[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 202 (Thursday, October 18, 2018)] [Notices] [Page 52830] [FR Doc No: 2018-22712]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural

Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR18-84-000.

    Applicants: Comanche Trail Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Comanche

Trail Pipeline, LLC Statement of Operating Conditions, October 1, 2018

to be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>65.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-85-000.

    Applicants: Trans-Pecos Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Trans-Pecos

Pipeline, LLC Statement of Operating Conditions, October 1, 2018 to be

effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>66.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-86-000.

    Applicants: Energy Transfer Fuel, LP.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Energy

Transfer Fuel, LP Statement of Operating Conditions, October 1, 2018 to

be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>72.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-87-000.

    Applicants: ONEOK Field Services Company, L.L.C.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g): OFS 311 Cost of

Service Rate Filing to be effective 9/28/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>81.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-88-000.

    Applicants: Houston Pipe Line Company LP.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Houston Pipe

Line Company, LP Statement of Operating Conditions, October 1, 2018 to

be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>82.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-89-000.

    Applicants: Red Bluff Express Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Red Bluff

Express Pipeline, LLC Statement of Operating Conditions, 10/1/2018 to

be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>85.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Number: PR18-90-000.

    Applicants: Regency Intrastate Gas LP.

    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b), (e) + (g): Regency

Intrastate Gas LP Statement of Operating Conditions, October 1, 2018 to

be effective 10/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 9/28/18.

    Accession Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>88.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/19/18.

    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    Docket Numbers: RP18-1257-001.

    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.

    Description: Compliance filing GT&C Section 42 Tracker Filing--

Amendment to be effective 11/1/2018.

    Filed Date: 10/4/18.

    Accession Number: 20181004-5184.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/16/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by

clicking on the links or querying the docket number.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above

proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the

Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00

p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be

considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the

proceeding.

    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing

requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying

facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>

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

    Dated: October 10, 2018.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2018-22712 Filed 10-17-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39654-39655]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16342]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0670]

Proposed Legal Interpretation

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed interpretation; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On June 1, 2012 at 77 FR 32441, the FAA published a proposed
legal interpretation in which the agency considered clarifying prior
legal interpretations regarding pilot in command discretion under 14
CFR

121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4). The agency inadvertently assigned an
incorrect docket number to the proposed legal interpretation. This
document corrects the docket number. Any comments submitted to docket
number FAA-2011-0045 regarding the proposed legal interpretation
published at 77 FR 32441 will be moved to the correct docket, FAA-2012-
0670.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Mikolop, Attorney, Regulations
Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202-267-
3073.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2012, in FR Doc. 2012-13290, on
page 32441, in the third column, in the heading, correct the docket
number to read:

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0670]

    Also, on page 32441, in the third column, correct the ADDRESSES
caption to read:

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0670 using any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions for sending your comments
electronically.
    Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140, West Building
Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 28, 2012.
Rebecca B. MacPherson,
Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.
[FR Doc. 2012-16342 Filed 7-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 201)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53681-53682]
[DOCID:fr20oc09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0543; Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-9]

Proposed Amendment of Class D Airspace; St Louis, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class D airspace at St Louis,
MO. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Spirit of St Louis
Airport, St Louis, MO. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for
SIAPs at Spirit of St Louis Airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 4,
2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2009-0543/Airspace Docket No. 09-
ACE-9, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2009-0543/
Airspace Docket No. 09-ACE-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    Additionally, any person may obtain a copy of this notice by
submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Office of Air Traffic Airspace Management, ATA-400, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Communications must identify both docket numbers for this notice.
Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's
should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by adding additional Class D airspace extending
upward from the surface to and including 3000 feet MSL for SIAPs
operations at Spirit of St Louis Airport, St Louis, MO. Controlled
airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.
    Class D airspace areas are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA Order
7400.9T, signed August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add additional controlled airspace at Spirit of St Louis
Airport, St Louis, MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace

* * * * *

ACE MO D St. Louis, Spirit of St. Louis Airport, MO [Amended]

St. Louis, Spirit of St. Louis Airport, MO.
    (Lat. 38[deg]39'44'' N., long. 90[deg]39'07'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 4.3-mile radius of Spirit of St. Louis
Airport, and within 1 mile each side of the 258[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 4.6 miles west of
the airport, excluding that airspace within the St. Louis, MO Class
B airspace area. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective dates and times will thereafter be
continuously published in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 9, 2009.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-25094 Filed 10-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Methoxyfenozide (121027)

Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)

Date: June 19, 2012

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?

Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active
ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.

Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then
merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not
proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.

What does it contain?

Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.

Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used
on.

Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80%
or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases,
depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.

Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural
crop.

Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural
crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).

What assumptions can I make about the reported data?

Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by
merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all
observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than
500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 &
<1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of
1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)

Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data
sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, &
rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is
less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value
is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.

Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value
reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the
nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5,
then the value is labeled <2.5.

What are the data sources used?

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service) – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

Private pesticide market research – pesticide usage data from 2003 to
2010.

California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use
Reporting (PUR) data for 2003 to 2010.

What are the limitations to the data?

Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the
available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).

Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply
zero usage.

Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not
quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the
SLUA.

Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control,
etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to
receive these estimates.

Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This
usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to
Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection
errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

June 19, 2012

Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Methoxyfenozide
(121027)

Sorted Alphabetically

Reporting Years: 2003-2010

	Percent Crop Ttd.

				Crop	Lbs. A.I.	Avg.	Max.

1	Alfalfa	       3,000	  <1	<2.5

2	Almonds	      50,000	  25	  35

3	Apples	      20,000	  20	  30

4	Apricots	        <500	   5	  15

5	Artichokes	        <500	  20	  35

6	Beans, Green	       1,000	<2.5	   5

7	Blueberries	       2,000	  15	  15

8	Broccoli	       1,000	   5	  10

9	Cabbage	       1,000	  10	  20

10	Cantaloupes	       2,000	  15	  30

11	Carrots	       1,000	   5	  10

12	Cauliflower	        <500	   5	  15

13	Celery	       4,000	  50	  80

14	Cherries	       3,000	  10	  20

15	Chicory* 	        <500	   NC	  NC

16	Corn	       2,000	  <1	<2.5

17	Cotton	       7,000	  <1	<2.5

18	Cucumbers	       1,000	<2.5	  10

19	Grapefruit	        <500	   5	   5

20	Grapes	      30,000	  15	  30

21	Hazelnuts	       1,000	   5	   5

22	Honeydews	       1,000	  30	  30

23	Lettuce	      20,000	  30	  50

24	Nectarines	        <500	   5	  10

25	Oranges	       1,000	<2.5	<2.5

26	Peaches	       2,000	   5	  10

27	Peanuts	      1,000	  <1	<2.5

28	Pears	       3,000	  20	  40

29	Pecans	       6,000	  10	  20

30	Peppers	       3,000	  20	  40

31	Pistachios	      10,000	  25	  40

32	Plums/Prunes	       1,000	   5	  10

33	Pluots*	      <500	 NC	 NC

34	Pomegranates* 	      <500	 NC	 NC

35	Pumpkins	      <500	<2.5	   5

36	Sorghum**	      <500	  <1	<2.5

37	Soybeans**	       4,000	  <1	<2.5

38	Spinach	       1,000	  10	  25

39	Squash	      <500	   5	  20

40	Strawberries	       2,000	  15	  30

41	Sugar Beets	       1,000	  <1	<2.5

42	Sweet Corn	       1,000	<2.5	<2.5

43	Tomatoes	      20,000	  25	  35

44	Walnuts	       4,000	   5	  10

45	Watermelons	       2,000	  10	  15

All numbers are rounded.

<500: indicates less than 500 pounds of active ingredient.

	  <2.5: indicates less than 2.5 percent of crop is treated.

	  <1: indicates less than 1 percent of crop is treated.

* California data only.

 NC: not calculated, only pounds a.i. available.

	** A section 18 (time-limited tolerance) was issued for sorghum during
the reporting period of the SLUA (2009).

     A section 18 was issued for soybeans during the reporting period of
the SLUA (2005 and 2006).

	SLUA data sources include:

USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National
Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation)

These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are
releasable to the public.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 25 (Wednesday, February 6, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2122-2125]
[FR Doc No: 2019-01319]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008; FRL-9988-91-Region 8]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete Operable Unit 2 (OU2), Former Screening
Plant, of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site), located in Lincoln
County, Montana, from the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests
public comments on this proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant
to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an
appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Montana (State),
through the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), have determined
that all appropriate response actions at OU2 under CERCLA, other than
operation and maintenance and five-year reviews (FYR), have been
completed. However, this partial deletion does not preclude future
actions under Superfund.
    This partial deletion pertains only to OU2. Operable Unit 1 (OU1),
Former Export Plant; Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former Vermiculite Mine;
Operable Unit 4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7), Residential/Commercial
Properties of Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), Former Stimson
Lumber Mill; Operable Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and Operable
Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and Roadways, are not being considered for
deletion as part of this proposed action and will remain on the NPL.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2002-0008 by one of the following methods:
     https://www.regulations.gov. Follow on-line instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. 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.epa2.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
     Email: Dania Zinner<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Dania Zinner, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail Code 8EPR-SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2002-0008. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or email. The https://www.regulations.gov website
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 email comment directly to the EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your email 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment due
to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the
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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://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 the hard
copy. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov; by calling EPA Region 8 at (303) 312-
7279 and leaving a message; and at the EPA Info Center, 108 E 9th
Street, Libby, MT 59923,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through Thursday from
8:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dania Zinner, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode EPR-
SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents:

I. Introduction
II. NPL Deletion Criteria
III. Deletion Procedures
IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

I. Introduction

    EPA announces its intent to delete all of Operable Unit 2 (OU2),
Former Screening Plant, of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site (Site)
from the NPL and requests public comment on this proposed action. The
NPL constitutes Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the NCP, which
the EPA promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the CERCLA of 1980, as
amended. The EPA maintains the NPL as those sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Sites on the NPL may be the subject of remedial actions
financed by the Hazardous Substance Superfund (Fund). This partial
deletion of OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site is proposed in
accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e) and is consistent with the Notice of
Policy Change: Partial Deletion of Sites Listed on the National
Priorities List. 60 FR 55466 (Nov. 1, 1995). As described in section
300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, a portion of a site deleted from the NPL
remains eligible for Fund-financed remedial action if future conditions
warrant such actions.
    The EPA will accept comments on the proposal to partially delete
this site for thirty (30) days after publication of this document in
the Federal Register.
    Section II of this document explains the criteria for deleting
sites from the NPL. Section III discusses procedures that the EPA is
using for this action. Section IV discusses the OU2 of the

Libby Asbestos Superfund Site and demonstrates how it meets the
deletion criteria.

II. NPL Deletion Criteria

    The NCP establishes the criteria that EPA uses to delete sites from
the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425(e), sites may be deleted
from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. In making such a
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(e), the EPA will consider, in
consultation with the State, whether any of the following criteria have
been met:
    i. Responsible parties or other persons have implemented all
appropriate response actions required;
    ii. All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been
implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is
appropriate; or
    iii. The remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public health or the environment and, therefore,
the taking of remedial measures in not appropriate.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, the EPA conducts
five-year reviews to ensure the continued protectiveness of remedial
actions where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain
at a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. The EPA conducts such five-year reviews even if a site is
deleted from the NPL. The EPA may initiate further action to ensure
continued protectiveness at a deleted site if new information becomes
available that indicates it is appropriate. Whenever there is a
significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the deleted site
may be restored to the NPL without application of the hazard ranking
system.

III. Deletion Procedures

    The following procedures apply to deletion of OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site:
    (1) The EPA consulted with the State before developing this Notice
of Intent for Partial Deletion.
    (2) The EPA has provided the State 30 working days for review of
this notice prior to publication of it today.
    (3) In accordance with the criteria discussed above, EPA has
determined that no further response is appropriate;
    (4) The State of Montana, through the DEQ, has concurred with
deletion of OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, from the NPL.
    (5) Concurrently with the publication of this Notice of Intent for
Partial Deletion in the Federal Register, notices are being published
in the Western News, the Kootenai Valley Record, and the Montanian. The
newspaper notices announce the 30-day public comment period concerning
the Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion of the Site from the NPL.
    (6) The EPA placed copies of documents supporting the proposed
partial deletion in the deletion docket, made these items available for
public inspection, and copying at the Site information repositories
identified above.
    If comments are received within the 30-day comment period on this
document, the EPA will evaluate and respond to the comments before
making a final decision to delete OU2. If necessary, the EPA will
prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any significant public
comments received. After the public comment period, if the EPA
determines it is still appropriate to delete OU2 of the Libby Asbestos
Superfund Site, the Regional Administrator will publish a final Notice
of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register. Public notices, public
submissions and copies of the Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, will
be made available to interested parties and included in the site
information repositories listed above.
    Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not itself
create, alter, or revoke any individual's rights or obligations.
Deletion of a portion of a site from the NPL does not in any way alter
the EPA's right to take enforcement actions, as appropriate. The NPL is
designed primarily for informational purposes and to assist EPA
management. Section 300.425(e)(3) of the NCP states that the deletion
of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for future
response actions, should future conditions warrant such actions.

IV. Basis for Intended Partial Site Deletion

    The following information provides the EPA's rationale for deleting
the OU2 of the Libby Asbestos Superfund Site from the NPL:

Site Background and History

    The Libby Asbestos Superfund Site, CERCLIS No. MT0009083840, is
located in Lincoln County, Montana in the northwest corner of Montana
approximately 35 miles east of Idaho and 65 miles south of Canada. The
Site was proposed for inclusion on the NPL on February 26, 2002 (67 FR
8836) and listed on October 24, 2002 (67 FR 65315).
    Vermiculite was discovered 7 miles northeast of Libby, Montana in
1881 by gold miners. In the early 1920s, Mr. Edward Alley began initial
mining operations on the vermiculite ore body. Full-scale operations
began later that decade under the name of the Universal Zonolite
Insulation Company (Zonolite). This ore body contained a mixture of
amphibole mineral fibers of varying elemental composition (e.g.,
winchite, richterite, tremolite) that have been identified in the Rainy
Creek complex near Libby (Libby amphibole asbestos or LA). Unlike the
commercially exploited chrysotile asbestos, the LA material has never
been used commercially on a wide scale, and, for the mine's operating
life, it was considered a byproduct of little or no value. The
commercially exploited vermiculite was used in a variety of products
including insulation and construction materials, as a carrier for
fertilizer and other agricultural chemicals, and as a soil conditioner.
The vermiculite ore was mined using standard strip mining techniques
and conventional mining equipment. The ore was then processed in an
onsite dry mill to remove waste rock and overburden material. Once
processed, the ore was transported down from the mine to the former
Screening Plant (OU2), which sorted the ore into five size ranges.
After the sorting process, the material was shipped to various
locations across the United States for either direct inclusion in
products or for ``expansion'' prior to use in products. Expansion (also
known as ``exfoliation'' or ``popping'') was accomplished by heating
the ore, usually in a dry kiln, to approximately 2000 [deg]F. This
process explosively vaporizes the water contained within the mica
structure, causing the vermiculite to expand by a factor of 10 to 15.
This produces the vermiculite material most commonly seen in stores and
sold as soil conditioner for gardens and greenhouses. In 1963, Grace
purchased Zonolite and continued vermiculite-mining operations in a
similar fashion. In 1975, a wet milling process was added that operated
in tandem with the dry mill until the dry mill was taken off line in
1985. The wet milling process was added to reduce dust generation by
the milling process. Expansion operations at the former Export Plant
ceased in Libby sometime prior to 1981, although this area was still
used to bag and export milled ore until mining operations were stopped
in 1990. Before the mine closed in 1990, Libby produced about 80
percent of the world's supply of vermiculite.
    The Site was placed on the NPL in response to media articles, which
detailed extensive asbestos-related

health problems in the Libby population. EPA arrived on-site in 1999
and since then EPA has conducted sampling and response action
activities to address highly contaminated areas in the Libby Valley.
While at first the situation was thought to be limited to those with
direct or indirect occupational exposures, it soon became clear there
were multiple exposure pathways, and many persons with no link to
mining-related activities were affected. Typically, the amphibole
asbestos contamination found in the Libby Valley comes from one or some
combination of source materials (e.g., vermiculite insulation,
processed vermiculite ore, mine wastes). Asbestos from these source
materials has been found in interior building dust samples and local
soils, which in turn act as secondary sources. Response actions to
clean up the Site have been ongoing since 1999.
    The Site has 8 operable units (OUs). The OUs are as follows:
Operable Unit 1 (OU1), Former Export Plant; Operable Unit 2 (OU2),
Former Screening Plant; Operable Unit 3 (OU3), Former Vermiculite Mine;
Operable Unit 4 and Operable Unit 7 (OU4/OU7), Residential/Commercial
Properties of Libby and Troy; Operable Unit 5 (OU5), Former Stimson
Lumber Mill; Operable Unit 6 (OU6), BNSF Rail Corridor; and Operable
Unit 8 (OU8), Highways and Roadways. The OUs pertain to distinct
geographical areas corresponding to areas of responsibility for the
identified responsible parties and/or to distinct sources of
contamination.
    The background and history, the Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (RI/FS), Removal and Response Actions, Selected
Remedies, Cleanup Standards, and Operation and Maintenance activities
for OU2 are discussed below.

OU2 Background and History

    Operable Unit 2 (OU2) consists of the former screening plant and
surrounding properties. OU2 is located approximately five miles
northeast of the City of Libby on the east side of the Kootenai River
and at the confluence of Rainy Creek and the Kootenai River. A map of
OU2 can be found in the docket at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0008. The OU2 site was historically owned and
used by W.R. Grace for stockpiling, staging, and distributing
vermiculite and vermiculite concentrate to vermiculite processing areas
and insulation distributors outside of the City of Libby. OU2 is known
as the former Screening Plant and Surrounding Properties. OU2 has been
separated into distinct impacted areas that include the former
Screening Plant (Subarea 1), the Flyway (Subarea 2), Privately-Owned
Property (Subarea 3), and the Rainy Creek Road Frontages (Subarea 4).
The Highway 37 right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the OU2 site was included
due to its proximity to OU2 and the known contamination in the ROW.

OU2 Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)

    The State, the EPA and certain Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) conducted various studies and investigations to evaluate the
nature and extent of contamination generally at the Site. Remedial
Investigations (RIs) began in 1999 within the Site, including the
export and screening plants and highly contaminated areas with exposure
pathways such as residential/commercial properties and schools. Various
removal actions were conducted starting in 2000 through 2006 where
source areas were excavated and were disposed of at the former
vermiculite mine (OU3). The Former Screening Plant Remedial
Investigation (2009 RI) evaluated the human health and environmental
impacts due to the former screening plant and surrounding properties.
    In August 2009, the OU2 Remedial Investigation (2009 RI) confirmed
that OU2 had been mostly cleaned up by prior removal actions and that
only two more locations needed to be remediated to meet EPA's clearance
criteria and to break the exposure pathway to LA.
    The EPA released the OU2 Feasibility Study (FS) in August 2009 and
a proposed plan in September 2009.

OU2 Selected Remedy

    The EPA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for OU2 (2010 OU2 ROD)
on May 10, 2010. The selected remedy in the 2010 OU2 ROD was narrowly
focused on breaking the exposure pathway to LA in a few locations on
OU2 as most of the former screening plant was already remediated by
prior removal actions. Other surrounding contaminated geographical
areas were addressed as part of remedial actions taken at other
operable units. Thus, the 2010 OU2 ROD identified three remedial action
objectives (RAOs) of breaking the exposure pathway for inhalation of LA
fibers, controlling erosion of contaminated soil to prevent exposures
and spread of contamination, and implementing controls to prevent uses
of the site that could pose unacceptable risks to human health.
    The original remedy selected in the 2010 OU2 ROD consisted of the
following remedial components: (1) Excavation and offsite disposal of
top 18 inches of soil in certain areas; (2) Protective cover of clean
soil; (3) Institutional controls such as a utility location service and
community awareness programs to prevent exposure to contamination in
the subsurface and the spread of contamination; and (4) Operations and
maintenance of the remedy.
    Because the selected remedy in the 2010 OU2 ROD left wastes in
place, ICs are critical to the protection of the remedy. The objectives
of ICs for OU2 are as follows: (1) Notify future landowners of the
presence of subsurface contamination and IC requirements; (2) Mitigate
the potential for inhalation exposures to LA fibers; (3) Control
dispersion/erosion of contaminated soil to prevent the spread of
contamination; (4) Implement controls to prevent uses of the site that
could pose unacceptable risks or compromise the remedy; and (5)
Implement controls to prevent uses of the site that could spread
contamination to un-impacted or previously remediated locations. The
properties that comprise OU2 are owned by Kootenai Development Company
and a private residential property owner.

OU2 Cleanup Standards

    The OU2 remedy was one of the first source control remedies at the
Site that addressed breaking the exposure pathway to a highly
contaminated area of the site, but did not contain numeric cleanup
standards because toxicity values for Libby amphibole asbestos had not
been finalized yet. Numeric cleanup standards for site-wide soil
contamination were established in the OUs 4-8 Record of Decision. A
post-construction risk assessment for OU2 was released in October 2015
confirming that the remediation met cleanup standards.

OU2 Response Actions

    The EPA and W.R. Grace & Co.--Conn (Grace) entered into an
Administrative Order on Consent for Removal Action (AOC) to cost
recover funds for EPA removal actions on OU2 and for Grace to assume
responsibility of post-removal site controls. Notice for completion of
work was sent in December 2015 and this AOC has been closed out
following recording of an environmental covenant on Grace's property
(Flyway).
    Remedial activities began in summer of 2010 with excavation of the
areas investigated where the exposure pathway needed to be broken
including along the Highway 37 ROW. Materials were excavated, disposed
offsite at the former vermiculite mine (OU3), and

confirmation sampling was performed at depth. Clean cover was placed as
backfill at depths of 6 inches to 25 inches depending upon location and
these areas were hydroseeded (vegetated) to prevent erosion. Additional
confirmation activity-based sampling was conducted in summer of 2012 to
confirm effectiveness of remedy. The OU2 post-construction risk
assessment (October 2015) and the site-wide risk assessment (November
2015) both confirmed that the remedy at OU2 is protective. As part of
the AOC agreement with Grace, the Kootenai Development Company (a
subsidiary of Grace) placed an environmental covenant on its property
in OU2 on July 28, 2014 that meets the IC objectives above. All
remedial components described in the 2010 OU2 ROD have been
implemented.

OU2 Operation and Maintenance

    The State and PRP operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities
are defined in the OU2 O&M Plan (September 2018). Grace's
responsibilities are further defined in the environmental covenant
(July 2014) for the Flyway property.
    Montana DEQ requirements for O&M includes conducting an annual
inspection, preparing an annual report, maintaining the cover, and
evaluating/updating institutional controls (ICs). Current annual
inspection reports and associated data are available by contacting EPA
Region 8 or Montana DEQ.
    In regard to ICs, an environmental covenant for the Kootenai
Development Company's property within OU2 was recorded with the Lincoln
County Clerk and Recorder on July 28, 2014. The environmental covenant
provides the following Use Restrictions: (1) No excavation,
construction, or disturbing soil on the property without written
approval from EPA and Montana DEQ, (2) Prior to disturbance activities,
a written plan must be approved by EPA and Montana DEQ that describes
the health and safety of workers and restoring the integrity of the
cover material, and (3) Restrictions on uses or activities that would
disturb/interfere or have the potential to disturb/interfere with the
protectiveness of the remedy and remedial components.

Five-Year Review

    The remedies at the entire Site, including OU2 require ongoing
five-year reviews in accordance with CERCLA Section 121(c) and Section
300.430(f)(4)(ii) of the NCP.
    In the statutory 2015 five-year review dated June 22, 2015
conducted for OU1 and OU2 for the Site, the OU2 remedy was determined
to be protective since all required institutional controls were in
place including an environmental covenant on the Kootenai Development
Company's property. There were no issues or recommendations for OU2.
    Pursuant to CERCLA section 121(c) and the NCP, EPA will conduct the
next five-year review by June 22, 2020 to ensure the continued
protectiveness of remedial actions where hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remain at the Site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.

Community Involvement

    Public participation activities have been satisfied as required in
CERCLA Section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k) and CERCLA Section 117, 42
U.S.C. 9617. During the development and implementation of the remedy
for this operable unit, comment periods were offered for the proposed
plan, the five-year review, and other public meetings. The documents
that the EPA relied on for the partial deletion of OU2 from the Libby
Asbestos Superfund Site are in the docket and are available to the
public in the information repositories. A notice of availability of the
Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion has been published in the Western
News, the Kootenai Valley Record, and the Montanian to satisfy public
participation procedures required by 40 CFR 300.425 (e) (4).
    The State, the Lincoln County Commissioners, and the City of Libby
are supportive of the partial deletion of OU2. The State signed a
letter of concurrence on September 13, 2018.

Determination That the Site Meets the Criteria for Deletion

    EPA has consulted with the State, Lincoln County Commissioners, and
the City of Libby on the proposed partial deletion of OU2 of the Libby
Asbestos Site from the NPL prior to developing this Notice of Partial
Deletion. Through the five-year review, EPA has also determined that
the response actions taken are protective of public health or the
environment and, therefore, taking of additional remedial measures is
not appropriate.
    The implemented remedies achieve the degree of cleanup or
protection specified in the 2010 OU2 ROD.
    All selected removal and remedial action objectives and associated
cleanup goals for OU2 are consistent with agency policy and guidance.
This partial deletion meets the completion requirements as specified in
OSWER Directive 9320.2-22, Close Out Procedures for National Priority
List Sites. All response activities at OU2 of the Site are complete and
the Operable Unit poses no unacceptable risk to human health or the
environment. Therefore, EPA and Montana DEQ have determined that no
further response is necessary at OU2 of the Site.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(d), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O. 12580,
E.O. 12777, E.O. 13626, 52 FR 29233, 56 FR 54757, 77 FR 56749, 3 CFR
2013 Comp., p. 306; 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.
193.

    Dated: December 20, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-01319 Filed 2-5-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Wastewater Reduction and Recycling in Food Processing Operations State of the Art Report  Food Manufacturing Coalition for Innovation and Technology Transfer Statement of Need Summary The food processing industry seeks cost effective reduction and recycling technologies for food processing wastewaters. These technologies include both source reduction options ( technologies to reduce the amount of water used) and treatment options ( technologies to reduce the amount or contamination level of wastewaters requiring discharge).

Enforcement of wastewater discharge regulations and escalating sewage surcharges have forced the food processing industry to look for cost effective technologies to provide pretreatment or complete treatment of their wastewaters. Historically, food processors located within or adjacent to municipalities have relied on local publicly owned treatment works ( POTW) for wastewater treatment and disposal. Increasingly, this option is becoming less available. Especially in the last five to ten years, because of increasing enforcement pressure to comply with wastewater discharge permits and dwindling federal grants for constructing new and upgrading existing treatment works, municipal and regional sewer authorities are applying more pressure on industries to reduce their organic ( BOD and COD), and suspended and dissolved solids loading to the sewers.

Background Water has traditionally been a key processing medium in food processing plants. Water is used throughout all steps of the food production process, including food cleaning, sanitizing, peeling, cooking, and cooling. Water is also used mechanically as a conveyor medium to transport food materials throughout the process. Finally, water is used to clean production equipment between operations. All in all, food processing is a water intensive operation.

Wastewater derived from food production has attributes that are very distinct from other industrial activities. In particular, food processing wastewater can be characterized as " friendly"[ 1] in that it generally does not contain conventional toxic chemicals such as those listed under EPA's Toxic Release Inventory ( with a few exceptions, such as phenolics from the processing of some plant materials). However, food processing wastewaters can be subject to bacterial contamination, which represents a special issue for wastewater reuse. More generally, food processing wastewaters are distinguished by their generally high BOD concentrations, high levels of dissolved and/ or suspended solids [ including fats, oils, and grease ( FOG)], nutrients such as ammonia, and minerals ( e. g., salts). If separated or recovered, many of these constituents have value in secondary markets. Reclaimed materials have value through 1) direct in plant reuse ( e. g., recovery of sugars from fruit canning), 2) sale to external markets ( e. g., recovery of pasta starch for animal feed or for compost), or 3) use in energy recovery ( e. g., through biological or thermochemical gasification).

The characteristics and generation rates of food wastewater are highly variable, depending on the specific types of food processing operations. One important attribute is the general scale of the operations, since food processing extends from small, local operations (" the corner bakery") to large scale national or international producers. This difference in scale is relevant not only in identifying sources of wastewater, but also in determining appropriate reduction or recycling options. In addition to scale differences, the types of food production processes ( e. g., fruit, vegetable, oils, dairy, meat, fish, etc.) vary widely, with associated differences in the specific wastewater contaminants. Even within a given food processing plant, the wastewater discharged from different unit operations or from different seasons may vary with respect to flow rates and compositions. These characteristics will all affect how readily a new reduction or recycling technology can show a return on investment ( ROI).

In addition to the variability in internal operating conditions, external constraints on food production wastewater management also vary widely. Wastewater disposal costs, which are a key driver for reduction/ recycling technologies, will vary based on a given food processor's location and pertinent regulatory requirements ( which will vary by region/ city). Additionally, since byproducts recovered from wastewater streams are typically of low bulk density and marginal economic value, markets for these materials often vary widely regionally and seasonally.

As a result of these variations in context and application, the determination of the costeffectiveness of current and emerging reduction technologies must generally be made on a case by case basis. Nonetheless, certain general principles will apply. First, certain technologies and operating strategies can provide an easy ROI regardless of the scale of operation. In addition, certain technologies will only be applicable to small operations ( e. g., because of the inherent flexibility of the production process), while others will generally only apply to larger operations ( e. g., because of high capitalization costs). These distinctions will be provided in the following sections as relevant.

Current Technologies A number of methods are used to reduce wastewater discharge amounts and/ or contaminant levels. For the purpose of clarity, a distinction will be made between source reduction and treatment technologies as follows:   Source reduction includes technologies and operations that reduce the amount of wastewater generated in the first place   Treatment includes technologies and operations that treat wastewater to reduce levels of contamination, either to facilitate in plant recycle or to reduce costs of treatment ( which are often indexed to contaminant concentrations).

Both of these strategies are important to food processing and to wastewater reduction strategies.

Source Reduction A series of simple techniques are currently available as a first stage in minimizing wastewater generation. These techniques represent generally low investment options that are available to virtually all food processing operations regardless of size. The techniques can be generally categorized into two groups: 1) techniques to minimize the amount of food ( or other) waste that becomes water borne, and 2) techniques to optimize the use of water.

The objective of preventing food or other waste from becoming waterborne is to keep " dry waste dry and wet waste wet." Approaches currently being used include dry cleanup before floor rinsing and manually cleaning vessels before rinsing to remove solids for recovery or disposal. Other approaches focus on changing production procedures to minimize product or byproduct wastage, such as installing spill collection trays to collect solids at appropriate places in the production line. In addition, water based conveyor systems can be replaced by mechanical systems ( augers or conveyors).

Optimizing the use of water includes techniques such as modernizing water sprays to include jets or nozzles, using high pressure low volume washing systems, and auto shutoff valves [ 5]. Other more capital intensive options include installing clean in place ( CIP) systems. Finally, one important option includes improving operations and maintenance programs to identify process upsets, problems, or malfunctions early in the process so as to minimize the amount of waste produced and wastewater generated. This process control based strategy is also an important area of emerging technology, as improved sensors and control algorithms become available.

Treatment Because water is ubiquitous throughout food processing plants, in plant treatment of wastewater as a means of permitting reuse in other parts of the plant is a key strategy. A wide range of treatment options is currently being used to minimize the amount of wastewater generated, or to reduce the concentration of contaminants in the wastewater.

Retention/ redirection simply means determining uses for wastewater other than discharge to the POTW. Examples of redirection include using " clean" wastewater for initial floor scrubdown or using nitrogen rich wastewater as a fertilizer for plant grass areas [ 7]. As with any wastewater reuse, these approaches require close attention to regulatory requirements.

Separation/ concentration technologies provide a means of separating out solids or other materials from wastewaters. Low technology options include installing drain screens, settling basins, berms, or systems to separate waste products out of wastewater before it is discharged. Other common technology options currently in use include the following ( information relies heavily on [ 2]):

  Centrifugation is useful for oil/ water separation and for large particle separation ( solids of particles sizes ranging from 1 to 5000 microns. Particles greater than 5000 microns ( 5 mm) may require pretreatment ( grit removal or grinder) before centrifugation. Several different types of centrifuges are available, including basket, solid bowl, countercurrent flow and concurrent flow systems. Costs range from $ 60 to $ 2,000 per million gallons treated.     Evaporation is well suited for wastewaters containing primarily inorganic salts. There are two primary types of evaporators: mechanical evaporators and evaporation ponds. Mechanical evaporators require an energy source, but can allow for water recovery. Foaming, scaling, and fouling are typical operational difficulties, which may require ancillary treatment systems. Technology costs can vary widely from $ 20 ( ponds under minimal regulatory constraints) to over $ 10,000 ( thermomechanical system) per million gallons treated.

I. Filtration is used primarily to reduce suspended solids or oils and grease. Filtration is generally used as a pretreatment step or a final wastewater " polishing" step before discharge. Several different types of filters exist, including granular media, cartridge, membrane, and diatomaceous earth precoat filters. The most common in the food processing industry include cylindrical or pleated cartridge filters, belt and press filters, vacuum filters, hydrosieves, and continuous scraped surface filters [ 1]. Filtration is generally effective for particles larger than about 1 micron in size. Costs can vary from $ 20 to over $ 100 per million gallons treated.

II. Flotation is another treatment for suspended solids or oils and grease. Flotation generally involves passing gas bubbles through the wastewater. The gas adheres to water contaminants and causes them to rise to the surface into froth where they can be skimmed off. Dissolved air flotation ( DAF) and induced air floatation ( IAF) are the two principal types of flotation. Costs can vary from $ 20 to over $ 100 per million gallons treated.

III. Gravity separation can occur in settling ponds or in specific vessels and is useful for materials with significantly different densities than water, such as oils and grease ( which would rise to the surface to be skimmed) or various suspended solids ( which would generally sink to the bottom). Costs can range from $ 50 to $ 500 per million gallons treated. IV. Membrane systems represent a primary source of separation for the food processing industry. Many different types of membrane systems are currently in use. Because of the intensive research currently being conducted on this topic, membrane systems will be addressed in full under Emerging Technologies below.

Conversion of constituents into more manageable or valuable forms includes the fermentation of sugars to alcohol, apple waste to vinegar, or enzymatic conversion of starch to fructose [ 1]. Because conversions are fairly complex and site dependent, their application is currently limited; however, opportunity for these types of conversions may grow as the product value of byproducts becomes more clearly identified.

Biotreatment involves the use of a biological reactor that contains a high specific concentration of either suspended or attached growth microorganisms [ 2]. As wastewater is passed through the reactor, the microorganisms metabolize organic compounds into carbon dioxide. Both aerobic and anaerobic technologies exist. A detailed treatment of these technologies and their limitations is provided in the State of the Art Report on BOD which was prepared by the Food Manufacturing Coalition.

An important type of chemical treatment is the use of gaseous chlorine and chlorine derivatives to address bacterial contamination. Because of safety concerns about the potential generation of chlorine by products, newer technologies being tested include ozonation and ultraviolet light treatment ( covered below).

Finally, incineration is a treatment approach that can be coupled to other systems ( filtration, flotation, etc.) to provide final disposal of food waste byproducts [ 2]. Incineration can be used to treat essentially all forms of waste, including concentrated wastewater, liquid wastes, solid wastes, gases, and sludges. Forms of incinerators include liquid injection, fluidized bed, and rotary kiln incinerators. Clearly, this approach is problematic, given the high cost of technology deployment ( more than $ 1 million per million gallons treated), as well as the heavy regulatory and public scrutiny it faces. It also represents a high intensity approach to waste management that creates potentially problematic secondary waste ( ash) and bypasses the option to reuse food waste products.

Emerging Technologies Source Reduction Pneumatic ( Air Based) Transport  Water has historically been a common transport medium in food production. There exist increasing opportunities for non water based transport. Pneumatic transport is currently used in facilities ranging from coffee bean preparation to flour milling [ 3].

Process Modeling  A significant source of wastewater arises from improperly adjusted process activities that lead to product wastage. Process modeling is a technique to use computers to optimize process conditions. Process modeling will help fine tune such input parameters as material or water flow velocity, temperature, and chemical concentration, as well as vessel design ( e. g., input/ output configuration) and overall process configuration. A major brewery used this technique to improve the product quality and batch repeatability of their brewing process by identifying both an improved mixing blade design for the mash tubs and a change in water application rates, thus reducing liquid product wastage [ 3]. Another application by a decaffeinated coffee manufacturer improved timing and thus the efficiency of the caffeine separation process. Process modeling can also support optimization of material flow through processing tanks ( e. g., activated charcoal) to avoid areas of dead flow that allow bacterial buildup [ 3].

Process Sensors and Control  Related to process modeling, process sensors and control represent computer systems and other in process sensors to identify and control the production process in real time. Process sensors and controls are common and well developed in the chemical manufacturing industry. Emerging techniques such as Artificial Neural Network ( ANN), model predictive and fuzzy logic based control all promise improved control of washing, blanching, cooling, and cooking operations that can result in reduced wastewater loads and higher yields. Along with new optimization techniques such as genetic algorithms, these concepts could be extended to improving the scheduling of sequential batch operations, food production vessel cleaning, rinse water control, and similar applications to reduce water demand.

Low or No Water Cooking and Processing  Continuation of industry trends towards lower water use ( such as steam blanching and microwave drying) can be expected to continue as the technology improves and the cost and regulatory drivers for reduced water consumption increase. Many of the emerging technologies are being explored under the aegis of the EPRI Food Technology Center and include such concepts as high hydrostatic pressure or electric field processing. The underlying concept in all of these technologies is to find non thermal means of destroying microorganisms that present food deterioration or safety concerns. In applications such as blanching or pasteurization, these technologies present an opportunity to eliminate the use of steam and/ or hot water, resulting in reduced wastewater production. Other specialized technologies being developed include the use of ohmic ( electrical) thawing of frozen foods to replace water bath immersion and direct electrical or plasma pasteurization of meats and poultry.

Integrated WaterReuse  Although integrated water reuse does not rely on a specific technology, interest and experience in total integration of water demands in manufacturing through heat recovery, " cascading" of wastewater streams, and byproduct recovery from concentrated streams are growing. Emerging techniques such as the extension of " pinch" design technology ( an energy integration strategy that has proven very successful in the chemical and refining industry) to wastewater reuse hold some promise for identifying integration opportunities. However, successful application of this design approach depends in large degree on the improvement of key reduction and treatment technologies, especially disinfection ( UV, ozone, plasma) and separations methods. Treatment Membrane Applications  As mentioned above, membrane systems represent a primary source of separation for the food processing industry. In addition, they represent one of the most active areas of current research and emerging technologies. The following discussion relies heavily on [ 2], [ 9], and [ 11].

Membrane processes employ a semipermeable membrane and osmotic or other pressure differential to force materials ( water or contaminants) across the membrane. The most common configuration in food processing application is designed to have water pass through a membrane as permeate, with dissolved solids or other constituents captured as retentate. Membrane materials are typically organic polymers, although new types of inorganic polymer, ceramic, and metallic membranes are currently being investigated and deployed.

Membranes are commonly used by a number of process industries, including chemicals, food, pulp and paper, and power generation. Within the food industry, membrane technologies have been in use for at least 15 years for such applications as concentrating whey in the dairy industry, clarifying juices and other beverages, and reclaiming sugars from fruit processing. New materials and technologies are continuing to expand the range of economic applications into other areas of food water treatment and product recovery.

The basic membrane systems commercially available include microfiltration, ultrafiltration ( UF), and reverse osmosis ( RO), each of which treats a different range of particle sizes. Specifically, microfiltration generally addresses the largest constituents  that is, from 0.05  2 microns; ultrafiltration, middle range constituents from 0.005  0.1 microns; and reverse osmosis, smaller constituents in the Angstrom range ( e. g., molecular weight above 200). In practice, this means that microfiltration of food processing wastewater can separate microbes; UF separates microbes and suspended solids; while RO can separate microbes, suspended solids, and dissolved solids. RO is notable in that when coupled with ozonation or other sterilization, it is capable of generating drinking quality water. Newer technologies include nanofiltration ( also known as ultraosmosis), which generally covers a range of particles between UF and RO.

Common configurations of membrane systems include plate and frame, spiral wound, tubular, and hollow fiber modules. The plate and frame is a flat sheet membrane, with alternating layers of membrane and spacer/ permeate carrier plating that creates a sandwich effect. It is one of the simplest ( and cheapest) configurations used. The spiral wound design is an extension of plate and frame that basically wraps the membrane sandwich around a collection pipe into which the permeate is directed. This design provides higher membrane packing density than the plate and frame, but also increases the opportunity for clogging. Tubular modules are designed following the structure of heat exchangers, with a series of hollow, thin walled membrane tubes used to carry the feed stream. By increasing the size of the tubes ( up to 2 cm), one can treat water with higher levels of suspended solids or with more viscosity; however, such systems require higher pumping energy and represent greater capital and operating costs. Finally, hollow fiber modules consist of tiny, hollow, hair like membrane fibers bundled together inside a pressurized vessel. As the feed stream enters the space surrounding the fibers, permeate passes through into the center of the fibers and is carried away. Hollow fiber modules allow high packing density and require lower pressure drops, leading to systems with both lower capital and operating costs. However, these modules are delicate and highly susceptible to fouling.

Fouling is a major issue for membrane systems [ 1]. Fouling results from material buildup that blocks fluid flow across the membrane. Reverse osmosis is particularly susceptible to blockage. Temperature, solute solute, and solute membrane interactions all affect the fouling process. One common means of addressing fouling is to provide high cross flow velocities to reduce the thickness of the build up, and to control pressure and permeate recovery.

Newer designs for membrane systems include centrifugal and vibrational systems, both of which are designed to limit buildup of solids along membrane surfaces. Other specialized types of membrane separation processes include pervaporation, which is the separation of more volatile compounds out of a liquid into a gas, and electrodialysis, which involves the separation of ions from a solution across an electrically charged membrane. These are currently less common in food applications.

Membrane configurations often include multiple membrane or other systems. For example, Zenon Environmental Inc. has developed a membrane biological reactor that combines an ultrafiltration process with a biological reactor. This system maintains a high biomass concentration while continuously removing the clarified permeate with zero BOD [ 1]. Among other advantages, this approach significantly minimizes the space requirements of biological systems for holding tanks and sludge handling.

Membrane systems can show several advantages over other conventional separation treatments ( evaporation and distillation), including lower energy use, smaller space requirements, better control of microbes and organic matter in the process effluent, and improved product quality. In addition, unlike vaporization and freeze concentration, membrane separation does not require temperature and phase changes of the selected components [ 10].

Ongoing research in membrane separation techniques involves exploration of new membrane materials and of new module design configurations to address issues of fouling and treatment of difficult waste streams ( high suspended solids or viscous waste streams). Of particular interest to the food industry are 1) the cost effective separation of waters with high dissolved and suspended solids, and 2) the treatment of microbes. Microbial treatment is particularly noteworthy as food safety issues limit many types of wastewater minimization opportunities. In addition to these issues, much attention in membrane separation for the food industry is being given to demonstration efforts that provide bench and pilot scale testing of membrane configurations for specific food processing applications. A major membrane demonstration effort the mobile Membrane Test and Demonstration Unit ( MTDU) has been in operation primarily on the west coast since 1992 [ 10]. This trailer has recently been supplemented by MTDU2, a second trailer designed to operate on the east coast. These mobile trailer units include a variety of membrane materials and configurations to provide wide ranging test conditions. The objective of this effort is to demonstrate the application of membrane separation technology in various food plants as a effective method to reduce effluent contaminants, conserve water and energy, and recover byproducts. The project is conducted by the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research, under the sponsorship of the Electric Power Research Institute ( EPRI) and several other sponsors, including various utilities, the U. S. Department of Energy ( through Pacific Northwest National Laboratory), the California League of Food Processors, the National Food Processors Association, and others. The MTDU trailer has traveled to 18 sites in 10 states as of January 1996 and has completed membrane studies of processing plants including fruit, dairy, pasta, fermentation products, soft drinks, confectionery, and seafood.

Performance experience with membrane technology has shown important cost savings. EPRI reports of 16 MTDU case studies [ 12 and 13] shows that several applications were cost effective. In some cases including the treatment of raisin washwater, peach processing water, and peach pitter water the net cost savings were driven by byproduct recovery. For example, a Dole Raisin Plant experienced a capital cost of $ 250,000 and annual operating costs of $ 82,000 for a membrane treatment system; however, annual benefits due to recovery of sugar concentrate were estimated at $ 528,710 [ 12]. In other cases, the cost effectiveness of the treatment was based on reduced disposal costs, such as the reduction in BOD charges at a vegetable processing plant through treatment of carrot peeler wash water [ 12]. This type of cost is, of course, highly site dependent. In a few other cases, indirect benefits made the difference in the treatment of the costeffectiveness For example, even though direct benefits of membrane technology at the Hunt Wesson tomato processing plant did not exceed costs, the improved effluent treatment levels enabled the plant to extend its period of operation. In this case, increased production outweighed the additional treatment expenses by a wide margin [ 12].

As another example outside of the EPRI program, a combination UF/ RO system implemented at a Kraft plant to treat bakery wastewater showed net annual savings of $ 600,000 [ 1]. Savings included reduction in BOD surcharge, wastewater discharge volume charge, sludge volume, and labor. Costs include the annual O& M costs of the system ($ 600,000 for a 125 gpm system). This system is expected to show a full payback of design and installation costs in less than 3 years.

Other Separation Techniques  Other separation techniques that facilitate recovery of suspended solids from wastewater streams are being developed. Two examples are acoustic separation and electro osmotic dewatering. These technologies use an applied acoustic, electrical, or combined field to enhance the rate and efficiency of separation. They are typically targeted towards suspended solids and can reduce wastewater generation by making it more economically viable to recover solids from high solids streams. The U. S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technology is currently sponsoring a project in this area: the Improved Electroacoustic Dewatering Belt Press for Food.

High Energy Systems  Over the past several years, research interest in high energy approaches to wastewater treatment has increased. The term " high energy" refers to the fact that these technologies ( such as Corona discharge and plasma reactors) use highly excited, or energetic fields, to treat the waste. These technologies are largely being explored for their potential in destroying pathogens and reducing BOD loading in high BOD wastewater streams. They are not generally applicable to high ionic strength ( salt and brine solution) streams, which remain as a critical challenge to wastewater reuse.

The EPRI Food Technology Center is currently proposing a research partnership to develop a silent electric discharge ( SED) reactor for improving the safety and efficiency of recycling processing water [ 15]. The criteria for success will be improved BOD and COD removal with less cost than conventional ozone generators.

Sterilization  Ozonation and ultraviolet light treatment are being tested as methods to provide sterilization and reduce bacterial counts, permitting closed loop recycling of rinse and chiller waters. Ozonation works in a manner similar to chlorine disinfection ( in both technologies, a reactive gas is introduced to the wastewater stream to chemically disinfect the stream), but avoids the concern of introducing chlorinated organic compounds to the wastewater stream. Ultraviolet disinfection can be used especially in low concentration wastewater streams ( or high concentration streams with high clarity) to permit reuse of the water. It is of particular interest in applications such as chiller water recycling, where pathogenic contamination is the primary obstacle to recycling of the water stream. These technologies are closely related to other " high tech" field enhanced techniques described under the emerging source reduction category.

An ozone demonstration project is currently being sponsored by EPRI and conducted by scientists at the University of Arkansas with engineers from American Water Purification, Inc. [ 14]. The first phase of this demonstration project includes a Mobile Ozone Treatment Laboratory ( MOTL); phase II will extend the demonstration to include membrane testing. This project is focused on the poultry industry, with the intent of addressing the rising concern over food safety and quality and regulatory compliance in poultry processing plants. The MOTL will conduct on site tests of ozonation of poultry chiller water.

Conversion  Research is being conducted on new methods for converting food byproducts to more valuable products. Argonne National Laboratory is investigating the opportunity for large scale production of lactic acid and its derivatives from carbohydrate wastes [ 8]. The conversion train for this process includes fermentation, primary and secondary purification, and various polymerization technologies. Traditionally, lactic acid is purified by adding sulfuric acid to the fermentation broth that contains calcium lactate. This step generates large volumes of calcium sulfate salt waste. By contrast, the Argonne primary purification process uses advanced desalting and water splitting electrodialysis technologies that purify the lactic acid without generating a salt waste stream. In addition the Argonne process includes the use of a different chemical pathway to facilitate high volume manufacture of several different lactic derivatives.

Fuel Conversion  Though interest in fuel recovery from wastewater streams is not as intense as it once was, research and development continues on the development of efficient, robust systems for recovery of energy value from high concentration wastewater streams. Both biological ( anaerobic digestion) and thermochemical ( catalytic reduction) technologies exist, as well as hybrid systems which combine both technologies. In general, the applicability of these systems is limited to relatively high concentration (> 2 weight % organic) streams with high BOD loadings, and relatively low inorganic ( brine or salt) concentration.

Next Steps for Technology Implementation This report has identified a wide range of emerging technologies and techniques for reducing and recycling wastewater in the food processing industry. To date, the food industry has been a part of this technology development process through several joint initiatives to pool resources and sponsor development and demonstration projects [ see particularly references 9 through 14]. Many of these initiatives are collaborations among committed allies, including EPRI and the utility industry, the Department of Energy ( through the Office of Industrial Technology and other offices), as well as many statelevel Waste Minimization Programs.

While a significant amount of progress has been accomplished to date, further opportunities for collaboration in technology development remain. This collaboration can be shaped in a number of ways. The following list represents one perspective a complementary set of activities that span the range from basic research to information exchange.

I. Pre competitive Research  The food processing industry should pursue opportunities to work jointly on research topics that are still at the pre competitive stage; that is, the stage where expected results would not be proprietary. One example is in the area of advance fuzzy logic control for water intensive processes. Based on the experience in the chemical industry, there is good reason to believe that fuzzy logic control could lead to significant process improvements for the food processing industry. However, basic research questions remain. Because this type of research area is likely to be outside the scope of any individual food processor, a collaborative effort is needed to ensure progress.

II. Demonstration Project  The food processing industry should continue to sponsor demonstration projects in wastewater reduction and recycling, particularly in the area of membrane technology. The MTDU program in which the National Food Processors Association and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have already been participating has shown some significant progress in testing and demonstrating various membrane systems for wastewater management. One significant area of application that remains to be adequately demonstrated is the membrane treatment of meat and poultry wastewaters. In particular, a significant challenge is to provide membrane treatment that allows water reuse while completely addressing issues of bacterial contamination. The food industry should leverage experience gained under previous MTDU tests by creating a new initiative to demonstrate the value of membrane technology in providing safe, clean, and cheap water management for the meat and poultry industry.

III. Management of Regulatory and/ or Public Perception Issues  Successful technology deployment depends on adequately resolving regulatory and public perception issues; the best technology will fail if its sponsors do not attend to these issues. Accordingly, the food processing industry should initiate a collaborative issues management program. Such a program would be designed to proactively address issues in regulatory and public perception related to new wastewater reduction and recycling technologies. For example, the program could work to ensure that regulations are developed that allow chiller water recycling while still fully protecting public health.

IV. Information Exchange  To support the above substantive areas for collaboration, efforts to create greater information flow across the industry would also be useful. The food processing industry should establish an industry forum to review and compare best practices in wastewater reduction. This forum might include a national database on experiences with new technologies and techniques of wastewater reduction, an information clearinghouse or networking service, and/ or periodic national conferences or workshops.

Much change is in store for the food processing industry over the next decade, as production processes become more automated and computerized and more oriented towards integrated systems. At the same time, the expectations of customers, government regulators, and the public for both environmental performance and product quality are likely to increase. An active effort to develop and deploy emerging wastewater reduction technologies technologies that reduce wastewater loads, save energy, and insure public health should serve the industry well in responding to these changing conditions.

REFERENCES 1. Nini, D., and P Gimenez Mitsotakis, " Creative Solutions for Bakery Waste Effluent," American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Symposium Series, No. 300, Vol. 90: 95 105.

2. Byers, W., et al., How to Implement Industrial Water Reuse: A Systematic Approach, Center for Waste Reduction Technologies, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, New York, NY, 1995.

3. Airflow Sciences Corporation, " Applications for Process Industries," 1 Watling Drive, Sketchley Business Park, Hinckley, Leics, LE10 3EY, Great Britain 4. Hayes, C., " Fish Processing Case Study: Reduction of Biological Oxygen Demand," Pollution Prevention Report, Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center, Chicago, IL, 1996.

5. Carawan, R. E., " Liquid Assets for Your Bakery," Water Quality and Waste Management Division, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Publication Number CD 41, 1996.

6. " Using Food Processing By Products for Animal Feed," Water Quality and Waste Management Division, North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, Publication Number ( unknown), 1996.

7. " CASE STUDY: Eagle Snacks, Inc.," SIC 2000 Case Studies, North Carolina, 1995.

8. Tsai, S P., " Food Processing Waste Converted to Valuable Chemical Products," Argonne National Laboratory Web Site, http:// www. es. anl. gov/ htmls/ food. process. html.

9. " Membrane Processes," TechCommentary, EPRI Process Industry Coordination Office, 1 ( 2), 1988.

10. Moore, T., " A Separable Feast: Membrane Applications in Food Processing," EPRI Journal, September, 1994: 17 23.

11. Merlo, C. A., W. W. Rose, and N. L. Ewing, " Membrane Filtration Handbook/ Selection Guide: A Guide on Membrane Filtration Technology for the Food Processing Industry," National Food Processors Association, Dublin, CA, August, 1993.

12. Mannapperuma, J. D., et al., " Membrane Applications in Food Processing, Volume 1: Fruit and Vegetable Processing Industry," EPRI Process Industries Offices, Food and Agriculture Office, PIO Report CR 105377 V1, July, 1995.

13. Mannapperuma, J. D., et al., " Membrane Applications in Food Processing, Volume 2: Algin Fiber, Pasta, Dairy, Fruit, and Wine Processing Industries," EPRI Food Technology Center, FTC Report CR 105377 V2, September, 1995.

14. " Improving Poultry Industry Competitiveness: A Collaborative Project," EPRI Food Technology Center Target Summary, CR 105173R2, Food, September 1996.

15. " Comparison Studies Between Conventional Corona Discharge & Plasma ( SED) Reactors for Treatment of Food Processing Waste Water Project," EPRI Food Technology Center Target Summary, CR 105173R2, Food, September 1996.

March 1997 For additional information, contact:

R. J. Philips & Associates, Inc. Systems Manager, Food Manufacturing Coalition P. O. Box 741 Great Falls, Virginia 22066 ( 703) 406 0072 ( phone) ( 703) 406 0114 ( fax) E mail: rphil1140@ aol. com


[Federal Register: July 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 41076-41078]
[DOCID:fr17jy08-69]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130; FRL-8690-3]

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Notice of Data Availability;
Information Concerning the Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in
the United States

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of data availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making available
to the public information concerning the destruction of controlled
ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) in the United States. As a Party to
the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
(Montreal Protocol) and consistent with the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990, the United States regulates the
destruction of ODSs in a manner that prevents (or minimizes) emissions
of the substances into the atmosphere, where they deplete the
stratospheric ozone layer. Regulations governing the destruction of
ODSs in the United States are contained in 40 CFR part 82, subpart A,
and include seven permitted destruction technologies, required
destruction efficiency, and associated recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. In addition to the stratospheric ozone protection
regulations under the CAA, a number of other regulations also govern
the destruction of ODSs in the United States including, but not limited
to, regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
    Today, EPA is making available the draft report Destruction of
Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States, prepared by ICF
International.

The report analyzes ODS destruction practices in the United States and
includes data on the types and quantities of ODSs destroyed in the
United States in previous years, estimates of future destruction
trends, and a review of technologies currently being employed to
destroy ODSs. Because EPA plans to use the technical information when
developing regulations, EPA wants to provide the public with an
opportunity to review the information and submit comments.
Specifically, EPA requests comments on the report's characterization of
current destruction practices and its estimates of types and quantities
of controlled substances available in the future for destruction in the
United States. EPA will only consider comments about the information
presented in Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United
States and is not soliciting comments on any other topic.

DATES: EPA will accept comments on the report through September 15,
2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by EDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2006-0130, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax comments to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Submit comments to Air and Radiation Docket at EPA
West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail Code 6102T,
Washington, DC 20460, and Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to EDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0130. 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 information about EPA's public docket visit
the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/
dockets.htm.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0130, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and
Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is
202-566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirsten M. Cappel, by regular mail:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Stratospheric Protection Division
(6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; by
courier service or overnight express: 1310 L Street, NW., Room 1047C
Washington, DC 20005; by telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or by e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Outline

1. What is today's action?
2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?
3. Where can I get the information?
4. How is this action related to the existing regulations to phase
out ODSs?
5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation
do I need to include in my comments?
6. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

1. What is today's action?

    This notice of data availability (NODA) provides for public review
and comment the report Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the
United States. The report examines data pertaining to the types and
quantities of ODSs destroyed in the United States in previous years,
and estimates the types and quantities available in the future. In
addition, the report presents information about existing technologies
being employed domestically to destroy ODSs. The report also includes a
summary of regulations promulgated under RCRA and the CAA that govern
the destruction of ODSs. The contractor's summary of existing
regulations appears in the report purely to provide context for the
technical information presented and does not represent EPA guidance or
interpretation.

2. What information is EPA making available for review and comment?

    EPA is making available, for review and comment, a draft report
prepared by ICF International under contract to EPA, Destruction of
Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States.

3. Where can I get the information?

    All of the information can be obtained through the Air Docket (see
ADDRESSES section above for docket contact info). In addition, a link
to the report Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United
States will be on the EPA Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/
strathome.html.

4. How is this action related to the existing regulations to phase out
ODSs?

    EPA is considering amending its regulations governing the import of
ODSs listed as either ``Class I'' or ``Class II'' controlled substances
under 40 CFR part 82, subpart A in cases where ODSs are being imported
for destruction. Over the last several years most developed countries
have largely phased out of the most ozone-depleting ODSs, replacing
them with substances that damage the ozone layer less or not at all.
This transition has resulted in substantial quantities of ODSs that may
have reached the end of their usefulness and thus potentially could be
destroyed.
    EPA recognizes that when importers are importing ODSs for
destruction, a set of requirements designed to address this specific
situation may be needed to ensure that the material that enters the
United States is destroyed effectively. The information contained in
the report will assist EPA as it prepares to propose revised
regulations for imports of

controlled ODSs for purposes of destruction in the United States.

5. What is EPA taking comment on and what supporting documentation do I
need to include in my comments?

    EPA is only accepting comments on the accuracy and completeness of
the information outlined in this NODA and contained in the report
Destruction of Ozone-Depleting Substances in the United States.
Specifically, EPA requests comment on topics contained in this report
including but not limited to:
     Current destruction practices, including procedures for
collecting and destroying ODSs;
     ODSs destruction costs, including transportation costs,
capital costs associated with equipment upgrades (i.e., to prevent
corrosion from acid gases), and actual costs of destroying ODSs;
     Estimates of types and quantities of ODSs available in the
future for destruction;
     Capacity of destruction facilities in the United States to
destroy ODSs currently and in the future;
     The extent to which destruction facilities in the United
States and internationally are meeting the technical performance
qualifications recommended by the Ozone Secretariat's Technology and
Economic Assessment Panel (TEAP) in the April 2002 Report of the Task
Force on Destruction Technologies, and whether they are able to
demonstrate that they are meeting those recommendations (i.e.,
providing trial burn data); and
     Types of destruction technologies available
internationally to destroy ODSs.
    EPA requests that commenters provide corrected information or
suggested language, along with the rationale as to why the existing
text was incorrect or incomplete. In addition, please provide any
published studies or raw data supporting your claim. At this time, EPA
is not requesting comments of a general or editorial nature, or
unsubstantiated opinion.

6. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information or data you used that support
your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number In the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.

    Dated: July 7, 2008.
Edward Callahan,
Acting Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of Air and
Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E8-16384 Filed 7-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P