[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 173 (Friday, September 10, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50647-50653]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19048]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142; FRL-8917-02-R10]

Hazardous Waste Management System; Final Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (also, ``the
Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is taking final action to finalize
technical amendments to an existing exclusion from the list of federal
hazardous waste (delisting) issued to the United States Department of
Energy (Energy) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These
modifications address changes to the 200-Area Effluent Treatment System
associated with the delisting necessary to accept liquid effluents
expected to be generated from vitrification of certain low-activity
mixed wastes at the Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford Site, in
Richland, Washington.

DATES: This final rule is effective on September 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-RCRA-2021-0142. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available electronically through www.regulations.gov. Due to
restrictions related to COVID-19, docket materials are not available in
hard copy form at this time. If you have further questions concerning
docket materials, we recommend you telephone Dr. David Bartus at (206)
553-2804.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Bartus, EPA, Region 10, 1200
6th Avenue, Suite 155, M/S M/S 15-H04, Seattle, Washington 98070;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    As discussed in Section V of this document, the Washington State
Department of Ecology is making a separata but parallels decision
regarding the Petitioner's request for this modification under state
authority. Information on Ecology's action may be found at https://ecology.wa.gov/Waste-Toxics/Nuclear-waste/Public-comment-periods.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:

I. Overview Information
II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments
III. Final Rule
    A. What are the terms of this exclusion?
    B. When is the delisting effective?
    C. How does this action affect the states?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview Information

    Based on a petition submitted to the EPA, Energy requested
technical amendments to an existing exclusion from the list of
federally listed wastes set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 261.33 previously issued to the United States Department of
Energy (Energy) for the Hanford Federal Facility, or Hanford Site in
Richland, Washington (Current delisting). See 40 CFR part 261, appendix
IX, Table 2. This existing exclusion applies to treated effluent
generated by Hanford's 200 Area Effluent Treatment Facility (ETF). The
requested amendments relate to the planned startup of the Hanford Waste
Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). Details of Energy's requested
technical amendments are more fully described in EPA's proposed
regulatory amendments to the existing delisting at 86 (FR) 30237, June
7, 2021. After consideration of comments received on the EPA's proposed
regulatory amendments, the EPA is finalizing these amendments as
proposed. The EPA is also making one grammatical clarification
identified after the proposal cited above.

II. EPA's Evaluation of Public Comments

    The EPA received one anonymous set of comments on the proposed
regulatory amendments. These comments, and the EPA's evaluation of
them, are described below.
    This commenter raises several issues. One common theme is that
there are data gaps or other uncertainties regarding the ability of the
Effluent Treatment Facility to manage future wastes from the WTP. The
following sections address each of the comments that have a clear nexus
to the proposed modification of the existing 200-Area ETF delisting.

Uncertainty Regarding the Future Capability To Treat ``the Future
Unknowns''

    The commenter stated ``It appears that the current petition
revision is solely to address acetonitrile, but that there are other
unknowns and chemicals of concern to be submitted at a later date for
future delisting petitions. There is no guarantee that there will be a
future capability to treat the future unknowns, leaving a considerable
risk of what to do with non-compliant effluent from the WTP.''
    In promulgating significant revisions to the 200-ETF delisting in
2005 (70 FR 44498, July 30, 2012), Ecology and EPA explicitly intended
to broadly expand the waste streams that the ETF could process within
the scope of the treated effluent delisting. More specifically, the
final delisting rule stated ``The effect of these changes is to allow
the 200 Area ETF to fulfill an expanded role in supporting Hanford
Facility cleanup actions beyond those activities considered in the 1995
delisting rulemaking. In particular, these changes will allow the 200
Area ETF to treat mixed wastewaters from a number of additional sources
beyond 242-A Evaporator process condensate (PC) upon which the original
delisting was based.'' (See 70 FR 44497, July 30, 2012).
    Consistent with this objective, the 2005 delisting modifications
established a detailed mechanism based on the concept of a treatability
envelope, which defines the ability of the ETF system overall to treat
a wide range of waste constituents. This mechanism is based on an
engineering model of the various unit operations within the ETF
treatment train. Additionally, constituent-specific data for a wide
range of constituents were used on a waste-stream specific basis to
evaluate the treatability of that waste stream as part of the waste
acceptance process for

the ETF. A target goal with this approach was to establish a delisting
framework that could consider future waste streams for which
characterization data was not available at the time, but that could be
managed in the future. More importantly, as Ecology and EPA noted in
the 2005 delisting rulemaking ``[s]ince Energy could not reasonably
provide detailed characterization of wastes streams that have yet to be
generated, EPA proposed a waste acceptance framework based on an
engineering evaluation of waste streams. This model provides a degree
of confidence that treatment in the 200 Area ETF will meet delisting
exclusion limits to the same degree of confidence as if detailed waste
stream characterization were available, while avoiding the need to
frequently revise the delisting rule itself.'' (See 70 FR 44499, July
30, 2012).
    Liquid effluents from the Waste Treatment Plant are one example of
wastes that, in 2005, were expected to be generated in the future, but
were not sufficiently characterized in order to be evaluated at that
time. Since the 2005 modifications, the Department of Energy has made
progress in both the design and operation of the planned WTP, including
a detailed characterization of the liquid effluents from the WTP
through engineering design and modelling. (See the engineering report
and associated supporting calculation documents provided in the docket
for the current delisting modifications). From this work, Energy
identified a number of constituents in WTP liquid effluent that would
need to be considered in the context of the ETF delisting. Energy has
provided a request to the EPA (21-ECD-001774 dated June 29, 2021,
available in the Hanford administrative records at www.hanford.gov) to
consider five of these additional constituents through a modification
of Tables C-1 and C-2 pursuant to Condition (1)(b) of the existing
delisting. This request is consistent with the mechanism already in
place under the existing delisting. Because the June 29, 2021 request
is outside the scope of this modification to the delisting rule itself,
the request to add five additional constituents identified in the June
29, 2021 request are not further considered in this comment response,
but will be addressed by EPA's expected future response to the June 29,
2021 request.
    As documented in its request for a modification of the 200 Area ETF
delisting, Energy identified that acetonitrile exceeded the existing
treatability envelope for that constituent. Based on our analysis of
information provided by Energy for the current proposed modification,
and the overall structure and content of the 2005 modifications to the
delisting, EPA and Ecology have determined that with the current
proposed modifications, the 200-Area ETF is fully capable of accepting
reasonably expected liquid effluents from the WTP, and that there is
little if any regulatory, environmental, or project risk associated
with WTP liquid effluents that would warrant future modifications of
the 200 Area ETF delisting.
    The commenter also raised a concern about a lack of pilot scale
testing for WTP effluent. In particular the commenter states ``In the
case of 242-A condensate, condensates had been sampled, and surrogate
wastes were processed through pilot scale ETF treatment units in order
to provide an `up front' petition'' and ``No pilot scale processes have
been conducted for the current WTP EMF effluent. There is no pilot EMF
and no integrated pilot scale Direct Feed Low Activity Waste (DFLAW)
process treatment train. The integrated WTP `pilot scale' equipment
does not exist for DFLAW. Rather WTP itself is being built as a full-
scale pilot plant, with unknown and uncertain (but certain to be
expensive) results.''
    Ecology and EPA acknowledge that the current proposed delisting
rule modification changes are based on projections, not full-scale
operations or demonstration testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the
proposed changes to the delisting rule are specifically targeted to
ensure an implementable mechanism is in place. This will allow
demonstration testing as necessary, to expand the treatability envelope
for acetonitrile. Therefore, before full-scale operation of the DFLAW
configuration of the WTP begins, Energy will have performed exactly the
type of direct demonstration that this comment speaks to. As discussed
more fully in the 2005 delisting modification action, the current 200-
Area ETF delisting is explicitly structured to accommodate new
constituents where such new constituents are within the treatment
capacity of ETF (as reflected in the waste-stream specific waste
processing strategy required by the delisting rule). New constituents
can be accepted for treatment in the 200 Area ETF without modification
of the delisting. For new constituents that would require changes to a
treatability envelope, the new demonstration testing mechanism in the
current proposal would be applied.

Secondary Wastes From the 200-Area ETF

    The commenter raises multiple issues regarding secondary waste
associated with the 200-Area ETF system. In particular the commenter
states ``[a] defined secondary waste disposition path is needed for the
solids/brine produced by treatment of WTP EMF hot operations
effluent.'' And ``DOE has initiated an additional project to install
the capability to load-out brine from the ETF STT's concentrate tanks
into totes for shipment off-site. This project will mitigate brine
removal issues from the STT and expand the capacity of WTP EMF hot
operations effluent treated[.]''
    Information in the proposed delisting docket notes that ETF brine
could be sent off-site for further treatment. (See RPP-RPT-62739, pages
35, 38, 39, and 108). While this may be a valid issue, secondary wastes
are not within the scope of the proposed modifications to the 200-Area
ETF delisting.

Addition of New Constituents

    The commenter notes that Energy has identified multiple additional
constituents associated with liquid effluent from the WTP. In
particular, the commenter states ``[a]dditionally, RPP-RPT-60974 lists
constituents in the projected WTP EMF hot operations wastewater profile
that are not included in the delisting treatability envelope, including
2-hexanone, 2-butoxyethanol, acetate, glycolate, oxalate, boron, and
manganese. These additional constituents (and their associated limits)
will need to be added to the delisting approval treatability envelope.
A project is underway to complete this action.'' and ``EPA has noted
that acetonitrile is difficult to destroy. Will the yet undiscovered
other constituents be similarly difficult to destroy, potentially
leading to more `off-site' promises and off-site risks?''
    Ecology and EPA agree that the enumerated constituents have been
identified by Energy. However, the mechanism established in the 2005
revisions of the ETF delisting, specifically the treatability group
concept, was established to address exactly this circumstance. (See
Condition (1)(b) of the current delisting). Ecology and EPA are
expecting a written request from Energy to modify Tables C-1 and C-2 in
the existing delisting, to incorporate these additional constituents.
Because treatment of these constituents is expected to be well within
the treatability envelope of the associated treatability group (to
which they will be

added), no change to the delisting rule itself is necessary.
    Ecology and EPA have determined (based on their review of the
information provided by Energy regarding new constituents associated
with the WTP) that the methodology used by Energy in developing this
information is sound and defensible. There is no substantial risk of
unidentified constituents appearing in WTP liquid effluents that would
preclude acceptance of such wastes for treatment at the 200 Area ETF.
Ecology and EPA also note that the 2005 revision to the ETF delisting
include rigorous waste characterization and waste treatment plan
requirements prior to acceptance of any waste for treatment at the 200
Area ETF, ensuring that even in the remote instance that constituents
(or levels of constituents) which would cause a waste to be
unacceptable for treatment at ETF are identified prior to waste
receipt.

Shipment of Secondary Waste for Off-Site Treatment

    The commenter also raised concerns regarding Energy's current
proposal to send secondary wastes from the ETF (brine, acetonitrile
concentrate) to an off-site treatment, storage or disposal facility. In
particular, the commenter states ``[a]ny tank-waste-related feeds to
LERF/ETF [Liquid Effluent Retention Facility/Effluent Treatment
Facility] and any brines produced as a result of the changing
`projections' of WTP waste compositions as described in the current
delisting petition, should be prohibited from off-site treatment. The
cradle to grave liability for this waste rests with DOE, and DOE should
not share it with a facility that has a poor track record and a poor
environmental location.'' and the second citation in the comment
discussed in the previous section ``Addition of new constituents''.
    Regarding the risks associated with treatment of ETF secondary
wastes at off-site facilities, Ecology ensures that all such wastes are
treated, stored and disposed at approved facilities and in full
compliance with all dangerous waste regulations and applicable permits
in a manner fully protective of human health and the environment.
However, concerns related to treatment, storage or disposal of
secondary wastes are not subject to delisting and to this current
delisting rule modification proposal.

Lack of Direct Liquid Effluent Characterization

    The commentor made several comments regarding a lack of direct
waste stream characterization and lack of pilot plant data. In
particular, the commenter stated ``[i]n the case of 242-A condensate,
condensates had been sampled, and surrogate wastes were processed
through pilot scale ETF treatment units in order to provide an `up
front' petition[]'' and ``[n]o pilot scale processes have been
conducted for the current WTP EMF effluent. There is no pilot EMF and
no integrated pilot scale DFLAW process treatment train. The integrated
WTP `pilot scale' equipment does not exist for DFLAW. Rather WTP itself
is being built as a full-scale pilot plant, with unknown and uncertain
(but certain to be expensive) results.''
    Ecology and EPA acknowledge that the current delisting rule
modification changes are based on projections, not full-scale
operations or demonstration testing. With respect to acetonitrile, the
proposed changes to the delisting rule are specifically targeted to
ensure an implementable mechanism is in place to allow demonstration
testing as necessary to expand the treatability envelope for
acetonitrile. Therefore, before full-scale operation of the DFLAW
configuration of the WTP begins, Energy will have performed exactly the
type of direct demonstration noted in these comments. As discussed more
fully in the 2005 delisting modification action, the current 200-Area
ETF delisting is explicitly structured to accommodate new constituents-
where such new constituents are within the treatment capacity of ETF
(as reflected in the waste-stream specific waste processing strategy)
required by the delisting rule. Constituents can be accepted for
treatment in the 200 Area ETF without modification of the delisting.
For new constituents that would require changes to a treatability
envelope, the new demonstration testing mechanism in the current
proposal would be applied.

Alternate Treated Effluent Reuse

    The commenter also raised an issue regarding alternate re-use
practices as documented in RPT-63053, page 19 (This is the engineering
report provided as Attachment 3 to the March 31, 2021 delisting
modification request, included in the docket). Alternate reuse
practices are provided for under Condition 7 of the current delisting,
which is not being changed under the current modification proposal.
Ecology and EPA understand that Energy will be seeking approval under
Condition 7 for expanded treated effluent reuse practices at a later
date. Approval of this change is outside of the current proposed
delisting modification.
    The EPA is also making one grammatical clarification identified
after the regulatory amendment proposed rulemaking was published. The
EPA is modifying the last phrase of Condition (6)(c) originally worded
as ``that the Energy will be liable for Energy's reliance on the void
exclusion.'' to read ``. . .that Energy will be liable for Energy's
reliance on the voided exclusion.''

III. Final Rule

A. What are the terms of this exclusion?

    EPA is finalizing Energy's requested amendments as proposed.
Conditions of the existing delisting not modified by this action remain
unchanged.

B. When is the delisting effective?

    This rule is effective September 10, 2021. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), to allow rules to become effective in less than six months
when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come
into compliance. This rule reduces rather than increases the existing
requirements and, therefore, is effective immediately upon publication
under the Administrative Procedures Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

C. How does this action affect the states?

    This exclusion modification is being issued under the federal RCRA
delisting program. Therefore, only states subject to federal RCRA
delisting provisions would be affected. This exclusion is not effective
in states that have received authorization to make their own delisting
decisions. Moreover, the exclusion modifications may not be effective
in states having a dual system that includes federal RCRA requirements
and their own requirements. The EPA allows states to impose their own
regulatory requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under
Section 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking,
Ecology is expected to make a parallel delisting decision under their
separate state authority.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general
applicability. The action approves a modification of an existing
delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular
facility.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is considered an Executive Order 13771 deregulatory
action. This final rule maintains meaningful burden reduction afforded
by the existing exclusion consistent with changes necessary to allow
management of liquid effluents expected from startup and operation of
Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.) because it only applies to a particular facility.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or
the private sector.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies only to a particular
facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards as described by
the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272).

L. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA has determined that this action will not have disproportionately
high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or the environment.

M. Congressional Review Act

    This action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C.
801 et seq.) because it is a rule of particular applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

    Environmental protection; Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

Timothy Hamlin,
Director, Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
261 as follows:

PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and
6938.

0
2. In appendix IX to part 261, amend table 2, under the entry ``United
States Department of Energy (Energy)'' by:
0
a. Revising Conditions (1)(a)(i) and (ii), and (1)(b);
0
b. Redesignating Conditions (1)(c) and (d) as Conditions (1)(d) and
(e);
0
c. Adding a new Conditions (1)(c);
0
d. Revising the newly redesignated Conditions (1)(e)(iv); and
0
e. In Conditions (5) under the entry for ``Organic Constituents'' by:
0
i. Removing the entry ``Dichloroisopropyl ether'' and adding an entry
``Dichloroisopropyl ether--6.0 x 10-2'' in its place;
0
ii. Removing the entry ``[Bis(2-Chloroisopropyl) either]--6.0 x
10-2'';
0
iii. Removing the entry ``Arochlor [total of Arochlors 1016, 1221,
1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260]--5.0 x 10-4'' and adding an
entry ``Aroclor [total of Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254,
1260]--5.0 x 10-4'' in its place; and
0
f. Revising Condition (6)(c).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec.  260.20 and
260.22

* * * * *

             Table 2--Wastes Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Facility                  Address         Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
United States Department of     Richland,          * * *
 Energy (Energy).                Washington.       Conditions:
                                                   (1) * * *
                                                   (a) * * *
                                                   (i) Complete
                                                    sufficient
                                                    characterization of
                                                    the waste stream to
                                                    demonstrate that the
                                                    waste stream is
                                                    within the
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope of 200 Area
                                                    ETF as specified in
                                                    Tables C-1 and C-2
                                                    of the delisting
                                                    petition dated
                                                    November 29, 2001,
                                                    as amended. Results
                                                    of the waste stream
                                                    characterization and
                                                    the treatability
                                                    evaluation must be
                                                    in writing and
                                                    placed in the
                                                    facility operating
                                                    record, along with a
                                                    copy of Tables C-1
                                                    and C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended. Waste
                                                    stream
                                                    characterization may
                                                    be carried out in
                                                    whole or in part
                                                    using the waste
                                                    analysis procedures
                                                    in the Hanford
                                                    Facility RCRA
                                                    Permit, WA7 89000
                                                    8967;
                                                   (ii) Prepare a
                                                    written waste
                                                    processing strategy
                                                    specific to the
                                                    waste stream, based
                                                    on the ETF process
                                                    model documented in
                                                    the November 29,
                                                    2001 petition, the
                                                    March 31, 2021
                                                    modification
                                                    request, and Tables
                                                    C-1 and C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended. For waste
                                                    processing
                                                    strategies
                                                    applicable to waste
                                                    streams for which
                                                    organic envelope
                                                    data is provided in
                                                    Table C-2 of the
                                                    November 29, 2001
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, Energy
                                                    shall use envelope
                                                    data specific to
                                                    that waste stream,
                                                    if available.
                                                    Otherwise, Energy
                                                    shall use the
                                                    minimum envelope in
                                                    Table C-2.
                                                   (b) Energy may modify
                                                    the 200 Area ETF
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope specified
                                                    in Tables C-1 and C-
                                                    2 of the November
                                                    29, 2001 delisting
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, to reflect
                                                    changes in treatment
                                                    technology or
                                                    operating practices
                                                    upon written
                                                    approval of the
                                                    Regional
                                                    Administrator.
                                                    Requests for
                                                    modification shall
                                                    be accompanied by an
                                                    engineering report
                                                    detailing the basis
                                                    for a modified
                                                    treatment envelope.
                                                    Data supporting
                                                    modified envelopes
                                                    must be based on at
                                                    least four influent
                                                    waste stream
                                                    characterization
                                                    data points and
                                                    corresponding
                                                    treated effluent
                                                    verification sample
                                                    data points for
                                                    wastes managed under
                                                    a particular waste
                                                    processing strategy.
                                                    Treatment
                                                    efficiencies must be
                                                    calculated based on
                                                    a comparison of
                                                    upper 95 percent
                                                    confidence level
                                                    constituent
                                                    concentrations. Upon
                                                    written EPA approval
                                                    of the engineering
                                                    report, the
                                                    associated inorganic
                                                    and organic
                                                    treatment efficiency
                                                    data may be used in
                                                    lieu of those in
                                                    Tables C-1 and C-2
                                                    for purposes of
                                                    condition (1)(a)(i).
                                                   (c) Where operation
                                                    of the 200 Area ETF
                                                    for purposes of
                                                    gathering data
                                                    supporting a
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b)
                                                    requires operation
                                                    outside of an
                                                    existing
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope or where a
                                                    new treatability
                                                    envelope is to be
                                                    proposed, Energy may
                                                    request interim
                                                    approval to conduct
                                                    such demonstration
                                                    testing for purposes
                                                    of developing a new
                                                    or modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. Such a
                                                    request must include
                                                    the following
                                                    documentation:
                                                   (i) An Engineering
                                                    Report documenting
                                                    the basis for a
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. The
                                                    Engineering Report
                                                    shall, based on best
                                                    available
                                                    information,
                                                    document that
                                                    operation of the 200
                                                    Area ETF during the
                                                    period of interim
                                                    approval can be
                                                    reasonably expected
                                                    to produce treated
                                                    effluent satisfying
                                                    the delisting levels
                                                    in Condition (5).
                                                    The Engineering
                                                    Report shall
                                                    include, but is not
                                                    limited to,
                                                    engineering
                                                    calculations,
                                                    process modelling
                                                    results, or
                                                    performance data
                                                    provided by
                                                    equipment
                                                    manufacturers;
                                                   (ii) A demonstration
                                                    test plan
                                                    documenting the
                                                    following:
                                                   (A) The quantity and
                                                    characterization of
                                                    the waste stream to
                                                    be used in
                                                    conducting
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing, and
                                                    information that
                                                    will be included in
                                                    the waste processing
                                                    strategy required by
                                                    Condition (1)(a)(ii)
                                                    for the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The test
                                                    plan shall document,
                                                    to a reasonable
                                                    degree of certainty,
                                                    that data gathered
                                                    from the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing will be
                                                    suitable for use in
                                                    modifying the
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b).
                                                    The test plan may
                                                    include provisions
                                                    for ``spiking'' the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    waste feed to ensure
                                                    that a waste feed
                                                    meeting the
                                                    requirements of the
                                                    test plan is
                                                    available;

                                                   (B) A sampling and
                                                    analysis plan with
                                                    supporting
                                                    systematic planning
                                                    documentation (e.g.,
                                                    Data Quality
                                                    Objectives) and with
                                                    an associated
                                                    Quality Assurance
                                                    Project Plan, for
                                                    all sampling and
                                                    analysis specific to
                                                    the demonstration
                                                    testing. A minimum
                                                    of four independent
                                                    sample sets over the
                                                    course of the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    are required from
                                                    both the influent to
                                                    the 200 Area ETF and
                                                    the effluent to the
                                                    verification tanks;
                                                   (C) A schedule for
                                                    conducting the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing schedule may
                                                    be based on
                                                    functional criteria
                                                    in addition to or in
                                                    lieu of fixed
                                                    calendar dates. The
                                                    testing schedule may
                                                    contain
                                                    contingencies for
                                                    revising the test
                                                    plan should
                                                    additional testing
                                                    be required to
                                                    obtain the required
                                                    performance data
                                                    points.
                                                   Energy may not
                                                    commence
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing until
                                                    written interim
                                                    approval is obtained
                                                    from the Regional
                                                    Administrator. The
                                                    effect of interim
                                                    approval shall be
                                                    limited to relief
                                                    from the requirement
                                                    of operating within
                                                    the treatability
                                                    envelope specified
                                                    in Tables C-1 and C-
                                                    2 of the November
                                                    29, 2001 delisting
                                                    petition, as
                                                    amended, during the
                                                    period of
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. Interim
                                                    approval shall
                                                    remain in effect
                                                    only for the
                                                    duration of the
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing as
                                                    documented in the
                                                    required testing
                                                    schedule. Within 60
                                                    days following
                                                    completion of
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing, or such
                                                    other time as may be
                                                    approved in writing
                                                    by the EPA, Energy
                                                    shall submit a
                                                    written completion
                                                    report documenting
                                                    analysis of data
                                                    gathered during the
                                                    demonstration test.
                                                    Energy may request
                                                    an extension of
                                                    interim approval for
                                                    the period of time
                                                    between completion
                                                    of the demonstration
                                                    testing and final
                                                    approval of the
                                                    modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope. The EPA
                                                    may approve
                                                    amendments to the
                                                    demonstration test
                                                    plan, including the
                                                    associated schedule,
                                                    as necessary to
                                                    successfully
                                                    complete
                                                    demonstration
                                                    testing. The EPA's
                                                    written approval of
                                                    the completion
                                                    report shall be
                                                    considered approval
                                                    of the modified
                                                    treatability
                                                    envelope pursuant to
                                                    Condition (1)(b).

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   (e) * * *
                                                   (iv) Key unit
                                                    operations are
                                                    defined as
                                                    filtration, UV/OX,
                                                    reverse osmosis, ion
                                                    exchange, steam
                                                    stripping, and
                                                    secondary waste
                                                    treatment.

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   (5) * * *
                                                   Dichloroisopropyl
                                                    ether--6.0 x 10-2

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   Aroclor [total of
                                                    Aroclors 1016, 1221,
                                                    1232, 1242, 1248,
                                                    1254, 1260]--5.0 x
                                                    10-4

                              * * * * * * *
                                                   (6) * * *
                                                   (c) Records required
                                                    by Condition (6)(a)
                                                    must be furnished on
                                                    request by EPA or
                                                    the State of
                                                    Washington and made
                                                    available for
                                                    inspection. All data
                                                    must be accompanied
                                                    by a signed copy of
                                                    the following
                                                    certification
                                                    statement to attest
                                                    to the truth and
                                                    accuracy of the data
                                                    submitted:
                                                   ``Under civil and
                                                    criminal penalty of
                                                    law for the making
                                                    or submission of
                                                    false or fraudulent
                                                    statements or
                                                    representations
                                                    (pursuant to the
                                                    applicable
                                                    provisions of the
                                                    Federal Code, which
                                                    include, but may not
                                                    be limited to, 18
                                                    U.S.C. 1001 and 42
                                                    U.S.C. 6928). I
                                                    certify that the
                                                    information
                                                    contained in or
                                                    accompanying this
                                                    document is true,
                                                    accurate, and
                                                    complete.
                                                   As to the (those)
                                                    identified
                                                    section(s) of the
                                                    document for which I
                                                    cannot personally
                                                    verify its (their)
                                                    truth and accuracy,
                                                    I certify as the
                                                    official having
                                                    supervisory
                                                    responsibility of
                                                    the persons who,
                                                    acting under my
                                                    direct instructions,
                                                    made the
                                                    verification that
                                                    this information is
                                                    true, accurate, and
                                                    complete.
                                                   In the event that any
                                                    of this information
                                                    is determined by EPA
                                                    in its sole
                                                    discretion to be
                                                    false, inaccurate,
                                                    or incomplete, and
                                                    upon conveyance of
                                                    this fact to Energy,
                                                    I recognize and
                                                    agree that this
                                                    exclusion of waste
                                                    will be void as if
                                                    it never had effect
                                                    to the extent
                                                    directed by EPA and
                                                    that Energy will be
                                                    liable for Energy's
                                                    reliance on the
                                                    voided exclusion.''

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-19048 Filed 9-9-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18544-18545]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7851]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1982-001; ER10-1253-001; ER10-1246-001; ER10-
1252-001.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Solutions, Inc., Consolidated
Edison Energy, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Supplemental Information of Orange & Rockland
Utilities, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5083.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 7, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2536-002.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Response to Deficiency Letter City of McPherson BPU to be
effective 1/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5119.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3200-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii:) ATSI Zone NITSAs--Service Agreements 2776, 2777,
2778, 2779, 2805 & 2806 to be effective 6/1/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3201-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Attachment H & Schedule 7 Compliance Filing--Docket No. ER10-984 to be
effective 7/9/2010.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3202-000.
    Applicants: WFM Intermediary New England, LLC.
    Description: WFM Intermediary New England, LLC submits tariff
filing per 35.1: WFM Intermediary NE FERC Electric Tariff to be
effective 3/28/2011.
    Filed Date: 03/28/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110328-5125.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, April 18, 2011.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following land
acquisition reports:

    Docket Numbers: LA10-3-000.
    Applicants: CalPeak Power LLC, CalPeak Power--Panoche LLC, CalPeak
Power--Vaca Dixon, LLC, CalPeak Power--El Cajon LLC, CalPeak Power--
Enterprise LLC, CalPeak Power--Border LLC, Tyr Energy, LLC,
Commonwealth Chesapeake Company, LLC, Fox Energy Company, LLC, Kansas
Energy LLC.

    Description: Quarterly Land Acquisition Report of CalPeak Power
LLC.
    Filed Date: 03/24/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110324-5028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, April 14, 2011.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 28, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7851 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8685-8686]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02608]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Noise Exposure Map Notice; Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program
and Request for Review: Tweed New Haven Regional Airport, New Haven, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its
determination that the noise exposure map for Tweed New Haven Regional
Airport, as submitted by the Tweed New Haven Airport Authority under
the provisions of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-193) and 14 CFR Part 150, is in compliance with
applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a
proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Tweed New
Haven Regional Airport under Part 150 in conjunction with the noise
exposure map, and that this program will be approved or disapproved on
or before May 25, 2013.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the FAA's determination on
the noise exposure map and of the start of its review of the associated
noise compatibility program is November 26, 2012. The public comment
period ends on March 29, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Federal Aviation
Administration, New England Region, Airports Division, ANE-600, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington MA 01803.
    Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be
submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA finds
that the noise exposure map submitted for Tweed New Haven Regional
Airport is in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150,
effective November 26, 2012. Further, FAA is reviewing a proposed noise
compatibility program for that airport which will be approved or
disapproved on or before May 25, 2013. This notice also announces the
availability of this program for public review and comment.
    Under Section 103 of Title I of the Aviation Safety and Noise
Abatement Act of 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act''), an
airport operator may submit to the FAA a noise exposure map which meets
applicable regulations and which depicts non compatible land uses as of
the date of submission of such map, a description of projected aircraft
operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such map.
The Act requires such map to be developed in consultation with
interested and affected parties in the local community, government
agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has
submitted a noise exposure map that is found by FAA to be in compliance
with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to Title I of the Act, may submit a noise
compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures
the operator has taken, or proposes, for the introduction of additional
non-compatible uses.
    The Tweed New Haven Airport Authority submitted to the FAA, on
November 26, 2012, a noise exposure map, descriptions, and other
documentation that were produced during the Airport Noise Compatibility
Planning (Part 150) study at Tweed New Haven Regional Airport from July
2011 to November 2012. It was requested that the FAA review this
material as the noise exposure map, as described in Section 103 (a)(1)
of the Act, and that the noise mitigation measures, to be implemented
jointly by the airport and surrounding communities, be approved as a
noise compatibility program under Section 104(b) of the Act.
    The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and
related descriptions submitted by Tweed New Haven Airport Authority.
The specific maps under consideration were:

Figure 1: Existing (2012) Baseline Noise Exposure Map, page xix.
Figure 2: Future (2017) Baseline Noise Exposure Map, page xx.

    The FAA has determined that the maps for Tweed New Haven Regional
Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements. This
determination is effective on November 26, 2012.
    FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is
limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with
the procedures contained in Appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such
determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data,
information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility
program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions
arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to
noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted
under Section 103 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not
involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific
properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in
interpreting the noise exposure map to resolve questions concerning,
for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of
Section 107 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the
ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local
government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way
under Part 150 or through FAA's review of a noise exposure map.
Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise
exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface
rests exclusively with the airport operator

that submitted the map, or with those public agencies and planning
agencies with which consultation is required under Section 103 of the
Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator,
under Section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required
consultation has been accomplished.
    The FAA has formally received the noise compatibility program for
Tweed New Haven Regional Airport, also effective on November 26, 2012.
Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it conforms
to the requirements for the submittal of noise compatibility programs,
but that further review will be necessary prior to approval or
disapproval of the program. The formal review period, limited by law to
a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before May 25, 2013. The
FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under the provisions of 14
CFR Part 150, Section 150.33. The primary considerations in the
evaluation process are whether the proposed measures may reduce the
level of aviation safety, create an undue burden on interstate or
foreign commerce, or be reasonably consistent with obtaining the goal
of reducing existing non compatible land uses and preventing the
introduction of additional non-compatible land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed program
with specific reference to these factors. All comments, other than
those properly addressed to local land use authorities, will be
considered by the FAA to the extent practicable. Copies of the noise
exposure map, the FAA's evaluation of the map, and the proposed noise
compatibility program are available for examination at the following
locations:

Tweed New Haven Regional Airport, New Haven, Connecticut
Federal Aviation Administration, New England Region, Airports Division,
ANE-600, 16 New England Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803

    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 26, 2012.
Richard Doucette,
Manager, Environmental Programs, FAA Airports Division, New England
Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-02608 Filed 2-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14528-14531]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05425]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-113-000]

Alliance Pipeline, L.P.; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare
an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Three Rivers
Interconnection Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues,
and Schedule for Environmental Review

    On February 10, 2022 the staff of the Office of Energy Projects
issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
for the Proposed Three Rivers Interconnection Project, Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues, and Schedule for Environmental
Review. It has come to our attention that intended recipients may not
have received the aforementioned notice. As such, we are

issuing this Supplemental Notice of Scoping Period.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Three Rivers
Interconnection Project (Project) involving construction and operation
of facilities by Alliance Pipeline, L.P. (Alliance) in Grundy County,
Illinois. The Commission will use this EIS in its decision-making
process to determine whether the Project is in the public convenience
and necessity. The schedule for preparation of the EIS is discussed in
the Schedule for Environmental Review section of this notice.
    As part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review
process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have
about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result
whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred
to as ``scoping.'' By notice issued on September 20, 2021 in Docket No.
CP21-113-000, the Commission opened an initial scoping period that ran
through October 19, 2021. The EIS will address the concerns raised
since issuance of the September 20, 2021 notice in this proceeding.
Therefore, if you submitted comments on this Project to the Commission
during one of the previous scoping periods, you do not need to file
those comments again.
    This notice announces the extension of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies regarding the project. By this notice, the Commission requests
public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental
document, including comments on potential alternatives and impacts, and
any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning
impacts affecting the quality of the human environment. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 8, 2022. Comments may be
submitted in written or oral form. Further details on how to submit
comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this
notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the Project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent
domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach
an easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law. The Commission does
not grant, exercise, or oversee the exercise of eminent domain
authority. The courts have exclusive authority to handle eminent domain
cases; the Commission has no jurisdiction over these matters.
    Alliance provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the FERC
entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I
Need To Know?'' which addresses typically asked questions, including
the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's
proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of
interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov)
under the Natural Gas Questions or Landowner Topics link.

Public Participation

    There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the
Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected]. Please carefully follow these instructions
so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to FERC Online. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (CP21-
113-000) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service
must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings
made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the
documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register
for eSubscription.

Summary of the Proposed Project, the Project Purpose and Need, and
Expected Impacts

    Alliance proposes to construct and operate about 2.9 miles of 20-
inch-diameter natural gas transmission pipeline and associated
facilities. This pipeline would connect Alliance's existing interstate
natural gas transmission system with the CPV Three Rivers Energy
Center; and as proposed, would transport up to 210 million standard
cubic feet per day of natural gas. According to Alliance, the project
is necessary to provide the CPV Three Rivers Energy Center with access
to a natural gas supply source. The general location of the Project
facilities is shown in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary''. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice. 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. For assistance, contact
FERC at [email protected] or call toll free,<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the environmental information provided by Alliance,
construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 42.8 acres
of land. Following construction, Alliance would maintain about 17.7
acres of land to operate the Project facilities; the remaining acreage
would be restored.
    Based on a review of Alliance's proposal and public comments
received during scoping, Commission staff has identified several
expected impacts that deserve attention in the EIS. The proposed
pipeline would cross the Illinois River via a horizontal

directional drill and would impact wetlands and agricultural lands. The
Project would result in impacts on noise and air quality; and would
ultimately result in the emission of greenhouse gases. The proposed
pipeline would also be located in an area considered to be an
environmental justice community. Lastly, the proposed pipeline would be
located in the vicinity of a facility regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, which could require the completion of a safety
analysis.

The NEPA Process and the EIS

    The EIS issued by the Commission will discuss impacts that could
occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed
Project under the relevant general resource areas:

 Geology and soils;
 water resources and wetlands;
 vegetation and wildlife;
 threatened and endangered species;
 cultural resources;
 land use;
 socioeconomics and environmental justice;
 air quality and noise;
 climate change; and
 reliability and safety.

    Commission staff will also make recommendations on how to lessen or
avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help
Commission staff focus its analysis on the issues that may have a
significant effect on the human environment.
    The EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the
issues. Staff will prepare a draft EIS which will be issued for public
comment. Commission staff will consider all timely comments received
during the comment period on the draft EIS and revise the document, as
necessary, before issuing a final EIS. Any draft and final EIS will be
available in electronic format in the public record through eLibrary
\2\ and the Commission's natural gas environmental documents web page
(https://www.ferc.gov/industries-data/natural-gas/environment/environmental-documents). If eSubscribed, you will receive instant
email notification when the environmental document is issued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternatives Under Consideration

    The EIS will evaluate reasonable alternatives that are technically
and economically feasible and meet the purpose and need for the
proposed action.\3\ Alternatives currently under consideration include
the no-action alternative, meaning the Project is not implemented,
system alternatives, and pipeline route alternatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 1508.1(z).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission requests specific comments
regarding any additional potential alternatives to the proposed action
or segments of the proposed action. Please focus your comments on
reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites and
pipeline routes) that meet the Project objectives, are technically and
economically feasible, and avoid or lessen environmental impact.

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission initiated section 106 consultation for
the Project in the notice issued on September 20, 2021 with the
applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and other government
agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public to solicit their
views and concerns regarding the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\4\ This notice is a continuation of section 106
consultation for the Project. The Project EIS will document findings on
the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status of
consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Schedule for Environmental Review

    On April 12, 2021, the Commission issued its Notice of Application
for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies
issuing federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all
necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a
federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the
Commission staff's final EIS for the Project. This notice identifies
the Commission staff's planned schedule for completion of the final EIS
for the Project, which is based on an issuance of the draft EIS in June
2022.

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--September 16, 2022
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline \5\--December 15, 2022
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission's deadline applies to the decisions of other
federal agencies, and state agencies acting under federally
delegated authority, that are responsible for federal
authorizations, permits, and other approvals necessary for proposed
projects under the Natural Gas Act. Per 18 CFR 157.22(a), the
Commission's deadline for other agency's decisions applies unless a
schedule is otherwise established by federal law.

    In the event that a safety analysis is required, additional time
may be necessary to consider the results of that analysis. If a
schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an additional
notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed
of the Project's progress.

Permits and Authorizations

    The table below lists the anticipated permits and authorizations
for the Project required under federal law. This list may not be all-
inclusive and does not preclude any permit or authorization if it is
not listed here. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission have agreed to participate as cooperating
agencies in the development of the EIS. Other agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise may formally cooperate in
the preparation of the Commission's EIS and may adopt the EIS to
satisfy its NEPA responsibilities related to this Project. Agencies
that would like to request cooperating agency status should follow the
instructions for filing comments provided under the Public
Participation section of this notice.

            Table of Federal and Federally Delegated Permits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Permit                               Agency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certificate of Public Convenience and       FERC.
 Necessity.
Clean Water Act Section 404...............  U.S. Army Corps of
                                             Engineers.
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10.........  U.S. Army Corps of
                                             Engineers.
Clean Water Act Section 408...............  U.S. Army Corps of
                                             Engineers.
Endangered Species Act Consultation.......  U.S. Fish and Wildlife
                                             Service.

Clean Water Act Section 401...............  Illinois Environmental
                                             Protection Agency.
National Historic Preservation Act Section  Illinois Preservation
 106.                                        Services.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for the Project which includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project and includes a mailing address with their
comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to
this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations,
and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by
the proposed Project. State and local government representatives should
notify their constituents of this proposed project and encourage them
to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of
the following steps:
    (1) Send an email to [email protected] stating your
request. You must include the docket number CP21-113-000 in your
request. If you are requesting a change to your address, please be sure
to include your name and the correct address. If you are requesting to
delete your address from the mailing list, please include your name and
address as it appeared on this notice. This email address is unable to
accept comments.

OR

    (2) Return the attached ``Mailing List Update Form'' (Appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP21-113-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/events along with
other related information.

    Dated: March 9, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05425 Filed 3-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P