[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83065-83072]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26123]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372; FRL 11026-04-OLEM]

Department of Energy Hanford Mixed Radioactive Waste Land
Disposal Restrictions Variance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing to grant a treatability variance from the Land Disposal
Restrictions (LDR) treatment standards for the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) for approximately 2,000 gallons of mixed low-activity
waste from the Hanford Site in Washington State. The petitioner
demonstrated that treatment of the waste to the specified standard is
technically inappropriate, and the treatment variance is sufficient to
minimize threats to human health and the environment posed by land
disposal of the waste. If the variance is granted, the waste will be
stabilized subject to specified conditions, and disposed at
EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists in
Andrews County, Texas. The variance would allow DOE, Washington, and
EPA to

evaluate the regulatory pathways by which separation, pretreatment,
stabilization, and offsite disposal could be implemented for other
Hanford mixed low-activity waste.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 28, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OLEM-2023-0372, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Land and Emergency Management Docket, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethany Russell, Waste
Characterization Branch, Materials Recovery and Waste Management
Division, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (5304P),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Docket

    EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372. All documents in the docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Publicly available docket materials
are available either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center. The Public Reading Room for the
docket is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading
Room and Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-
0372, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

C. Submitting CBI

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
ORCR Document Control Officer, Mail Code 5305-P, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460;
Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2023-0372.
    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that
does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly
that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 2.

II. General Information

A. Does this document apply to me?

    This action applies only to DOE's Hanford facility located in
Richland, Washington.

B. What action is the Agency taking?

    On August 2, 2023, the EPA received a petition from the DOE
requesting a variance from a treatment standard of the LDR of 40 CFR
268.40 for disposal of approximately 2,000 gallons of hazardous wastes
generated from DOE's Test Bed Initiative (TBI). This document proposes
to grant DOE's petition for a variance pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44.

C. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Sections 3004(d) through (g) of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6294(d)-(g), prohibit the land disposal
of hazardous wastes unless such wastes meet the LDR treatment standards
(or treatment standards) established by EPA (or the Agency). Section
3004(m) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6924(m), requires EPA to set levels or
methods of treatment, if any, which substantially diminish the toxicity
of the waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term
threats to human health and the environment are minimized. EPA has
established treatment standards for all hazardous wastes.
    However, when facilities generate hazardous wastes which cannot be
treated to the specified levels, or when it is technically
inappropriate for such wastes to undergo the prescribed treatment, they
can apply for a variance from a treatment standard.\1\ The requirements
for a treatment variance are found at 40 CFR 268.44. An applicant for a
treatment variance may demonstrate that it is inappropriate to require
a waste to be treated to the level or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically possible.
This is the criterion pertinent to today's action.\2\ The petitioner
must also

demonstrate that compliance with any given treatment variance is
sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the environment
posed by land disposal of the waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 51 FR at 40605-40606 (November 7, 1986); see also 62 FR
64504 (December 5, 1997).
    \2\ According to 42 CFR 268.44(a)(2), a petitioner may obtain a
variance from an applicable treatment standard if it is
inappropriate to require the waste to be treated to the level
specified in the treatment standard or by the method specified as
the treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically
possible. To show that this is the case, as applicable here, the
petitioner must demonstrate that treatment to the specified level or
by the specified method is technically inappropriate (for example,
resulting in combustion of large amounts of mildly contaminated
environmental media). Section 268.44(m) further requires the
petitioner to demonstrate that compliance with any given treatment
variance is sufficient to minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by land disposal of the waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Background

A. Hanford Waste Description

    Nearly 56 million gallons of radioactive and hazardous waste (mixed
waste) were generated from the Hanford Site's role in our nation's
defense program during the Manhattan Project and the Cold War.\3\ A
total of 149 single shell tanks (SSTs) were constructed and entered
service at Hanford between the 1940s and 1960s to contain this waste.
Beginning in the 1960s, an additional 28 double shell tanks (DSTs) were
also constructed at Hanford. DST capacity is crucial for retrieval of
SST waste. Between the 1940s and the mid-1980s, approximately 240,000
tons of hazardous chemicals were added to Hanford's tanks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Hanford Test Bed Initiative Fact Sheet, July, 2018,
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/07/f53/Hanford%20Test%20Bed%20Initiative%20Fact%20Sheet%207-12-18.pdf.
    \4\ Government Accountability Office, GAO 22-104365, Nuclear
Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision That Could
Save Tens of Billions of Dollars (2021), at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE regulates certain radioactive materials, including the
radioactive portion of mixed waste at Hanford, pursuant to its self-
regulating authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), 42
U.S.C. 2011, et seq. The Washington State Department of Ecology (ECY)
regulates the hazardous portion of the mixed waste as dangerous waste
pursuant to the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 70A.300 and
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) Chapter 173-303, as a State
authorized to implement a hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
    Under RCRA and RCRA-authorized Washington regulations, mixed wastes
are generally subject to the treatment standards in 40 CFR 268.40.
Where there is no specific treatment standard set forth for a mixed
waste, the standard applicable to the hazardous waste code applies to
the mixed waste. For certain mixed wastes, specific treatment standards
have been established. Treatment by high-level vitrification (HLVIT)
applies to the subcategory of radioactive high-level mixed wastes
generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods and bearing the waste
codes D002 and/or D004 through D011.\5\ EPA selected vitrification as
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for this waste, and
established HLVIT as the treatment standard, in part because
stabilization would not provide treatment of the high-level radioactive
portion of the waste, and because the potential health hazards
associated with exposure to radioactivity during analysis of this high-
level mixed waste precluded setting a concentration-based treatment
standard.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See WAC 173-303-140, which incorporates by reference 40 CFR
268 at WAC 173-303-140(2)(a).
    \6\ 55 FR 22520, 22627 (June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Description of the Proposed Treatment and Disposal

    In 2013, DOE updated its decision to separate tank wastes with low
levels of long-lived radionuclides (referred to as low-activity waste
or LAW) from other tank waste, and to vitrify some of the LAW at
Hanford's Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The
vitrified waste form will be disposed of onsite at Hanford's Integrated
Disposal Facility (IDF). The WTP has the design capacity to treat only
around 60 percent of the LAW from the Hanford tanks.\7\ For the
remaining LAW, DOE did not select a treatment method and found it would
be ``beneficial to study further the potential cost, safety, and
environmental performance of supplemental treatment technologies.'' \8\
DOE therefore proposed the TBI Demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See GAO 22-104365, Actions Needed to Enable DOE Decision
That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars (2021), at 2.
    \8\ See 78 FR 75916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE describes the TBI Demonstration as: (1) the onsite separation
and pretreatment of supernate from Tank SY-101, located in the 200 West
Area on the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site to remove the bulk of
the key radionuclides from the supernate; (2) transport of the
pretreated liquid waste to an offsite treatment facility for treatment
using stabilization/solidification (grouting); and (3) disposal of the
grouted waste form at a commercial disposal facility outside the State
of Washington. Effectuating the TBI Demonstration would allow DOE,
Washington, and EPA to evaluate the regulatory pathways by which
separation, pretreatment, stabilization (grouting), and offsite
disposal could be implemented for other Hanford mixed low-activity
waste. Concurrently, DOE is applying for a Research Development &
Demonstration (RD&D) Permit from ECY to perform the onsite pretreatment
activities associated with the TBI Demonstration.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ U.S. Department of Energy, ORP-67633, 2,000-Gallon Test Bed
Initiative Demonstration Research, Development, and Demonstration
Permit Application, Revision. 0 (June 8, 2023) (hereinafter, RD&D
Permit Application).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 2, 2023, DOE submitted to EPA a petition for a treatment
variance under 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2) to implement the TBI Demonstration
by treating approximately 2,000 gallons of supernate from Tank SY-
101.\10\ DOE selected Tank SY-101 for the TBI because of, among other
reasons, the tank waste chemistry, including low organic
concentration.\11\ Separation and pretreatment would involve filtration
of solids, and use of a crystalline silicotitanate ion exchange media
to capture and remove key radionuclides (including cesium (Cs-137) and
daughter barium (Ba-137m) and strontium (Sr-90)) from the supernate.
Tank SY-101 consists of two layers: the supernate, which comprises
approximately 81 percent of the tank volume, and an undissolved salt
cake layer beneath the supernate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Department of Energy, 23-TF-0023, Test Bed Initiative
Land Disposal Restrictions Variance Petition (August 1, 2023).
    \11\ U.S. Department of Energy, Test Bed Initiative at Hanford,
Report to Congress (April 2019), at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As requested in the petition and provided in this proposal, the
pretreated supernate would be subject to a stabilization treatment
method, hereafter referred to as STABL, with verification sampling to
ensure the treated waste meets the numerical LDR treatment standards
applicable to the waste codes provided in this proposal. The offsite
commercial treatment facilities identified in the petition,
EnergySolutions and Waste Control Specialists, would be required to
conduct the stabilization treatment in compliance with their RCRA
permits, as well as their radioactive material licenses.
    DOE anticipates that half of the pretreated liquid would be
transported to EnergySolutions for grouting and disposal at its
commercial facility in Clive, Utah, and half would be transported to
Waste Control Specialists for grouting and disposal at its Federal
Waste Facility (FWF) in Andrews County, Texas.\12\ The process totes
used to transport the pretreated liquid waste offsite to
EnergySolutions and Waste Control Specialists for treatment would meet
all applicable U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT) requirements under 49 CFR Subchapter C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See U.S. Department of Energy, Memorandum: Approval of
Exemption of Use of Non-U.S. Department of Energy Facilities for the
2,000-Gallon Test Bed Initiative Demonstration (June 8, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In accordance with DOE Order 435.1 Chg 2(AdminChg), Radioactive
Waste Management and DOE Manual 435.1-1 Chg 3(LtdChg), Radioactive
Waste Management Manual, DOE completed a Waste Incidental to
Reprocessing (WIR) Evaluation for the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration in
March 2023.\13\ Based on the WIR Evaluation, DOE determined that the
separated, pretreated, and solidified supernate from Tank SY-101 is
waste incidental to the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, is not
high-level waste, and can be managed as a low-level waste.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/ORP-2022-02, Revision 0,
Final Waste Incidental to Reprocessing Evaluation for the Test Bed
Initiative Demonstration (hereinafter, Final WIR Evaluation) (March
2023); see 88 FR 16615 (March 20, 2023). https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/WIR_%E2%80%93_Final_WIR_Evaluation_for_the_TBI1.pdf.
    \14\ WIR Determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also completed a Final Environmental Assessment (Final EA) for
the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and DOE's NEPA implementation
regulations, 10 CFR part 1021.\15\ In the Final EA, DOE analyzed the
environmental impacts associated with four combinations of facilities
for grouting and disposal of the pretreated 2,000 gallons of supernate
from Tank SY-101. The EA evaluated potential impacts of the TBI
Demonstration to air quality, human health (both from normal operations
and accidents or destructive acts), waste management, and
transportation. Any proposal to separate, pretreat, stabilize, and
dispose of any tank waste other than the TBI supernate from Tank SY-101
would be evaluated in a separate NEPA review. DOE sent the draft EA
with a request for input to host States and Tribes as well as States
and Tribes that could be affected by the proposed action, as documented
in Section 4 of the EA.\16\ DOE determined that the four alternatives
analyzed for grouting and disposal will not constitute a major Federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment
within the meaning of NEPA, and therefore issued a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) on March 16, 2023.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ U.S. Department of Energy, Final Environmental Assessment
of the Test Bed Initiative Demonstration, DOE/EA-2086 (March 2023).
https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/ea-2086-test-bed-initiative-hanford-2023-03_0.pdf.
    \16\ The following tribes and State agencies were notified of
the preparation of the EA: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation, Nez Perce Tribe, Yakama Nation Tribe, Wanapum
Tribe, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality, State of Utah Public Lands
Policy Coordination Office, Oregon State Department of Energy,
Washington State Department of Ecology.
    \17\ Finding of No Significant Impact Test Bed Initiative
Demonstration Hanford Site, Washington, DOE/EA-2086 (March 16,
2023). https://www.hanford.gov/files.cfm/Final_--_230316_-_NEPA_FONSI_for_TBI_(Digital).pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Basis for EPA's Proposed Determination

A. EPA's Approach to This Proposed Variance

    The regulatory framework and associated requirements of the RCRA
LDR standards must be addressed to implement the 2,000-gallon TBI
Demonstration and dispose of the grouted waste form at EnergySolutions
in Clive, Utah, and/or Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County,
Texas. As mentioned above, the LDR standard under RCRA and RCRA-
authorized Washington regulations for the subcategory of radioactive
high-level mixed wastes generated during the reprocessing of fuel rods
and bearing the waste codes D002 and/or D004 through D011 is HLVIT. DOE
asserts that after Tank SY-101 supernate is processed through TBI,
including separation of high- and low-activity waste fractions,
pretreatment, and solidification, following a re-classification through
a WIR determination, the solidified low-activity waste fraction can be
managed and disposed as low-level radioactive waste. Once those steps
are completed, DOE believes the HLVIT treatment standard does not apply
and thus the separated, pretreated mixed waste would not be required to
be vitrified. Washington interprets its RCRA-authorized LDR
requirements such that the waste designation and all associated LDR
treatment standards, including HLVIT, have already attached to the tank
waste and remain attached to the separated, pretreated low-activity
fraction of the tank waste until satisfied. Thus, according to
Washington, if the waste is not vitrified, the HLVIT standard would
need to be removed through some regulatory vehicle, such as a treatment
variance, in order for that waste to be grouted instead of
vitrified.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ For Washington's statements describing its position, see
FFRDC Report 2023, Volume II p. 494-495.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's decision to propose this treatment variance approval does not
resolve DOE and the State's differing interpretations of the LDR
requirements, and EPA is not concluding that HLVIT does or does not
apply to the TBI waste. Rather, EPA proposes to approve this variance
to provide a clear regulatory pathway for the 2,000-gallon TBI to
proceed. As documented in a 2021 report by the General Accountability
Office,\19\ DOE, Washington, and EPA agree that the TBI should proceed,
to test the viability of a grouting approach to some of the Hanford
tank waste. However, the regulatory disagreement between DOE and
Washington remains unresolved. In view of this background--and the
importance DOE, Washington and EPA all attach to making progress on the
Hanford tank waste mission--EPA proposes to approve a variance clearly
allowing the TBI to proceed, on the specific terms and subject to the
specific conditions proposed today, regardless of whose interpretation
forms the starting point for the variance analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ GAO-22-104365.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, EPA proposes to subject the TBI waste to a STABL
(stabilization) treatment method, with verification sampling to ensure
the treated waste meets the LDR numerical standards, as applicable, for
waste codes F001-F005 (limited to constituents associated with spent
solvent activities at the Hanford facility); D001-D011, D018, D019,
D022, D028-D030, D033-D036, D038-D041, and D043. The waste codes
included herein are those identified on the Dangerous Waste Permit
Application Part A form for the DST System, Rev. 4 (December 14, 2009),
which includes Tank SY-101.\20\ The codes include listed hazardous
wastes bearing organic constituents, and toxic and corrosive
characteristic wastes which ordinarily must meet concentration-based
treatment standards under Washington's RCRA-authorized program. DOE's
petition requests to use STABL to meet the numeric standard, therefore
these wastes are included in this variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See Petition, Table 1. The data provided in Table 1 is
derived from the Final Analytical Report for Tank 241-SY-101 TBI
Grab Sampling 2018, RPP-RPT-61303 Rev. 05 (October 2020). All waste
codes that appear on the DST System Part A form are included in this
variance, with the exception of F039 (because the DST System has not
accepted waste bearing that waste code). The sample result suggests
that Tank SY-101 supernate displays only a limited subset of the
waste codes listed on the DST System Part A form. See RD&D Permit
Application, Sec. 4.1.2 and Table 4-1. DOE explains that Tank SY-101
supernate does not exhibit the characteristics of ignitability
(D001) and reactivity (D003) before or after pretreatment.
Nonetheless, EPA understands that Washington views the SY-101 waste
as bearing all of the codes on the Part A form (except for F039) and
is therefore including the codes in the proposed variance, since the
facility is regulated under Washington's authorized program. The
inclusion of D001 and D003 does not affect the treatment required by
the variance, since treatment for underlying hazardous
characteristics for these waste codes is accounted for by the
treatment required for the corrosivity (D002) and toxicity (D004-
043) characteristics.

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

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 268.44(a)(2)(i), a variance may be approved if
it is technically inappropriate to treat the waste to the level
specified in the treatment standard, or by the method specified as the
treatment standard, even though such treatment is technically possible.
As with any section 268.44 treatment variance, the petitioner must also
show that compliance with the variance will be sufficient to minimize
threats to human health and the environment posed by land disposal of
the waste.

B. Proposed Technically Inappropriate Determination

    In promulgating the Land Disposal Restrictions for Third Third
Scheduled Wastes (Third Third Rule) that established the HLVIT
treatment standard, EPA expressly recognized the effectiveness of
grouting for immobilizing inorganic hazardous constituents in low-level
mixed waste:

    The Agency believes that for treatment of metals in low-level
mixed wastes and for some TRU mixed wastes containing low
radioactive components, chemical precipitation will remove the
metals in wastewaters, and stabilization technologies will reduce
the leachability of the metal constituents in nonwastewater
matrices. These are the same technologies that are applicable to
nonradioactive wastes containing metals.
    DOE submitted data demonstrating the applicability of
stabilization as a treatment technology for the low-level waste
fractions that are separated from the high-level waste generated
during the reprocessing of fuel rods. As used by one particular
facility, a stabilization process called grout stabilization
involves blending commercially produced cement-based reagents with
the liquid low-level waste fraction. The material sets up as a solid
mass, immobilizing the waste. The performance data indicate that
stabilization provides immobilization of the characteristic metal
constituents and radioactive contaminants for this low-level
radioactive waste, and that it is possible to stabilize the RCRA
hazardous portions to meet the treatment levels for the
characteristic metals. . . .
    DOE provided information to support that vitrification is an
applicable technology for their high-level wastes generated from the
reprocessing of fuel rods. Treatment can be accomplished by using
either direct vitrification or a more complex treatment process
which includes a series of chemical steps that separate the low-
level radioactive waste fractions from the high-level radioactive
waste. The high-level radioactive portion is then vitrified. When
using separation technologies such as precipitation followed by
settling or filtration, the bulk of the radioactivity can be
incorporated into a high-level liquid waste containing up to 99
percent of the radioactivity of the original irradiated fuel rods.
By separating high-level and low-level mixed wastes, the amount of
high-level waste that may require vitrification treatment can be
reduced.

[55 FR 22626-2627 (June 1, 1990).]

    Tank SY-101 contains both inorganic and organic constituents;
however, sampling results from Tank SY-101 supernate \21\ show that the
organic constituents in the waste are at least one order of magnitude
below the applicable nonwastewater (NWW) concentration-based LDR
treatment standards except for 1-butanol (also referred to as n-Butyl
alcohol).\22\ The sample results show that 1-butanol was not detected
in the sample, however, the laboratory detection limit (2.78 mg/L) for
this constituent is slightly above the NWW concentration-based standard
(2.6 mg/kg). Thus, 1-butanol is either below or just slightly above
this standard in the pre-treated waste, and EPA is confident that it
will meet the LDR standard following treatment, and that grouting is an
appropriate treatment technology for this constituent in this waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Petition, Table 1.
    \22\ Because the final grouted waste form being disposed of will
be a nonwastewater, the NWW standards are the relevant treatment
standards for this proposed variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As referenced above, EPA expresses no opinion on whether the waste
subject to this proposed variance must be vitrified under ECY's RCRA-
authorized LDR regulations. However, EPA believes that, under the facts
and circumstances presented in DOE's petition for this waste stream and
the terms of this proposed variance, it would be technically
inappropriate to require the Tank SY-101 supernate to be treated by
vitrification. As explained further below, in view of the efficacy of
grout for immobilizing inorganic constituents, the fact that the
organics concentrations in the pretreated liquid waste are below (or in
the case of 1-butanol, below or just slightly above) the NWW standards,
and the protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites,
EPA believes that requiring Tank SY-101 supernate to be vitrified would
be technically inappropriate. This is because vitrification would
require more time to implement, result in additional secondary impacts,
and be more costly--outcomes that EPA considers unnecessary and
undesirable in view of its proposed determination that grouting under
the terms of the proposed variance would minimize threats.
    The proposed approval applies only to the 2,000 gallons of
separated, pretreated supernate from Tank SY-101. Therefore, these
distinctions in impacts and outcomes between grouting and vitrifying
the waste are small. That said, EPA believes they are tangible in
proportion to the amount of waste involved, which is also small.
Moreover, the TBI Demonstration is intended to test the viability of an
approach involving grouting and offsite disposal for other low-activity
waste from Hanford. Thus, the TBI could provide the basis for a broader
approach under which these distinctions would be more significant.
    First, EPA believes grouting the waste, under the terms of the
proposed variance, would speed up implementation of retrieval,
treatment and disposal. In a peer-reviewed report issued in 2023, the
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) recommended
grouting and off-site disposal in parallel to vitrification due to the
improved execution schedule and probability of successful project
completion when compared to all other effective alternatives for waste
beyond the capacity of the existing DFLAW.\23\ Tank SY-101 is not
currently part of the direct-feed system for vitrification. To vitrify
LAW from SY-101 would require construction of new infrastructure. Thus,
the TBI would allow the 2,000 gallons of TBI waste to be retrieved,
treated, and disposed of more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
Conducting TBI in parallel to on-site vitrification of LAW from other
tanks could provide multiple pathways for disposal of Hanford tank
waste and provide the capability to achieve a more rapid reduction in
the amount of waste stored, and therefore result in a more rapid
reduction in risk to human health and the environment.\24\ Moreover,
DST space in West Area is needed to allow for the receipt of waste
retrievals from the aging SSTs for vitrification. In 2021 the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that insufficient tank
space is the top risk to the Hanford cleanup mission, with a 95 percent
chance of running out of DST space to continue retrieval of SST
waste.\25\ The May 2017 GAO report, which discussed the potential
reduction in short-term risks and long-term costs from treating a
portion of LAW with grout, stated that grouting could reduce the
environmental risk posed by leaks from aging tanks by removing waste
from such tanks sooner than vitrification would. The availability of
DST space, including in SY-101, is thus integral to DOE's cleanup
mission at Hanford. Grouting the TBI waste would free up 2,000 gallons
of DST space that could be

used for waste retrieved from SSTs, allowing for optimized retrieval
sequencing to reduce environmental and human health risk more
rapidly.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ FFRDC Report 2023, Volume I page 52.
    \24\ See FFRDC Report 2023 page 52.
    \25\ GAO-21-73.
    \26\ See FFRDC 2023 page 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Again, these distinctions as applied to the 2,000 gallons are
small, but if the TBI demonstrates the effectiveness of a regulatory
pathway for other Hanford low-activity waste via grouting and offsite
disposal, that could substantially facilitate DOE's ability to meet its
SST retrieval schedule and allow DOE to complete its cleanup mission in
less time than it would if vitrification is required for all of
Hanford's low-activity waste.\27\ Grouting could provide an alternative
treatment pathway that would allow 200 West Area tanks to be retrieved,
and supernate from those tanks to be treated and disposed of offsite,
decades earlier than the baseline approach of vitrification. Given that
these tanks are well past their design life and are at risk of leaking,
this would help mitigate the environmental risk of this tank waste (and
attendant costs) sooner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See GAO 22-104365, p. 44-45; GAO, GAO 21-73, Hanford
Cleanup, DOE's Efforts to Close Tank Farms Would Benefit from
Clearer Legal Authorities and Communication (January 2021). See,
also, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. 1, p. 9-11 (finding, for
example, that every two years of WTP vitrification operations
without LAW supplemental treatment adds one year to the overall
mission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, vitrification of the 2,000 gallons of Tank SY-101 supernate
would result in certain secondary impacts, which are unnecessary and
avoidable under these circumstances given the efficacy of grouting, the
protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites, and the
terms of the proposed variance. When LAW is vitrified, the water
present in LAW is not incorporated into the glass matrix as part of the
treatment process. The water initially present in the LAW, as well as
any water produced as part of the treatment process, must then be
recycled back into the vitrification system or managed as a liquid
secondary waste, which would contain low levels of radionuclides and
hazardous constituents not otherwise immobilized or destroyed by the
glass-forming step. In contrast, when pretreated LAW is grouted instead
of vitrified, the water content of the waste is incorporated into the
cementitious matrix.
    Vitrification also generates secondary waste streams (such as high-
efficiency particulate air filters, carbon adsorber beds, spent or
failed melters, and melter components), whereas grouting generates
minimal secondary wastes.\28\ Furthermore, vitrification is a high
temperature process that generates offgas that requires management and
treatment for worker and public protection, whereas grouting takes
place at much lower temperatures and is less energy-intensive than
vitrification.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, App. B.
    \29\ See, 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vitrification of TBI tank waste would also be more costly than
grouting to achieve near-term risk reduction. Additional vitrification
capability would need to be constructed before the TBI waste and any
other low-activity waste from Hanford's 200 West Area could be
vitrified. Multiple independent sources estimate the costs of grouting
and off-site disposal vs vitrification.\30\ For example, the 2023 FFRDC
Follow-On Report states that grouting would minimize financial demands
by reducing mission duration and lifecycle costs and indicates that
grouting is clearly executable at benchmark funding levels.\31\ In
light of this, EPA believes grouting and offsite disposal of TBI waste
in accordance with the terms of this approval would be cheaper than
vitrification. Cost savings can also be realized by reducing the amount
of waste that needs to be managed in tanks. The GAO reported in 2021
that DOE spent more than $400 million per year from 2017-2019
maintaining the waste in the tanks.\32\ Finally, the reduction of waste
quantity managed in aging tanks has the potential to reduce cleanups
costs associated with waste leaking from the tanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See 2019 FFRDC Report; 2022 GAO report; 2023 FFRDC Follow-
On Report.
    \31\ GAO-17-306
    \32\ GAO-21-73.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA recognizes there are differences in reporting on how much time,
cost, and secondary impacts would be reduced by grouting some of the
Hanford low-activity waste rather than vitrifying it. However, EPA
believes there would be savings under all three metrics.
    Finally, the characteristics of the two facilities that would be
authorized for disposal of the grouted waste form under the proposed
variance support EPA's proposed determination that requiring HLVIT
would be technically inappropriate for the TBI waste as described
below.
    First, these two facilities feature favorable physical, including
geologic, features, as described in section II.C below.\33\ These
features would help ensure that threats to human health and the
environment posed by disposal of the grouted SY-101 supernate are
minimized. EPA's proposed technical inappropriateness determination is
dependent on its proposed threat minimization determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ The geology underlying the IDF differs from the geology
underlying these two facilities in certain respects, see Section
II.C page 14 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, because the pre-treated LAW will still contain
radionuclides, EPA notes that disposal must be in accordance with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) performance objectives at 10 CFR
part 61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The performance objective
requirements for licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the Texas
Administrative Code and the Utah Administrative Code mirror and are
comparable to the NRC's performance objectives, as discussed in detail
in the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Final WIR Evaluation, p. 4-2; 5-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all the reasons above, EPA concludes that requiring treatment
by vitrification would be technically inappropriate for this 2,000
gallons of Tank SY-101 supernate in view of the efficacy of grouting,
the protective geologic features of the identified disposal sites, and
the conditions specified in the proposed variance.

C. Proposed Minimization of Threat Determination

    EPA proposes to determine that grouting of the pre-treated, low
activity fraction of the Tank SY-101 supernate, under the terms of the
proposed variance, would minimize threats to human health and the
environment posed by disposal of the waste. The proposed minimization
of threat finding is predicated on the TBI waste being treated to the
LDR standard of STABL, with verification through samples collected
after grouting to demonstrate that the stabilization achieves the NWW
LDR concentration-based and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)-based standards, as applicable, for F001-F005 (limited to
constituents associated with spent solvent activities at the Facility);
D001-D011, D018, D019, D022, D028-D030, D033-D036, D038-D041, and D043.
    The EPA-approved STABL treatment technology is described as
``[s]tabilization with the following reagents (or waste reagents) or
combinations of reagents: (1) Portland cement; or (2) lime/pozzolans
(e.g., fly ash and cement kiln dust) . . .'' 40 CFR 268.42. This method
includes the grouting technology that DOE requests approval for. As
described above, EPA in the Third Third Rule preamble generally
concluded that stabilization was an appropriate technology for low-
level waste fractions that are separated

from the high-level waste generated during the reprocessing of fuel
rods. To comply with STABL, the offsite commercial treatment facilities
would be required to use the appropriate stabilization methods that
meet applicable regulatory requirements in accordance with the
facilities' waste permits and radioactive material licenses, as
applicable.
    Moreover, under the proposed variance, the grouted waste would be
required to meet the numerical treatment standards applicable to the
waste codes for the subject waste. While confirmation sampling would
not typically be conducted for waste subject to the STABL standard,
since it is a method-based standard, sampling after treatment at the
offsite commercial treatment facilities would be conducted for the
purpose of validating treatment performance against the NWW numerical
standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48.\35\ EPA determined
in promulgating these numerical standards that they minimize threats
posed by disposal of hazardous waste bearing the relevant waste codes,
as required by RCRA section 3004(m).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ DOE has requested this confirmation sampling in the context
of the 2,000-gallon TBI to support and inform the development of a
possible method-based treatment standard for other Hanford tank
waste. DOE indicates that it may submit a variance request in the
future for other tank waste that may provide a basis to eliminate
the need for post-treatment sampling. Today's proposal is limited to
the 2,000-gallon TBI, and EPA expresses no view as to the
appropriateness of proposals DOE may advance in the future for
treatment of other Hanford tank waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the sampling data provided by DOE, EPA fully expects that
the numerical treatment standards will be met. All metals other than
chromium are below NWW TCLP standards based on their measured total
concentrations in Tank SY-101. A previous grouting recipe used by DOE
provided a retention factor for chromium which can be used to predict
the TCLP concentrations found in the final grouted waste form. This
demonstration showed that the chromium TCLP leachate concentration in
the grouted waste form would be two to three orders of magnitude less
than the NWW TCLP numerical standard.\36\ While this grout recipe may
not be identical to the recipe used in this proposed action, grouting
is generally BDAT for metal constituents and is therefore expected to
immobilize the chromium and therefore minimize threats.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ DOE details in their petition: In Tank SY-101 supernate,
chromium was detected at 95.8 mg/L. Available data on chromium in
relation to DOE's Cast Stone formulation indicate that the retention
factor for chromium is between 3.3x10-5 and 1.3x10-4 (mg_Cr/
L_leachate)/(mg_Cr/kg_solid), which corresponds to an EPA SW-846
Method 1311 TCLP concentration of between 9.9x10-4 and 3.9x10-3
(mg_Cr/L_leachate). In contrast, the NWW treatment standard for
chromium is 0.6 (mg_Cr/L_leachate). Thus, the TCLP leachate
concentration for the grouted waste form is expected to be two or
three orders of magnitude less than the NWW numerical standard.
    \37\ EPA 402-R-96-014, Stabilization/Solidification Processes
for Mixed Waste, page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described earlier, the organic wastes are already at least an
order of magnitude below the NWW standards, except for 1-butanol, which
below or just slightly above the treatment standard. For this reason,
targeted organics destruction or removal in addition to grouting is not
necessary to minimize threats to health and the environment.
    EPA's proposed determination is supported by independent
assessments. For example, experts convened by the National Academies of
Science in 2016 concluded that both vitrification and grout could
effectively treat Hanford low activity waste and be protective of human
health.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ GAO-22-104365, Nuclear Waste Disposal: Actions Needed to
Enable DOE Decision That Could Save Tens of Billions of Dollars, at
50-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the treatment and disposal facilities that would be
authorized by this variance are particularly appropriate for this
waste. Most importantly, the grouted waste form will be disposed of at
EnergySolutions in Utah and/or Waste Control Specialists in Texas, both
of which are commercial facilities that are RCRA-permitted and licensed
by the applicable State authorities pursuant to their agreement with
the NRC to accept mixed waste in accordance with their Waste Acceptance
Criteria. Because the pre-treated LAW will still contain radionuclides,
disposal must be in accordance with the NRC performance objectives at
10 CFR part 61, subpart C for disposal of LLW. The performance
objective requirements for licensed MLLW disposal facilities in the
Texas Administrative Code and the Utah Administrative Code mirror and
are comparable to the NRC's performance objectives, as discussed in
detail in the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration Final WIR Evaluation.
Those licensed facilities are subject to regulations and conditions
that ensure the protection of public health and safety and the
environment.
    The disposal facilities were also specifically selected based on
their location, geology, hydrogeology, and experience in receiving
comparable waste types for disposal. The EnergySolutions facility is
located in a remote area of Utah with low-permeability clay soils
immediately under the facility. Any potential for exposures via the
groundwater pathway is further reduced due to naturally poor
groundwater quality at the site which is extremely saline and exceeds
EPA and Utah State drinking water standards for several naturally
occuring constituents.\39\ No domestic water use occurs within 10 km of
the facility.\40\ The precipitation levels in the area are low,
evaporation is high, and the nearest stream channel is 2 miles east of
the facility, thus minimizing the potential for releases via any
surface water pathway.\41\ All of those characteristics make the site
well-suited for the disposal of the TBI waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-13.
    \40\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-18.
    \41\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the Waste Control Specialists FWF facility is in a
physical setting that is naturally protective of human health and the
environment. The area receives less than 16 inches of precipitation
annually and evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation rates.\42\ There
are no perennial streams on or near the site.\43\ The site sits on top
of a 600-ft geologic layer of silts, muds and other low-permeability
constituents.\44\ The first continuously saturated zone is 225 ft below
ground surface and has extremely low permeability, retaining water from
the Pleistocene era.\45\ The water volume is not sufficient to support
an individual, and is non-potable.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-33.
    \43\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-33.
    \44\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-27.
    \45\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-31.
    \46\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. II, p. G-31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The geologic features, low infiltration, and no credible pathway to
surface water or potable water aquifers at both EnergySolutions in Utah
and Waste Control Specialists in Texas provide additional long-term
environmental protections for waste that would help ensure that threats
to human health and the environment posed by the disposal of the
grouted SY-101 supernate are minimized.\47\ Conversely, with respect to
geology, Hanford's IDF overlies unconsolidated to semi-consolidated
sediments with no intervening natural barrier between the landfill and
the underlying aquifer. However, EPA is not making a decision on
whether a

variance would be appropriate for disposal in landfills other than
those evaluated in the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 2023 FFRDC Follow-On Report, Vol. I, p. 52.

                                  Table 1--Proposed Modification to 40 CFR 268.44(o) for the TBI Demonstration Petition
                                            Wastes Excluded From The Treatment Standards Under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wastewaters                       Nonwastewaters
                                                                    Regulated    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Facility name and address      Waste code        See also         hazardous       Concentration                       Concentration
                                                                   constituent         (mg/L)             Notes            (mg/L)             Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Department of   F001-F005 D001-  NA..............  For waste codes  NA..............  NA..............  STABL\19 20\....  NA.
 Energy (Energy), Richland,    D011, D018,                        F001-F005, the
 WA \17\.                      D019, D022,                        constituents
                               D028-D030,                         are limited to
                               D033-D036,                         those
                               D038-D041, and                     associated
                               D043 \18\.                         with spent
                                                                  solvent
                                                                  activities at
                                                                  the Facility
                                                                  documented
                                                                  through
                                                                  process
                                                                  knowledge.
                                                                 For
                                                                  constituents,
                                                                  as applicable,
                                                                  associated
                                                                  with D waste
                                                                  codes under
                                                                  the ``Waste
                                                                  Code'' column,
                                                                  see 40 CFR
                                                                  268.40.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ The STABL treatment standard applies to the separated and pretreated tank waste under the 2,000-gallon TBI Demonstration.
\18\ The waste codes included in this column are those identified on the current version of the Dangerous Waste Permit Application Part A form for the
  Hanford Double Shell Tank System, Rev. 04 (December 14, 2009), except for F039 which has not been accepted into the Double Shell Tanks.
\19\ Sampling after treatment will be conducted at the treatment facility for the purpose of assessing the extent of treatment performance against the
  NWW numerical standards at 268.40 and, as applicable, at 268.48. Waste treated using STABL may not be land disposed until LDR constituents are below
  the non-wastewater numerical standards at 40 CFR 268.40 and 268.48.
\20\ Treatment using the STABL treatment method shall be performed, and the treated waste shall be disposed of, at EnergySolutions in Clive, Utah, and/
  or Waste Control Specialists in Andrews County, Texas.

Barry N. Breen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Land and Emergency
Management.
[FR Doc. 2023-26123 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: April 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 19834-19838]
[DOCID:fr20ap07-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0609; FRL-8302-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wisconsin; New Source Review Reform ``Linkage'' Rule, Rule AM-32-04b

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve as a revision to the Wisconsin
State Implementation Plan (SIP) changes to the minor New Source Review
(NSR) construction permit program and permits fees schedule, through
rule AM-32-04b. The purpose of rule AM-32-04b is to update Wisconsin's
minor NSR construction permit program to include changes to implement
the new elements of the federal ``NSR Reform'' rules for sources that
are exempt from major NSR permitting requirements. Rule AM-32-04b has
been created to accompany the ``NSR Reform'' rules and is necessary to
effectively implement

the ``NSR Reform'' rules. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing to approve Wisconsin's ``NSR Reform'' rules. WDNR has also
established a new fee schedule that will apply to facilities that meet
the criteria in rule AM-32-04b.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-0609, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Air Permits Section,
Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Regional Office official hours of business are Monday
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-0609. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353-8781 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Danny Marcus, Environmental Engineer,
Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
II. What Is Being Addressed In This Document?
III. What Are The Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve?
IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--The EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What Is Being Addressed in This Document?

    We are proposing to approve changes to the minor NSR construction
permit program and permits fees schedule of the State of Wisconsin,
enacted through rule AM-32-04b. EPA granted full approval to WDNR's
non-attainment NSR (NANSR) program on January 18, 1995 (60 FR 3538) and
the approval became effective on February 17, 1995. The January 18,
1995, approval also included WDNR's minor NSR program, which was
incorporated by reference into Wisconsin's SIP.
    The rule revision being proposed for approval in this action is
referred to as the ``linkage'' rule and has been created to update
Wisconsin's minor NSR construction permit program to include changes to
implement the new elements of the federal ``NSR Reform'' rules for
sources that are exempt from major NSR permitting requirements. EPA
published the ``NSR Reform'' regulations, which include revisions to
the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and NANSR
regulations, in the Federal Register on December 31, 2002, which became
effective March 3, 2003. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing to approve Wisconsin's ``NSR Reform'' rules.
    The rule revision will affect those facilities seeking an exemption
from the major NSR program as a result of the actual-to-projected-
actual applicability test, and facilities complying with plant-wide
applicability limitations (PALs). This rule revision also establishes a
new fee schedule for facilities utilizing PALs and for facilities
seeking an exemption determination.
    This rule revision contains a provision that will be applicable to
the major source facilities that are exempt from major NSR when
applying the actual-to-projected-actual applicability test in
circumstances where the

calculated difference between projected actual emissions and baseline
actual emissions does not exceed significant thresholds. Facilities
that meet this criterion will also have to meet the criteria in the
linkage package in order to be eligible for the exemption. The criteria
consists of: (1) The modification will not cause or exacerbate an
exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard; (2) the
modification will not trigger a New Source Performance Standard (NSPS)
or a National Emissions for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standard;
and, (3) the modification will not require enforceable conditions to
limit potential to emit.
    PALs were created so that a facility could make rapid, iterative
changes optimizing process performance, without the administrative time
delays and uncertainty associated with permitting. The PAL is believed
to provide for environmental improvement since its cap-based framework
encourages emission reductions and pollution prevention. In rule AM-32-
04b, WDNR provides additional clarification for facilities that choose
to operate under a PAL. EPA has not provided provisions for sources
operating under a PAL in certain circumstances. Any facility which
establishes a PAL, or will distribute allowable emissions following
expiration of a PAL, will comply with the provision section NR 406.035
and will need a minor NSR construction permit.
    This rule revision contains a provision that will apply to sources
modifying their facility under a PAL. In order to be eligible for this
exemption, the source also has to meet the following criteria: (1) The
modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient
air quality increment or standard; (2) the modification will not
trigger a NSPS or NESHAP standard; (3) the modification does not
consist of the construction of a new emissions unit which is a
significant emissions unit under section NR 405.18(2)(h), of the
Wisconsin PSD program, or section NR 408.11(2)(h), of the Wisconsin
NANSR program, and which has been operating for less than two years, or
does not consist of the construction of a ``major emissions unit''; (4)
the emissions from the source will be able to comply with the PAL; and,
(5) any increase in emissions, due to the modification, in pollutants
not regulated by the PAL will not exceed maximum theoretical emissions.
    WDNR has established into its rules a new fee schedule that will
apply to facilities using PALs and to facilities applying for
exemptions under the new provisions in this rule. A source will be
responsible for paying a fee when establishing a PAL limit, increasing
an existing PAL limit, and when required to distribute limits upon
expiration of a PAL. Also, there are fees applicable to sources when
seeking an exemption determination under the new provisions of this
rule.

III. What Are the Changes That EPA Is Proposing To Approve?

Rule AM-32-04b

Section 1
NR 406.035--Establishment or Distribution of Plant-Wide Applicability
Limitations
    This provision was established by WDNR to require a facility to
acquire a minor NSR construction permit when: (1) Establishing a PAL;
and, (2) distributing allowable emissions following expiration of a
PAL. In the Federal Register document that promulgated the ``NSR
Reform'' rules, 67 FR 80208, the section that contained the discussion
on PALs did not specifically address how PALs should be established.
However, the document states that a permitting authority must use a
federally enforceable permit which may include using a minor NSR
construction permit.
Section 2
NR 406.04(1f)--Modifications to Sources Under Plant-Wide Applicability
Limitations
    WDNR has established this exemption provision for sources operating
under a PAL which are seeking to modify their facility. This is
consistent with the NSR Reform rules. They will not need a construction
permit as long as the criteria in this provision is met: (1) The
modification will not cause or exacerbate an exceedance of an ambient
air quality increment or standard; (2) the modification will not
trigger a NSPS or NESHAP standard; (3) the modification does not
consist of the construction of a new emissions unit which is a
significant emissions unit under section NR 405.18(2)(h), of the
Wisconsin PSD program, or section NR 408.11(2)(h), of the Wisconsin
NANSR program, and which has been operating for less than two years, or
the construction of a ``major emissions unit''; (4) the emissions from
the source will be able to comply with the PAL; and, (5) any increase
in emissions, due to the modification, of pollutants not regulated by
the PAL, will not exceed maximum theoretical emissions.
NR 406.04(1k)--Projects Evaluated for Significant Net Emissions
Increase
    WDNR has established this exemption provision for sources that are
modifying existing emission units at a major stationary source whose
calculated difference between the projected actual emissions and
baseline actual emissions does not exceed significant thresholds. The
reform rules exempt any source meeting this criterion from acquiring a
major NSR construction permit. This provision is consistent with the
reform rules; it exempts a source from acquiring a permit to construct
when the project meets the criteria stated in the provision. The
criteria consist of: (1) The modification will not cause or exacerbate
an exceedance of an ambient air quality increment or standard; (2) the
modification will not trigger a NSPS or a NESHAP standard; and, (3) the
modification will not require enforceable conditions to limit potential
to emit. A source may still be required to apply for an operating
permit before construction of the project begins.
Section 3
NR 406.07(3)
    This provision is being established so that any source that
undergoes a modification that is exempt from the requirement to obtain
a construction permit under sections NR 406.04 (1f) and (1k) shall be
treated as a new or modified source for the purposes of the emission
limitations under chapters NR 400 to 499, unless the modification is
excluded from being considered a modification under section NR
406.04(4). The purpose of section NR 406.07(3) is to allow sources to
take advantage of the federal reform rules without being exempted from
meeting updated requirements of other rules in the Wisconsin SIP. This
provision will allow any emission unit being modified under the
applicability test or PAL provision to be exempt from permitting
without being exempt from other Wisconsin SIP provisions. As a result,
facilities will be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided
by the federal NSR Reform rule, but will not be exempted from meeting
updated requirements in other rules.
Section 4
NR 406.11(1m)
    WDNR has established this provision so that it may be able to open
a construction permit for the purposes of decreasing a PAL limit. This
is consistent with the federal NSR Reform rules. See 40 CFR
51.166(w)(8)(ii)(a) and 40 CFR 51.165(f)(8)(ii)(A).

Section 5
NR 410.03(intro.)--Application Fee
    WDNR has modified this existing paragraph. The words, ``under s. NR
406.04(1)(i) * * *'', have been deleted from the sentence, ``Any person
required under s. NR 406.04(1)(i) to obtain a determination of
exemption from the department shall pay the basic fee under sub.
(1)(b).'' The fee will now apply to any facility requesting an
exemption, and is not exclusive to section NR 406.04(1)(i) any longer.
Section 6
NR 410.03(1)(a)8. to 10.
    WDNR has established the fees associated with PALs in this
provision. A facility will be responsible for a fee of $10,150 per
pollutant when establishing a PAL limit. A fee of $4,850 per pollutant
will be applicable if a facility decides to increase a PAL limit. When
a facility comes in for distribution of allowable limits following
expiration of a PAL, a fee of $4,850 per pollutant will be applicable.
Section 7
NR 410.03(1)(b)1
    This provision was originally section NR 410.03(1)(b). The language
was modified for consistency.
Section 8
NR 410.03(1)(b)(intro.) and 2. to 4.
    WDNR has reestablished section NR 410.03. This provision explains
the fees associated with acquiring an exemption under sections NR
406.04 (1f) and (1k). A facility will be subject to a fee of $1,100 per
pollutant when seeking an exemption under section NR 406.04(1f), and a
fee of $4,400 per pollutant when seeking an exemption under section NR
406.04(1k). There is also a fee of $700 per pollutant for any facility
which needs a detailed air quality modeling analysis for any
determination of exemption under sections NR 406.04 (1f) and (1k).

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is proposing to approve into the Wisconsin SIP, rule AM-32-04b,
changes to the minor New Source Review (NSR) construction permit
program and permits fees schedule. Rule AM-32-04b will update
Wisconsin's minor NSR construction permit program to include changes to
implement the new elements of the federal ``NSR Reform'' rules for
sources that are exempt from major NSR permitting requirements. This
new rule will be necessary for AM-06-04, the adopted version of the NSR
Reform rule, to be implemented appropriately.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, September 30, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132 Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will 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, as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or is likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or the use of energy, this action is also
not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, requires federal agencies to
use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus to carry out policy objectives, so long as such standards are
not inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Absent a
prior existing requirement for the state to use voluntary consensus
standards, EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for
failure to use such standards, and it would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in place of
a program submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the
Clean Air Act. Therefore, the requirements of section 12(d) of the NTTA
do not apply.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 11, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
 [FR Doc. E7-7545 Filed 4-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 36 (Thursday, February 25, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11424-11425]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03857]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 381

[Docket No. RM21-4-000]

Annual Update of Filing Fees

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Final rule; annual update of Commission filing fees.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the
Commission issues this update of its filing fees. This document
provides the yearly update using data in the Commission's Financial
System to calculate the new fees. The purpose of updating is to adjust
the fees on the basis of the Commission's costs for Fiscal Year 2020.

DATES: Effective Date: March 29, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maryam Khan, Office of the Executive
Director, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 999 North Capitol St.
NE, Room 22-02, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Document Availability: In addition to publishing the full text of
this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides all
interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents of
this document via the internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov). At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020.
    From FERC's website on the internet, this information is available
in the eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on
eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or
downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket
number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket
number field and follow other directions on the search page.
    User assistance is available for eLibrary and other aspects of
FERC's website during normal business hours. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Annual Update of Filing Fees

(February 17, 2021)

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is issuing
this document to update filing fees that the Commission assesses for
specific services and benefits provided to identifiable beneficiaries.
Pursuant to 18 CFR 381.104, the Commission is establishing updated fees
on the basis of the Commission's Fiscal Year 2020 costs. The adjusted
fees announced in this document are effective March 29, 2021. The
Commission has determined, with the concurrence of the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget, that this final rule is not a major rule within
the meaning of section 251 of Subtitle E of Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission is submitting
this final rule to both houses of the United States Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States.
    The new fee schedule is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Fees Applicable to the Natural Gas Policy Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Petitions for rate approval pursuant to 18 CFR                $15,510
 284.123(b)(2). (18 CFR 381.403)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Fees Applicable to General Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Petition for issuance of a declaratory order (except           31,160
 under Part I of the Federal Power Act). (18 CFR
 381.302(a))............................................
2. Review of a Department of Energy remedial order:
    Amount in controversy
        $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b))...................             100
        $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.303(b)).............             600
        $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.303(a))............          45,480
3. Review of a Department of Energy denial of
 adjustment:
    Amount in controversy
        $0-9,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b))...................             100
        $10,000-29,999. (18 CFR 381.304(b)).............             600
        $30,000 or more. (18 CFR 381.304(a))............          23,850
4. Written legal interpretations by the Office of                  8,940
 General Counsel. (18 CFR 381.305(a))...................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                Fees Applicable to Natural Gas Pipelines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Pipeline certificate applications pursuant to 18 CFR          * 1,000
 284.224. (18 CFR 381.207(b))...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fees Applicable to Cogenerators and Small Power Producers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Certification of qualifying status as a small power            26,790
 production facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))...............
2. Certification of qualifying status as a cogeneration           30,330
 facility. (18 CFR 381.505(a))..........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This fee has not been changed.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 381

    Electric power plants, Electric utilities, Natural gas, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Issued: February 17, 2021.
Anton C. Porter,
Executive Director.
    In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission amends part 381,
chapter I, title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.

PART 381--FEES

0
1. The authority citation for part 381 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 717-717w; 16 U.S.C. 791-828c, 2601-2645;
31 U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 7101-7352; 49 U.S.C. 60502; 49 App. U.S.C.
1-85.

Sec.  381.302  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  381.302, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 30,060''
and adding ``$ 31,160'' in its place.

Sec.  381.303   [Amended]

0
3. In Sec.  381.303, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 43,880''
and adding ``$ 45,480'' in its place.

Sec.  381.304  [Amended]

0
4. In Sec.  381.304, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 23,010''
and adding ``$ 23,850'' in its place.

Sec.  381.305   [Amended]

0
5. In Sec.  381.305, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 8,620''
and adding ``$ 8,940'' in its place.

Sec.  381.403   [Amended]

0
6. Section Sec.  381.403 is amended by removing ``$ 14,960'' and adding
``$ 15,510'' in its place.

Sec.  381.505   [Amended]

0
7. In Sec.  381.505, paragraph (a) is amended by removing ``$ 25,850''
and adding ``$ 26,790'' in its place and by removing ``$ 29,260'' and
adding ``$ 30,330'' in its place.

[FR Doc. 2021-03857 Filed 2-24-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49177-49180]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17731]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1-percent-annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and
modified BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs
and modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures
that each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of
being already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

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_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community.
    The BFEs and modified BFEs are made final in the communities listed
below. Elevations at selected locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 20, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                     feet  (NGVD)  +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                      (NAVD)  # Depth
           Flooding source(s)              Location of referenced     in feet  above      Communities affected
                                                 elevation           ground  [caret]
                                                                       Elevation in
                                                                       meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Onondaga County, New York (All Jurisdictions)
                                       Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1002 and B-1076
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DeRuyter Reservoir.....................  Shoreline of DeRuyter                 + 1282  Town of Fabius.
                                          Reservoir within
                                          Onondaga County.
Geddes Brook...........................  Approximately 245 feet                 + 381  Village of Solvay.
                                          downstream of Gere Lock
                                          Road.
                                         At Gere Lock Road bridge.              + 396
Harbor Brook...........................  Approximately 300 feet                 + 372  City of Syracuse, Town of
                                          upstream of the Onondaga                      Geddes, Town of
                                          Lake confluence.                              Onondaga.
                                         Approximately 860 feet                 + 782
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          173.
Limestone Creek........................  Approximately 2,990 feet               + 399  Town of Manlius, Village
                                          upstream of North                             of Fayetteville, Village
                                          Manlius Road.                                 of Manlius, Village of
                                                                                Minoa.
                                         Approximately 160 feet                 + 725
                                          upstream of Pompey
                                          Center Road.
Meadow Brook...........................  At the Old Erie Canal                  + 429  City of Syracuse, Town of
                                          Feeder confluence.                            Dewitt.
                                         Approximately 220 feet                 + 541
                                          downstream of Meadow
                                          Brook Drive.
Ninemile Creek.........................  Approximately 2,150 feet               + 371  Town of Camillus, Town of
                                          upstream of the Onondaga                      Geddes, Town of
                                          Lake confluence.                              Marcellus, Village of
                                                                                Camillus, Village of
                                                                                Marcellus.
                                         Approximately 350 feet                 + 781
                                          upstream of Otisco
                                          Valley Road.
Onondaga Creek.........................  Just upstream of Bear                  + 371  City of Syracuse, Town of
                                          Street.                                       Onondaga.

                                         Approximately 1.1 miles                + 431
                                          upstream of Dorwin
                                          Avenue.
Otisco Lake............................  Entire shoreline of                    + 789  Town of Marcellus, Town
                                          Otisco Lake within the                        of Otisco, Town of
                                          Towns of Marcellus,                           Spafford.
                                          Spafford and Otisco.
Skaneateles Creek......................  Approximately 1.4 miles                + 385  Town of Elbridge, Town of
                                          downstream of Interstate                      Skaneateles, Village of
                                          90.                                           Elbridge, Village of
                                                                                Jordan, Village of
                                                                                Skaneateles.
                                         Approximately 960 feet                 + 860
                                          upstream of Kelley
                                          Street.
Thompson Brook.........................  At South Bay Road Bridge.              + 382  Village of North
                                                                                Syracuse.
                                         Approximately 265 feet                 + 383
                                          upstream of I-481 ramp.
Tully Lake.............................  Shoreline of Tully Lake               + 1195  Town of Tully.
                                          within Onondaga County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                   ADDRESSES:
City of Syracuse
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 233 East Washington Street, Syracuse, NY 13202.

Town of Camillus
Maps are available for inspection at the Camillus Municipal Building, 4600 West Genesee Street, Syracuse, NY
 13219.

Town of Dewitt
Maps are available for inspection at the Dewitt Town Hall, 5400 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057.

Town of Elbridge
Maps are available for inspection at the Elbridge Municipal Offices, 5 State Route 31, Jordan, NY 13080.

Town of Fabius
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 7786 Main Street, Fabius, NY 13063.

Town of Geddes
Maps are available for inspection at the Geddes Town Hall, 1000 Woods Road, Solvay, NY 13209.

Town of Manlius
Maps are available for inspection at the Manlius Town Hall, 301 Brooklea Drive, Fayetteville, NY 13066.

Town of Marcellus
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 24 East Main Street, Marcellus, NY 13108.

Town of Onondaga
Maps are available for inspection at the Onondaga Town Hall, 5020 Ball Road, Syracuse, NY 13215.

Town of Otisco
Maps are available for inspection at the Otisco Town Hall, 1924 Barker Street, Tully, NY 13159.

Town of Skaneateles
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 24 Jordan Street, Skaneateles, NY 13152.

Town of Spafford
Maps are available for inspection at the Spafford Town Hall, 1984 State Route 174, Skaneateles, NY 13152.

Town of Tully
Maps are available for inspection at the Municipal Building, 5833 Meetinghouse Road, Tully, NY 13159.

Village of Camillus
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 37 Main Street, Camillus, NY 13031.

Village of Elbridge
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 210 West Main Street, Elbridge, NY 13060.

Village of Fayetteville
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 425 East Genesee Street, Fayetteville, NY 13066.

Village of Jordan
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 7 Mechanic Street, Jordan, NY 13080.

Village of Manlius
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Centre, One Arkie Albanese Avenue, Manlius, NY 13104.

Village of Marcellus
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 6 Slocombe Avenue, Marcellus, NY 13108.

Village of Minoa
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Office, 240 North Main Street, Minoa, NY 13116.

Village of North Syracuse
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 600 South Bay Road, North Syracuse, NY 13212.

Village of Skaneateles
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 26 Fennell Street, Skaneateles, NY 13152.

Village of Solvay
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 1100 Woods Road, Solvay, NY 13209.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-17731 Filed 7-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


% Worker exposure 3 weeks, 5 days/week exposure
% Dose to reach average cpfos conc in blood = 0.004 ug/L
% Sept 1, 2016
% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters
use human_parameters_MRP
use preg_female_parameters
BWSW=1;		% Set BW to a fixed value
BWST=69;	 % Set BW for female worker at 69 kg
PREG=0;		% Not pregnant
DZONE = 1;	% Turn dermal exposure on
KDIS = 0.0;	% Daily dissipation
TSTOP=504;	%Simulation time = 21 days work week

% Dermal exposure
SAF=1;	 	% Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.
FAD=1;     	% Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.
%DERM =111;		% dose in ug/kg
DERM = 0.47;
D3=5;  %DAYS/WEEK
P2=8; %HRS/DAY
S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)
W2=21; %21 day exposure

prepare @clear@all
start @NoCallback
simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6 _cvo*334.5 _blauc*350.6 _blauco*334.5 _blaucavg*350.6 _blaucoavg*334.5];	%conc unit = ug/L

save simall @file='worker_dermal_cc' @format=ascii