower Bound Shear Strength. SNL recommended and DOE accepted use of the arithmetic mean result of 2.22 Pa for the lower bound shear strength for TAUFAIL. The Agency was concerned that use of the mean may not be appropriate for a value that is intended to be a lower bound. The results of the bilinear analyses for all five tests are provided in Table 2.

   Table 2. Shear Strengths of 50% Degraded Samples Pre-compacted at 2.3 MPa

                                 Sample Number
                     Shear Strength from Bilinear Analysis
                                     (Pa)
                                   WF-50-02
                                     2.54
                                  Flume 50-01
                                     1.60
                                 WF-50-203-01
                                     3.09
                                 WF-50-203-02
                                     1.78
                                 WF-50-203-03
                                     2.10
                                    Average
                                     2.22
                Source: Herrick et al. 2012, Table 12

Although three out of the five tests provided highly scattered results, the scatter is likely due primarily to inherent inhomogeneity rather than sample damage. Because inhomogeneity would also be present in actual WIPP waste, the Agency concludes that use of test results that show considerable scatter is acceptable but questions the use of an overall average of all five tests as appropriate for a lower bound of TAUFAIL,

When evaluating the test results individually, two of the 50% degraded tests produced reasonably definitive trends. These tests yielded shear strengths of 2.54 and 3.09 Pa, and their results are shown in Figures 4a and 4b. The Agency notes that these shear strengths are both greater than the average of 2.22 Pa and were the highest results for all five tests. This suggests that these two samples may not have been as highly disturbed during testing as the others and may indicate that the typical shear strength for 50% degraded samples pre-compacted at 2.3 MPa may actually be higher than the average of 2.22 Pa. However, because of uncertainties associated with the source of the scatter, it cannot be concluded that the results of the two tests with reduced scatter would provide an acceptable lower bound. The three remaining tests produced shear strengths that were less than the overall average. Despite the Agency's consideration that sample damage may have more strongly affected the three lower value results, these results possibly represent the variable shear strength of 50% degraded samples pre-compacted at 2.3 MPa. The Agency believes that the lowest measured result of 1.60 Pa should be used in WIPP PA as that provides a lower bounding value for the parameter.

Figure 4a. Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample WF-50-02 yielding a critical shear stress of 2.54 Pa. Test was performed on 50% degraded material with a pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa. (Source: Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 36a).

Figure 4b. Bilinear analysis of test results for Sample WF-50-203-01 yielding a critical shear stress of 3.09 Pa. Test was performed on 50% degraded material with a pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa. (Source: Herrick et al. 2012, Figure 38a).

Uniform Distribution. DOE changed the proposed distribution of TAUFAIL from log-uniform to uniform in the CRA-2014 PA. A log-uniform distribution provides equal probability of sampling from each order of magnitude in an uncertainty range and is appropriate for distributions whose values span several orders of magnitude. A uniform distribution is appropriate for sampling a more limited range of values. This proposed change in type of distribution prompted the Agency to present the following request to DOE as a completeness comment.

      EPA Comment 1-23-5 Waste Shear Strength. Identify and justify the consequences of using the proposed uniform distribution rather than the currently approved log-uniform distribution for TAUFAIL.

In summary, DOE's response stated that if nothing is known about a distribution except the quantitative constraints defining its range, then the distribution with the largest entropy, the uniform distribution, should be chosen as the default. Further, by its nature, a log-uniform distribution assigns considerable negative skewedness to the distribution of possible values of the uncertain variable. Thus, its use implies that there exists more information about the distribution than just its minimum and maximum. DOE also points out a consensus view that use of a logarithmic distribution is only justified when the range of values spans more than two orders of magnitude, for which their proposed range of 2.22 to 77.0 Pa does not qualify.

The Agency considers that knowledge of the consequence of deemphasizing the low end of a parameter range by selecting a uniform distribution constitutes additional information about a parameter. This additional information can justify the use of a log-uniform distribution when the parameter range covers less than two orders of magnitude. However, in this case the Agency also considers that the revised range of 1.60 to 77.0 Pa is sufficiently small that the assignment of a uniform distribution is justified.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

EPA accepts the results of DOE's flume tests and considers the results to provide an improved basis for determining the lower bounding value for the distribution of TAUFAIL in WIPP PA. With one exception, EPA also accepts SNL's recommendations for identifying the suite of flume tests from which the lower bounding value for that distribution was to be selected. The single exception is the lower bounding value itself, which SNL recommended be based on the average test results. This average result is demonstrably not bounding because test results that SNL considered viable were lower than this average. Therefore, the Agency considers the following determinations to be appropriate for inclusion in the next full WIPP PA that DOE submits.

Degraded Surrogate Waste: Surrogate formulations for degraded WIPP waste of the type documented in Hansen et al. (1997) are adequate for use in SNL's flume tests.
Pre-compaction Pressure: SNL's recommended pre-compaction pressure of 2.3 MPa is reasonable and appropriate based on the current understanding of creep closure and gas generation effects in a waste panel as modeled in WIPP PA.
Degree of Degradation. SNL's recommended use of 50% degraded surrogate waste as the basis for determining the lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution is appropriate given PA results showing that large quantities of undegraded iron and CPR are present in the waste panels throughout the regulatory period.
Lower Bound Shear Strength. The Agency accepts the minimum value in this test suite of 1.60 Pa as the lower bounding value for the TAUFAIL distribution.
Uniform Distribution. SNL's recommendation of changing the distribution of TAUFAIL from log-uniform to uniform was accepted by EPA in view of the considerably smaller range between the upper and lower bounds in TAUFAIL values.

DOE accepted the replacement value of 1.60 Pa for the lower bound of the TAUFAIL distribution in an EPA/DOE technical exchange meeting held on September 1, 2016. In lieu of a revision to the CRA-2014 PA calculations (a PABC), the Agency requested DOE conduct the SEN4 sensitivity study incorporating this accepted lower bound for TAUFAIL to help determine its impact on WIPP PA (EPA 2017).

The SEN4 sensitivity study did not determine the sensitivity to TAUFAIL alone but instead determined the sensitivity to the combined results of several changes to the PA database. The sensitivity to the change in the lower bound for TAUFAIL could therefore not be separately determined and other database changes, such as those involving Castile brine releases and repository chemical conditions, were expected to have greater impacts. The change in the range of uncertainty in TAUFAIL was expected to have only a minor effect on overall PA results because decreasing the lower bound from 2.22 Pa to 1.60 Pa does not significantly change the range of a uniform distribution that has an upper bound of 77 Pa. EPA requested changing the lower bound of the range to provide consistency with the principle that in a bounding uncertainty analysis the lower bound should have a value that is reasonable and even lower values should not be expected. DOE's proposed use of the mean result of five tests was inappropriate because even lower values had been measured and would therefore be reasonably expected. Even though some of the parameters changed in the SEN4 analysis likely had a greater impact on results than the change in the lower bound of TAUFAIL, the mean total releases including all changes did not exceed EPA's WIPP release limits, nor the 95% confidence level in that mean, nor were the release limits exceeded by any individual vectors.

REFERENCES

CTAC (Carlsbad Area Office Technical Assistance Contractor) 1997. Expert Elicitation on
WIPP Waste Particle Diameter Size Distribution(s) during the 10,000-year Regulatory Postclosure Period: Final Report. ERMS 541365. WIPP Records Center, Sandia National
Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) 2015. Response to Environmental Protection Agency Letter Dated December 17, 2014, Regarding the 2014 Compliance Recertification Application. Letter from Jose Franco (DOE) to Jonathan Edwards (EPA), U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Field Office, Carlsbad, New Mexico. March 18, 2015.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) 2017. Review of EPA Sensitivity Studies of DOE CRA-2014 WIPP Compliance Recertification Performance Assessment. FDMS Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0609  Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates, Vienna, Virginia, for EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, Washington, DC.

Hansen, F.D., M. K. Knowles, T. W. Thompson, M. Gross, J. D. McLennan, and J. F. Schatz
1997. Description and Evaluation of a Mechanistically Based Conceptual Model for Spall.
SAND97 - 1369. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Hansen, F.D., T.W. Pfeifle, and D.L. Lord 2003. Parameter Justification Report for
DRSPALL. SAND2003-2930. Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Hansen, F.D. 2005. A Revisit of Waste Shear Strength. ERMS 541354. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Herrick, C.G., M. Riggins, and B.Y. Park 2007. Recommendation for the Lower Limit of the
Waste Shear Strength (Parameter BOREHOLE : TAUFAIL), Rev. 0. ERMS 546033.
Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Herrick, C.G., M.D. Schuhen, D.M. Chapin, and D.C. Kicker 2012. Determining the
Hydrodynamic Shear Strength of Surrogate Degraded TRU Waste Materials as an Estimate for
the Lower Limit of the Performance Assessment Parameter TAUFAIL, Revision 0. ERMS
558479. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Herrick, C.G. and T. Kirchner 2013. Follow-up to questions concerning TAUFAIL flume testing raised during the November 14-15, 2012 technical exchange between the DOE and EPA. Memorandum to Chris Camphouse (SNL), January 24, 2013. ERMS 559081. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Herrick, C.G. 2015a. CRA-2009 PABC and CRA-2014 plots of the fraction of iron remaining by replicate and scenario. ERMS 563282. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico. February.

Herrick, C.G. 2015b. CRA-2009 PABC and CRA-2014 plots of the fraction of CPR remaining by replicate and scenario. ERMS 563286. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico. February.

Parchure, T.M. and A.J. Mehta 1985. "Erosion of soft sediment deposits," Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 10, pp. 1308-1326.

Partheniades, E. and R.E. Paaswell 1970. "Erodibility of Channels with Cohesive Boundary."
Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
96, No. HY3, pp. 755-771.

Wilson, C., D. Porter, J. Gibbons, E. Oswald, G. Sjoblom, and F. Caporuscio 1997. II-G-22: Conceptual Models Third Supplementary Peer Review Report, April 1997. A Peer Review Conducted for U.S. Department of Energy. U.S. Department of Energy, Carlsbad Area Office, Carlsbad, New Mexico. April.
II-G-22: Conceptual Models Third Supplementary Peer
Yew, C., J. Hanson, and L. Teufel 2003. Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Spallings Conceptual
Model Peer Review Report. ERMS 532520. Sandia National Laboratories, Carlsbad, New Mexico.


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67506-67507]
[DOCID:fr14no08-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-173-000]

Canandaigua Power Partners II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

November 7, 2008.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Canandaigua Power Partners II, 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 28, 2008.
    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
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission,

888 First St., 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 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
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-27043 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14309-14312]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0176]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix, Season 3 Race Event;
San Francisco, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary special
local regulation in the navigable waters of San Francisco Bay in San
Francisco, CA in support of the San Francisco Sail Grand Prix, Season 3
race periods on May 4, 2023, through May 7, 2023. This special local
regulation is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these
navigable waters and to ensure the safety of mariners transiting the
area from the dangers associated with high-speed sailing activities
associated with the Sail Grand Prix race event. This proposed
rulemaking would temporarily prohibit persons and vessels from
entering, transiting through, anchoring, blocking, or loitering within
the event area adjacent to the city of San Francisco waterfront near
the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island, unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0176 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://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
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Anthony I. Solares, U.S.
Coast Guard District 11, Sector San Francisco, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
COTP Captain of the Port
PATCOM Patrol Commander
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On December 19, 2022, the Silverback Pacific Company notified the
Coast Guard of an intention to conduct the ``Sail Grand Prix, Season
3'' in the San Francisco Bay. Sail Grand Prix (SailGP) is a sailing
league featuring world-class sailors racing 50-foot foiling catamarans.
The 2022-2023 season started May 14, 2022, and the season will conclude
with the San Francisco Bay race in May 2023. In San Francisco, they
propose to take advantage of the natural amphitheater that the central
bay and city waterfront provide.
    SailGP has applied for a Marine Event Permit to hold the Sail Grand
Prix race event on the waters of San Francisco Bay in California. At
this time, the Coast Guard has not approved the Marine Event Permit and
is still evaluating the application. If the permit is approved,
however, we anticipate that a special local regulation may be necessary
to ensure public safety during the race. To provide adequate time for
public input, we are proposing this special local regulation prior to a
decision on the Marine Event Permit.
    The SailGP event has previously been conducted in San Francisco Bay
and each time the Coast Guard solicited input from maritime
stakeholders to better understand the nature of commercial and
recreational activities on the Bay. As done in previous year planning,
the Coast Guard will participate in local Harbor Safety Committee (HSC)
meetings to meet with stakeholders, obtain information, and gather
feedback on approaches to enact the regulation in connection with the
Sail Grand Prix.
    These regulations are needed to keep persons and vessels away from
the sailing race vessels, which exhibit unpredictable maneuverability
and have a demonstrated likelihood during the simulation of racing
scenarios for capsizing. The proposed special local regulation would
help prevent injuries and property damage that may be caused upon
impact by these fast-moving vessels. The provisions of this temporary
special local regulation would not exempt racing vessels from any
federal, state, or local laws or

regulations, including Nautical Rules of the Road. The Coast Guard
proposes this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70041.
    Under 33 CFR 100.35, the Coast Guard District Commander has
authority to promulgate certain special local regulations deemed
necessary to ensure the safety of life on the navigable waters
immediately before, during, and immediately after an approved regatta.
Pursuant to 33 CFR 1.05-1(i), the Commander of Coast Guard District 11
has delegated to the COTP San Francisco the responsibility of issuing
such regulations.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP San Francisco proposes to establish a special local
regulation associated with the Sail Grand Prix race event from noon to
5:30 p.m. each day from May 4, 2023, through May 7, 2023. The areas
regulated by this special local regulation would be east of the Golden
Gate Bridge, south of Alcatraz Island, west of Treasure Island, and in
the vicinity of the city of San Francisco waterfront. The Coast Guard
proposes to establish a primary race area, a spectator area, and a
waterfront passage area. An image of these proposed regulated areas may
be found in the docket. The special local regulation will cover all
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom,
within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and
longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]48'24.3'' N,
122[deg]27'53.5'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'15.6'' N, 122[deg]27'58.1'' W;
thence to 37[deg]49'28.9'' N, 122[deg]25'52.1'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'7.5'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42'' N,
122[deg]25'13'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'30.5'' N, 122[deg]26'22.6'' W;
thence along the shore to 37[deg]48'26.9'' N, 122[deg]26'50.5'' W and
thence to the point of beginning.
    Located within this footprint, there will be three separate
regulated areas: Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area; Zone
``B'', the Official Race Box Area; and Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area.
    Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area, will be marked by
colored visual markers. The position of these markers would be
specified via Local Notice to Mariners at least two weeks prior to the
event and via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least seven days prior to
the event. Zone ``A'' would be used by the race and support vessels
during the official practice period on May 4, 2023, and May 5, 2023.
Zone ``A'', the Official Practice Box Area, will be enforced during the
official practices from noon to 5:30 p.m. on May 4, 2023, and from noon
to 5:30 p.m. on May 5, 2023, or as announced via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. Excluding the public from entering Zone ``A'' is necessary to
provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels
within this area.
    Zone ``B'', the Official Race Box Area, would be marked by 12 or
more colored visual markers. The position of these markers would be
confirmed via Broadcast Notice to Mariners at least three days prior to
the event. Only designated Sail Grand Prix 2021 race, support, and VIP
vessels would be permitted to enter Zone ``B''. Zone ``B'', the
Official Race Box Area, will be enforced during the official practices
from noon to 5:30 p.m. on May 6, 2023, and from noon to 5:30 p.m. on
May 7, 2023. Because of the hazards posed by the sailing competition,
excluding non-race vessel traffic from Zone ``B'' is necessary to
provide protection from the operation of the high-speed sailing vessels
within this area.
    Zone ``C'', the Spectator Area, would be within the special local
regulation area designated in paragraph (a) and outside of Zone ``B'',
the Official Race Box Area. Zone ``C'' will be defined by latitude and
longitude points per Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Zone ``C'' will be
managed by marine event sponsor officials. Vessels would be prohibited
from anchoring within the confines of Zone ``C.''
    The duration of the establishment of the proposed special local
regulation is intended to ensure the safety of vessels in these
navigable waters during the scheduled practice and race periods. This
proposed temporary special local regulation would temporarily restrict
vessel traffic adjacent to the city of San Francisco waterfront in the
vicinity of the Golden Gate Bridge and Alcatraz Island and prohibit
vessels and persons not participating in the race event from entering
the dedicated race area. The regulatory text we are proposing appears
at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the special local regulation. With this
special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to maintain
commercial access to the ports through an alternate vessel traffic
management scheme. The special local regulation is limited in duration
and is limited to a narrowly tailored geographic area with designated
and adequate space for transiting vessels to pass when permitted by the
COTP or a designated representative. In addition, although this
proposed rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the special
local regulation, the effect of this proposed rule will not be
significant because the local waterway users will be notified in
advance via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the special
local regulation will result in minimum impact. Therefore, mariners
will be able to plan and transit outside of the periods of enforcement
of the special local regulation, or alternatively, they will be able to
transit the city of San Francisco Waterfront with approval from the
COTP or designated representative. The entities most likely to be
affected are commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged in
recreational activities.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule may affect owners and operators of commercial
vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities and
sightseeing for a limited duration. This special location regulation
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities for the reasons stated in Section IV.A above. When the
special local regulation is in effect, vessel traffic can pass safely
around the regulated area. The maritime public would be advised in
advance of this special local regulation via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners.

    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this proposed rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a special
local regulation that would create regulated areas of limited size and
duration that includes defined regulated areas for vessel traffic to
pass. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further
review under paragraphs L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that
may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from
this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit through the Federal
Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, go to
https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0176 in the search box and
click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the Search Results
column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment option. If you
cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call
or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked
Questions web page. We review all comments received, but we will only
post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may
choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that
we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T11-0122 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T11-122  Special Local Regulation; Sail Grand Prix 2021 Race
Event, San Francisco, CA.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to all
navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom,
encompassed by a line connecting the following latititude and longitude
points, beginning at 37[deg]48'24.3'' N, 122[deg]27'53.5'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'15.6'' N, 122[deg]27'58.1'' W; thence to

37[deg]49'28.9'' N, 122[deg]25'52.1'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'7.5'' N,
122[deg]25'13'' W; thence to 37[deg]48'42'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'30.5'' N, 122[deg]26'22.6'' W; thence along shore
to 37[deg]48'26.9'' N, 122[deg]26'50.5'' W and thence to the point of
beginning.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) ``Designated representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol
Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer on a Coast Guard vessel or a Federal, State, or local officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP)
in the enforcement of the special local regulation.
    (2) Zone ``A'' means the Official Practice Box Area. This zone will
encompass all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface
to bottom, within the area formed by connecting the following latitude
and longitude points in the following order: 37[deg]49'19'' N,
122[deg]27'19'' W; thence to 37[deg]49'28'' N, 122[deg]25'52'' W;
thence to 37[deg]48'40.9'' N, 122[deg]25'43.6'' W; thence to
37[deg]49'7.5'' N, 122[deg]25'13'' W and thence to the point of
beginning. These coordinates are the current projected position for the
Official Practice Box Area and will also be announced via Broadcast
Notice to Mariners.
    (3) Zone ``B'' Zone ``B'' means the Official Race Box Area, which
will be marked by 12 or more colored visual markers within the special
regulation area designated in paragraph (a) of this section. The
position of these markers will be specified via Broadcast Notice to
Mariners at least three days prior to the event.
    (4) Zone ``C'' means the Spectator Area, which is within the
special local regulation area designated in paragraph (a) of this
section and outside of Zone ``B,'' the Official Race Box Area. Zone
``C'' will be defined by latitude and longitude points per Broadcast
Notice to Mariners and will be managed by marine event sponsor
officials. Vessels shall not anchor within the confines of Zone ``C.''
    (c) Special Local Regulation. The following regulations apply
between noon and 5:30 p.m. on the Sail Grand Prix official practice and
race days.
    (1) Only support and race vessels will be authorized by the COTP or
designated representative to enter Zone ``B'' during the race event.
Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within Zone ``A'' or Zone
``B'' must contact the COTP or a designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. Persons and vessels may request permission to
transit Zone ``A'' on VHF-23A.
    (2) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must maneuver as directed by
the COTP or designated representative. When hailed or signaled by the
COTP or designated representative by a succession of sharp, short
signals by whistle or horn, the hailed vessel must come to an immediate
stop and comply with the lawful direction issued. Failure to comply
with a lawful direction may result in additional operating
restrictions, citation for failure to comply, or both.
    (3) Spectator vessels in Zone ``C'' must operate at safe speeds,
which will create minimal wake.
    (4) Vessels with approval from COTP or designated representative to
transit through the associated event zones shall maintain headway and
not loiter or anchor within the confines of the regulated area.
    (5) Rafting and anchoring of vessels is prohibited within the
regulated area.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This special local regulation will be
enforced for the official practices and race events from noon to 5:30
p.m. each day from May 4, 2023, through May 7, 2023. At least 24 hours
in advance of the official practice and race events commencing on May
4, 2023, the COTP will notify the maritime community of periods during
which these zones will be enforced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
in writing via the Coast Guard Boating Public Safety Notice.

    Dated: February 28, 2023.
Jordan M. Baldueza,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port, San
Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-04671 Filed 3-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P