The Mega Site Issue Bruce Means Office of Emergency and Remedial Response June 19, 2001 NACEPT Mega Site Definition

NPL Sites with cleanup costs of $ 50 M or more;

Total removal and remedial action;

Funded by EPA or PRP

112 sites in 1999 Mega Sites in 2002 121 M egasite s a n d 1 6 P oten tial M egasites D ata as o f June 7 , 2002 Trends in NPL Listing 1982 1985 1986 1989 1990 1993 1994 1997 1998 2001 Fiscal Year of Final NPL Listing 0 5 10 15 Percentage of Final Listings Megasites as a Percentage of Final Listings Source: CERCLIS and SNAP databases, M arch 25, 2002 Mega Sites by Activity Type 121 Proposed, Final or Deleted NPL Sites Manufacturing 42.1%

Mining 7.4%

Multiple 5.8%

Other 1.7%

Recycling 6.6%

Waste Management 27.3% Groundwater Plumes 9.1% June 11, 2002 " Multiple" refers to sites where more than one activity caused the site to be placed on the NPL.

" Other" includes military/ ordnance prodcution, dry cleaners, transportation, retail and storage sites. NPL Site Activity Type Total NPL Universe Megasite Universe 0 20 40 60 80 100 Site Type as Percentage of Listings Groundwater Plumes Mining Multiple Recycling Other Waste Management Manufacturing How Do Megasites Compare to Other NPL Sites?

Source: CERCLIS and SNAP databases, May 1, 2002.

" Multiple" refers to sites where more than one activity caused the site to be placed on the NPL.

" Other" includes military/ ordnance production, dry cleaners, transportation, retail and storage sites. Cost of Sediment Cleanups For sediment costs only, data from 108 sites with decisions as of 2001 74 11 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 < 10 10  19 20  29 30  39 50  59 70  79 80  89 90  99 > 100 Cost ($ M)

Percent of Sites Cost of Sediment Cleanups Cost of sediment cleanup for sites with sediment costs < $ 10 M ( draft data for 70 sites as of 2001)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 < 1 1  1.9 2  2,9 3  3.0 4  4.9 5  5.9 6  6.9 7  7.9 8  8.9 9  9.9 Sediment Cost in Millions Percent of Sites (

n =

70) What Makes Mega Sites Different?

Cost?

Site complexity?

Cleanup methods?

Geographic area? Mega Sites Cost More $ 18 $ 132 $ 9 $ 75 Non Mega Sites Mega Sites $ 0 $ 20 $ 40 $ 60 $ 80 $ 100 $ 120 $ 140 Millions Average Total (

Actual plus Projected)

Costs Per Site Construction Complete Not Construction Complete A v e ra g e A c tu a l a n d P ro je c te d C o s ts fo r N o n  F e d e ra l F a c i l ity F u n d L e a d N P L S i t e s Preliminary analysis of average cleanup cost Site Complexity Varies

History, knowledge, number and intensity of the polluting sources);

Nature and extent of contamination;

Proximity of populations / species;

Current use of resources

Complexity of geology / hydrology Cleanup Methods Depend...

On site vs. Off site

Treatment vs. containment

Capacity of waste management facilities

Community concerns ( local vs. regional) Large Geographic Areas

Extensive study areas

Multiple communities

Miles of streams or rivers

Broadly dispersed contaminants ( via activities, air, water, re use of tailings)

Knowledge, management of multiple sources Cost Control Initiatives

Major enforcement reforms

Streamlining reforms

Cost control reforms:

National Remedy Review Board

Remedy Updates The Mega Site Issue

Eighty percent of resources for ongoing construction projects to go to less than 20% of the projects with funding need. Questions for the Committee

Are there characteristics of mega sites that indicate the need for a unique or supplemental decision process for NPL listing? Are there alternatives to placing mega sites on the NPL?

Are there better ways of managing mega site cleanup costs under Superfund?

What other options for cleanup of mega sites exist in Federal, State or other programs?

Are there more meaningful / appropriate descriptors ( other than " cost") that can help us better analyze cleanup program or resource management options?


Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

(FACOSH)

December 1, 2011 Meeting

Briefing Materials PacketTABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I: Meeting Overview

       Tentative
Agenda…………………………………………………………
………………………………………………  1

SECTION II: FACOSH Activities

A: Old Business

FACOSH Meeting Materials for June 7, 2011
………………………………………………….  2

PELs Subcommittee Report and
Recommendations……………………………………….  2

Status of Training Subcommittee
Recommendations……………………………………..  3

Program Updates from the Office of Federal Agency
Programs………………………  4

B:  New Business

Issue Identification and Strategic
Planning……………………………………………………….
 6

SECTION III: Attachments

     Attachment A – Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety
and Health (FACOSH)

                                   Committee Charter

     Attachment B – Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety
and Health (FACOSH)

                                  Member List

     Attachment C – Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety
and Health (FACOSH)

                                  June 7, 2011 Meeting MINUTES

     Attachment D – Recommendations for Consideration by the U.S.
Secretary of Labor on the

                                  Adoption and Use of Occupational
Exposure Limits by Federal Agencies

     Attachment E – Approved Recommendations on Occupational Safety
and Health Training

                                  and Education Requirements for Various
Federal Government Personnel

     Attachment F – The Office of Personnel Management (OPM),
Development of Qualification

                                  Standards

     Attachment G – Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program
(FEDTARG) Summary

                                   Inspection Data, Fiscal Year (FY)
2008-2011

     Attachment H – Federal Agency Training Week (FEDWEEK) 2011 Course
Information

     Attachment I – Field Federal Safety and Health Council (FFSHC)
Directory

     Attachment J – Field Federal Safety and Health Council (FFSHC)
National Office Award

                                 Recipients, Calendar Year (CY) 2010

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

(FACOSH)

December 1, 2011 Meeting

Tentative Agenda

Welcome by FACOSH Chair Dr. David Michaels

Member Introductions

Administrative Items

Old Business

FACOSH Meeting Materials for June 7, 2011

PELs Subcommittee Report and Recommendations

Status of Training Subcommittee Recommendations

Protecting Our Workers and Ensuring Reemployment (POWER) Program Update

Program Updates from the Office of Federal Agency Programs

New Business

Issue Identification and Strategic Planning

Next Meeting

Closing Remarks

SECTION II

FACOSH Activities

A.  Old Business

FACOSH Meeting Materials for June 7, 2011

Meeting materials for the June 7, 2011 FACOSH General Meeting are
available through the   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  website by entering docket number
“OSHA-2011-0061” into the key word search field.  During this
meeting, FACOSH deliberated upon and voted to accept the Training
Subcommittee’s reports and recommendations.  FACOSH also received
briefings on several topics, including initiatives on Distracted
Driving, Prevention of Heat-related Illness, and Indoor Air Quality.
See Attachment C for the meeting minutes from the June 7, 2011 FACOSH
meeting.

Emerging Issues Subcommittee: Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs)

Labor Co-Chair:	William “Chico” McGill

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)

Management Co-Chair:	Donald Bathurst (Resigned position)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Update since the June 7, 2011 FACOSH Meeting:

Members of the PELs Subcommittee have completed their research and their
findings are contained in the report, Recommendations for Consideration
by the U.S. Secretary of Labor on the Adoption and Use of Occupational
Exposure Limits by Federal Agencies.  See Attachment D for the final
report containing the three (3) recommendations.

Required Vote:  FACOSH will deliberate upon and vote to accept or reject
the report and its recommendations.

Training Subcommittee

Labor Co-Chair:	William Kojola

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
(AFL-CIO)

Management Co-Chair:	Dennis Bushta

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Update since the June 7, 2011 FACOSH Meeting:

Secretary Solis has approved the Council’s recommendations and, as a
result, OSHA is working to convene three workgroups to address the
training issues identified by FACOSH as requiring OSHA action (See
Attachment E).  In response, OSHA has reached out to the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), and the OSHA Directorate of Training and
Education to request their participation in workgroup discussions.  OSHA
will be contacting other Federal agencies and departments, trade and
professional organizations, and OSHA Alliance Program participants.
Workgroup participants will: (1) develop a model career management plan
for Federal employees in the GS-0018 job series; (2) develop safety and
health training guidelines for all Federal employees; and (3) assist the
General Services Administration (GSA) in the development of Federal
Buildings Personnel Training Act of 2010 (FBPTA) requirements.

OPM has been advised of FACOSH’s recommendations for improving the
qualifications standard for the Safety and Occupational Health
Management job series.  OPM will review the recommendations which
require its action, and develop an action plan and timeline for
evaluating the GS-0018 job series recommendations.  OPM has provided
Council members with its procedural requirements for evaluating the
qualification standard of a job series (See Attachment F).  To continue
an open dialogue on the subject, OSHA will continue to work with OPM
regarding the Council’s recommendations.  OPM has agreed to provide
the Council with updates on its progress periodically.

Program Updates from the Office of Federal Agency Programs (OFAP)

For detailed information on the individual programs below, please
consult the briefing materials from the June 7, 2011 FACOSH meeting.

FY 2011 Annual Report Request for Federal Agencies

The FY 2011 Annual Report request was sent out to the agencies on August
17, 2011.  As in previous years, the agencies have been asked to submit
their responses by January 1, 2012.  To date, one agency, U. S.
Commission on Civil Rights, has submitted its response.

Similar to last year’s report, the FY 2011 report includes information
on injury and illness rates, fatalities and/or catastrophes, and
employee training.  This year, however, the annual report request seeks
more information on the management of agencies’ OSH programs.  Some of
the new information requested in this year’s report includes:

Information on agencies’ use of social networking in promoting higher
standards of workplace safety and health;

Information on efforts agencies have taken to recognize and address
ergonomic hazards, including any processes each agency has adopted to
reduce ergonomic exposures.

The tools and procedures each agency’s OSH program has in place to
address psychosocial risks.

The risk assessment policies, guidance and checklists that each agency
has in place for teleworkers.

Information on the Occupational Exposure Limits (OELs) each agency uses
for hazardous chemicals and the person within that agency who is
responsible for determining which OELs are used.

Agencies with Certified Safety and Health Committees are required to
complete an additional appendix on this topic.

Federal Agency Targeting Inspection Program (FEDTARG) - FEDTARG12

The FEDTARG 2011 directive is available at the following web address:
HYPERLINK
"http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVE
S&p_id=4695"
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=DIRECTIVES
&p_id=4695 .  Although the 2012 directive has been approved, OFAP is
awaiting the authority to issue the directive to the field.

Attachment G summarizes FEDTARG inspection data from FY 2008 thru FY
2011.  The FEDTARG 2011 program resulted in 130 inspections with 677
total violations (of which 456 were serious violations).  The most
frequently cited violations were for hazards associated with blood-borne
pathogens, electrical safety, fire/egress, hazard communications, and
housekeeping standards.

Federal Agency Training Week (FEDWEEK) 2011

FEDWEEK 2011 was held at the OSHA Training Institute (OTI) in Arlington
Heights, Illinois, from August 2 – 4, 2011.  To enhance the OSH
knowledge and skills of Federal agency personnel, a series of half-day
seminars were offered on topics ranging from distracted driving and
pandemic influenza to ergonomics and fire protection.  A total of 116
Federal employees, representing 35 Federal agencies, attended the
three-day event.  Attachment H provides information on course attendance
and overall agency participation in the FEDWEEK event.

Field Federal Safety and Health Councils (FFSHCs)

Currently, there are 38 active FFSHCs operating across the country (See
Attachment I for the complete list of FFSHC locations).  Federal agency
personnel interested in participating in or establishing a FFSHC should
contact the Federal Agency Program Officer in their Region.

FFSHC Awards

This year, the National Office awarded 11 FFSHCs for their efforts in
promoting improvements in Federal workplace safety and health programs
during Calendar Year 2010 (See Attachment J).

The Secretary of Labor’s Report to the President on Federal Department
and Agency Occupational Safety and Health Program Activity

According to data from OPM, in FY 2010, the total Federal civilian
workforce (less the US Postal Service, USPS) increased by 6.9% from
2,045,142 to 2,185,568 employees.  OSHA statistics demonstrated that
total injury and illness cases for FY 2010 increased approximately 3.4%
(from 65,767 to 67,996); but, due to the increase in employment, there
was a 3.4% decrease in the total case rate.  At the same time, the
number of lost time cases increased by 5.1% (from 30,360 to 31,915),
representing a 1.4% decrease in the lost time case rate.  Agencies
reported that a total of 53 Federal civilian workforce fatalities
occurred during FY 2010.  Per the Office of Workers Compensation
Programs, workers compensation costs for all of the Federal Government
(less the USPS) were nearly $1.6 billion in chargeback year (CBY) 2010,
a 1.1% decrease compared to CBY 2009.

In FY 2010, OFAP engaged in a wide range of activities to assist Federal
agencies in improving their OSH programs, including the compilation of
agencies’ annual reports into a large summary report to the President
that describes the agencies’ OSH-related activities during the fiscal
year.  This year’s report was sent to the President and will be
provided to Executive Branch agencies as well as being available on
OSHA’s website.

SECTION II

FACOSH Activities

B.  New Business

Issue Identification and Strategic Planning

An issue identification and strategic planning session will be conducted
during the meeting.  FACOSH members will discuss the OSH issues
affecting Federal agency operations or workers.  As part of this
discussion, members should identify unresolved existing issues and
possible emerging issues impacting Federal agency workplaces.  To
develop a strategic plan for the Council, FACOSH members should consider
the following question:  What OSH related issues would you like to see
FACOSH address?

 PAGE   ii

i

 PAGE   1


Storage Pond Design ( CAFO Cost Report p. 5 53 65)

Steps to design storage ponds:

1) Determine necessary pond volume.

Pond Volume = Sludge Volume + Runoff + Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard Design Storm 25 year, 24 hour event Avg. Precipitation wettest 6 month period of the past 25 years Pond Volume 180 days of storage Freeboard 1 foot minimum Sludge Volume ( cf) = Sludge Accumulation x Runoff Solids Runoff Solids ( lb)= total runoff volume ( cf) x Density of Water ( 62.4 lb/ cf) x 1.5% ( solids)

Net Precipitation = Avg. 6 month Precipitation  ( Annual Evaporation/ 2)

Runoff ( cf) = 0.4 x Avg. Precipitation ( ft) x composting area ( sq. ft)

Design Storm Runoff ( cf) = ( Precipitation ( ft)  0.042) x composting area ( sq. ft)

2) Calculate dimensions and configuration of pond.

Pond Volume ( square structure) = 0.5 Height x ( Base Area + Top Area + ( Base Area x Top Area)^ 0.5)

Cost Model will calculate the dimensions of the basin that yield the desired volume.

Dimensions needed for Cost Calculations:

Base Length Base Width Top Length Top Width Height Total Volume of Excavated Soil Surface Area of Each Basin Face Volume of Soil Used in Embankments/ Berms 3) Calculate and sum the capital and O& M costs for constructing the storage pond.

Capital Costs = mobilization + excavation + compaction + conveyance see Table 5.5.3 1 in the " Assumptions" worksheet for unit costs Annual O& M Costs = 5% x Capital Cost 4) Calculate the capital and O& M costs for solids separation in wet layer farms. ( Cost Report Section 5.7)

Capital Costs = 6 months of solids volume x safety factor x storage tank cost) + separator device + ( pipe length x pipe cost) + ( installation labor x labor rate)

Annual O& M Costs = 2% x capital cost 5) Annualize storage pond and solids separation costs for each animal sector.

6) Convert Annual Storage Pond Cost to a " per ton of manure" basis which can be added to the Poultry Composting Report Table 15 costs per ton of manure. Convert 1997$

The final costs of composting with runoff storage ponds will be incorportated into ERG's CAFO cost database and applied to the model farms developed for all CAFO Option calculations. 7$ to 2001$ Assumptions:

Variable Assumption Value Unit Notes Wet Layer Storage Ponds Wet layer operations already have storage ponds in place and do not need to be costed for additional storage for compost runoff.

Wet layer waste needs to undergo solids separation before composting. Solids separation costs were not originally included in the composting costs from the Poultry Composting Report.

Therefore, solids separation costs are calculated in this spreadsheet and included in the final composting cost for wet layers.

Costs and characteristics for wet layer waste solids separation are comparable to swine costs. Layer solids separation was not costed in the original Cost Report.) The Poultry Composting Report ( p. 6) describes a solids separation step with the same separator efficiency ( 30%) and final solids content ( 23%) for wet layers as the swine conditions set in the Cost Report ( p. 5 75)

Wet Layer manure moisture content 75% Poultry Composting Report p. 6 Wet Layer solids separator efficiency 30% Poultry Composting Report p. 6 Sludge Accumulation

Layer 0.0295 cf/ lb Sludge Accumulation

Broiler 0.455 cf/ lb Sludge Accumulation

Turkey There is no NRCS data for turkey sludge accumulation, so it is assumed that turkey compost has the same sludge accumulation rate as broilers since similar manure management practices are used for both. 0.455 cf/ lb Proportion of Runoff that is solids 1.5% Cost Report p. 4 77. The mixed compost material has about 60% moisture content. Dairy cattle manure has about 88%

moisture content. Using the cattle proportion of solids in runoff for poultry composting operations will underestimate the solids content in runoff,

lowering the amount of necessary sludge storage. This is a conservative estimate for CAFO costs.

Amount of Precipitation that will Runoff 40.0% Cost Report p. 4 74. This estimate assumes that the drylots are 20% paved. Our poultry composting model uses unpaved composting area which will have less runoff and decrease the storage pond size.

So this estimate is aggressive in that it will result in slightly higher CAFO costs to build storage ponds.

Wet Layer Solids Separation poultry composting area runoff has the same characteristics as dairy cattle feedlot runoff. Natural Resources Conservation Service's Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook,

1992. From web page < http:// ianrpubs. unl. edu/ wastemg t/ g1371. htm> 11/ 15/ 05 ( same source used in the Cost Report p. 5 57)

Sludge accumulation ratio for animal manure compost is the same as it would be for plain manure for that animal. Pond Volume needs 180 days ( 6 months) of storage capacity Cost Report p. 5 57 Height of embankment around each storage pond 3 feet Width of embankment base around each storage pond 6 feet Type of Compost Ammendment used throughout Industry Industry would use the cheaper ammendment assuming that all compost ammendments are equally available. Lacking data to show the availablility of different compost ammendments, ERG selected the less expensive composting option by ammendment ( sawdust) to calculate the final annual cost for each industry sector. ( See " Input to Database"

worksheet.)

Layer Wet Manure Weight The Poultry Composting Report gives annual wet manure production in gallons, which we want to convert to pounds. USDA data source suggests that wet layers produce 60.5 pounds of manure, which is equivalent to 0.93 cubic feet, per day per 1000 pounds of live animal weight. This weight to volume ratio was adjusted to a " pounds per gallon" conversion factor. 8.696423215 pounds/ gallon Ag Waste Management Field Handbook. USDA. 1996.

Chapter 4, p. 414.

Precipitation Estimates Region Wettest 6 Month Precipitation ( in) 25 Year, 24 Hour Precipitation ( in) 10 year, 1 Hour Precipitation ( in) 10 year, 10 day Precipitation ( in) Annual Evaporation ( in)

Central 6.65 4 1 7 49 Mid Atlantic 21.52 5.4 2.1 9 32 Midwest 11.2 5 2 7 36 Pacific 23.25 10 1.6 6 37 South 25.59 8 3 12 45 ( data from Table 4.7.1 1 and ERG Beef/ Dairy Cost Model < Precipitation Tables> THESE ARE ESTIMATES FOR " ALL ANIMAL GROUPS")

Storage Pond Unit Costs Unit Cost ( 1997 dollars) per Source Mobilization $ 205.00 event Means 1999 ( 022 274 0020) a Excavation $ 2.02 cubic yard Means 1999 ( 022 238 0200) a Compaction $ 0.41 cubic yard Means 1996 ( 022 226 5720) a Conveyance $ 7,644.00 event ERG, 2000c ( data from Table 5.5.3 1)

Poultry Composting Report Model Farms Sector Region # Head Manure Produced per Year ( tons) Manure Ammendments Compost Mix Volume ( cu yd) Windrow Length ( ft) Windrow Area ( acres) Windrow Area ( sq ft) Total Annualized Cost per Incoming Manure ( 1997$/ ton)

Layer: Wet South 3,654 149 wheat straw & sawdust 550 619 0.0928 4,042 $ 36.51 Layer: Wet Sawdust South 3,654 149 sawdust 402 453 0.0715 3,115 $ 18.63 Layer: Dry South 884,291 6,838 wheat straw 142,727 190,608 24.0815 1,048,990 $ 229.79 Layer: Dry Sawdust South 884,291 6,838 sawdust 65,100 88,561 11.195 487,654 $ 49.30 Broiler Mid Atlantic 36,796 587 wheat straw 5,632 7,841 1.0045 43,756 $ 91.65 Broiler Sawdust Mid Atlantic 36,796 587 sawdust 2,781 4,093 0.5306 23,113 $ 19.81 Turkey Mid West 158,365 9,691 wheat straw 61,758 84,666 10.7043 466,279 $ 46.34 Turkey Sawdust Mid West 158,365 9,691 sawdust 40,266 56,455 7.1424 311,123 $ 11.05 ( From Poultry Composting Report Tables 2, 4, 6, & 15)

Embankment dimensions ( around the storage ponds) are the same as typical " berm" dimensions that are used to contain stromwater runoff. Cost Report p. 5 19 Storage Pond Cost Calculations:

1) Determine necessary pond volume.

Cost Report page p. 5 57 p. 4 74 p. 4 75 Variable Runoff Solids ( lb) Sludge Volume ( cf) Regular Runoff ( cf) Design Storm Runoff ( cf)

Equation total runoff volume ( cf) x Density of Water ( 62.4 lb/ cf) x % solids Sludge Accumulation x Runoff Solids % Runoff from Composting Area x Avg. 6 month Precipitation ( ft) x composting area ( sq. ft) ( Precipitation ( ft)  0.5) x composting area ( sq. ft) Layer: Dry 1,450,854 42,800 894,789 655,269 Layer: Dry Sawdust 674,473 19,897 415,969 304,621 Broiler 46,089 20,970 31,388 17,852 Broiler Sawdust 24,345 11,077 16,580 9,430 Turkey 326,455 148,537 174,078 174,699 Turkey Sawdust 217,826 99,111 116,153 116,567 2) Calculate dimensions and configuration of pond.

Dimensions needed for Cost Calculations Sector Total Pond Volume ( cu ft) Height/ Depth ( ft) Slope Base Length & Width ( ft) Layer: Dry 1,962,953 10 2 423 Layer: Dry Sawdust 919,073 10 2 283 Broiler 91,554 10 2 75 Broiler Sawdust 49,726 10 2 50 Turkey 551,652 10 2 215 Turkey Sawdust 369,221 10 2 172 3) Calculate and sum the capital and O& M costs for constructing the storage pond. Capital Costs = mobilization + excavation + compaction + conveyance Annual O& M Costs = 5% x Capital Cost ( excluding conveyance)

Cost of Storage Pond for Each Model Farm ( 1997$) Sector Conveyance Mobilization Excavation Compaction Layer: Dry $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 462,603 $ 10,685 Layer: Dry Sawdust $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 216,595 $ 5,435 Broiler $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 21,576 $ 931 Broiler Sawdust $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 11,719 $ 651 Turkey $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 130,006 $ 3,520 Turkey Sawdust $ 7,644 $ 205 $ 87,013 $ 2,538 4) Calculate the capital and O& M costs for solids separation in wet layer model farms.

6 mo. solids volume= ( annual manure generation ( gallons) * % solids of manure * % efficiency of separation = 1,287 gallons Capital Costs = 6 months of solids volume x safety factor x storage tank cost) + separator device + ( p = $ 28,839.00 Annual O& M Costs = 2% x capital cost = $ 576.78 5) Calculate Annualized Cost Annualization of Storage Pond or Solids Separation Costs 1 2 3 4 Layer: Wet $ 29,127 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 Layer: Wet Sawdust $ 29,127 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 Layer: Dry $ 492,974 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 Layer: Dry Sawdust $ 235,435 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 Broiler $ 30,924 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 Broiler Sawdust $ 20,533 $ 629 $ 629 $ 629 Turkey $ 144,718 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 Turkey Sawdust $ 99,644 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 6) Convert Annual Storage Pond Cost to a " per ton of manure" and Add to T T Memo C 1997$ 2001$

Sector Manure Produced per Year ( tons) Annual Cost of Pond or Solids Separation per Ton Manure ($/ ton) Total Cost of Composting with Runoff Storage Pond ( 1997$/ ton) Total Cost of Composting with Runoff Storage Pond ( 2001$/ ton) Layer: Wet 149 $ 27.58 $ 64.09 $ 69.20 Layer: Wet Sawdust 149 $ 27.58 $ 46.21 $ 49.89 Sector Layer: Dry 6,838 $ 11.91 $ 241.70 $ 260.98 Layer: Dry Sawdust 6,838 $ 5.66 $ 54.96 $ 59.35 Broiler 587 $ 8.20 $ 99.85 $ 107.81 Broiler Sawdust 587 $ 5.26 $ 25.07 $ 27.07 Turkey 9,691 $ 2.44 $ 48.78 $ 52.68 Turkey Sawdust 9,691 $ 1.67 $ 12.72 $ 13.74 p. 4 72 p. 5 59 Net Precipitation ( ft) Design Storm Precipitation ( ft) Pond Volume for Runoff and Sludge Only Volume of Freeboard + Net Precipitation + Design Storm Precipitation ( cf)

Avg. 6 month Precipitation  ( Annual Evaporation/ 2) < feet of precipitation that will fall into the pond> Sludge Volume + Runoff + Design Storm Runoff ( Pond Top Area ( sq ft) x 1 ft) + ( Pond Top Area x Net Precipitation) + ( Pond Top Area x Design Storm Precipitation) 0.258 0.667 1,592,858 370,095 0.258 0.667 740,487 178,585 0.460 0.450 70,210 21,344 0.460 0.450 37,087 12,639  0.567 0.417 497,314 54,338  0.567 0.417 331,831 37,390 Depth ( all) = 9 ft Slope ( all) = 2 Top Length and Width ( ft) Layer: Dry 439 Layer: Dry Sawdust 305 Broiler 106 Broiler Sawdust 81 Turkey 253 Turkey Sawdust 210 p. 5 62 p. 5 61 Top Length & Width ( ft) Surface Area of Basin ( sq ft) Volume of Embankment ( cu ft) Total Volume of Excavated Soil ( cu ft) 463 196,562 37,980 2,061,101 323 92,174 27,134 965,026 115 9,422 11,019 96,132 90 5,239 9,050 52,212 255 55,432 21,837 579,235 212 37,189 18,522 387,682 Pond Dimensions without Freeboard ( calculated using the Cost Model method) Capital Cost O& M $ 481,136 $ 23,675 $ 229,879 $ 11,112 $ 30,357 $ 1,136 $ 20,219 $ 629 $ 141,375 $ 6,687 $ 97,400 $ 4,488 s.

tion)/ 2 ( pipe length x pipe cost) + ( installation labor x labor rate)

5 6 7 8 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 577 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 629 $ 629 $ 629 $ 629 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 o Costs. Convert to final cost to 2001$. Year Total Pond Volume ( cu ft)

Sludge Volume + Runoff + Net Precipitation + Design Storm + Freeboard 1,962,953 919,073 91,554 49,726 551,652 369,221 9 10 11 $ 577 $ 577 $ 288 $ 30,871 $ 4,117 $ 577 $ 577 $ 288 $ 30,871 $ 4,117 $ 23,675 $ 23,675 $ 11,837 $ 610,502 $ 81,415 $ 11,112 $ 11,112 $ 5,556 $ 290,332 $ 38,718 $ 1,136 $ 1,136 $ 568 $ 36,086 $ 4,812 $ 629 $ 629 $ 314 $ 23,167 $ 3,090 $ 6,687 $ 6,687 $ 3,343 $ 177,554 $ 23,678 $ 4,488 $ 4,488 $ 2,244 $ 121,517 $ 16,205 Annualized Cost ( 1997$) Net Present Value For volumes > 9,216 cubic feet, the length and side slope are: ( from Table 5.4.5 3 in Cost Model Report)

Lagoon Sizing Equations 1. Tetra Tech Equations ( pg 5 49) W lagoon bottom = [( 2( h^ 2)* s)+ (( 4*( h^ 4))* s^ 2)) 4* h*(( 4/ 3)*( h^ 3)*( s^ 3) Vo W lagoon bottom = L lagoon bottom W lagoon top = W lagoon bottom +( 2* s* depth) L lagoon top = L lagoon bottom +( 2* s* depth)

Where W lagoon bottom = width of bottom of lagoon, ft W lagoon top = width of top of lagoon, ft L lagoon bottom = length of bottom of lagoon, ft L lagoon top = length of top of lagoon, ft s = slope of sidewalls, ft h = depth of lagoon, ft 2. Frustrum Equation ( pg 5 46) Volume = ( 1/ 3) * h * ( ab+ cd+( abcd^( 1/ 2)))

Where h = Height a = b = Length and width of lagoon top c = d = Length and width of lagoon bottom L and W calculated using Equation 1 and checked with Equation 2 from Volume worksheet Check of Volume with equation 2 ( fulstrum eqn)

Volume Storage, ft3 L and W lagoon bottom, ft L and W lagoon top, ft Volume Calculated from bottom L and W, ft3 Layer: Dry 1,592,858 402.5665 439 1,592,858 Layer: Dry Sawdust 740,487 268.6503 305 740,487 Broiler 70,210 69.7107 106 70,210 Broiler Sawdust 37,087 45.3463 81 37,087 Turkey 497,314 216.8385 253 497,314 Turkey Sawdust 331,831 173.7344 210 331,831 scenario equation 1 ( Tetra Tech) Depth Slope 9 2 Volume storage))^ 0.5]/ 2h For volumes > 9,216 cubic feet, the length and side slope are: ( from Table 5.4.5 3 in Cost Model Report)

Lagoon Sizing Equations 1. Tetra Tech Equations ( pg 5 49) W lagoon bottom = [( 2( h^ 2)* s)+ (( 4*( h^ 4))* s^ 2)) 4* h*(( 4/ 3)*( h^ 3)*( s^ 3) Vo W lagoon bottom = L lagoon bottom W lagoon top = W lagoon bottom +( 2* s* depth) L lagoon top = L lagoon bottom +( 2* s* depth)

Where W lagoon bottom = width of bottom of lagoon, ft W lagoon top = width of top of lagoon, ft L lagoon bottom = length of bottom of lagoon, ft L lagoon top = length of top of lagoon, ft s = slope of sidewalls, ft h = depth of lagoon, ft 2. Frustrum Equation ( pg 5 46) Volume = ( 1/ 3) * h * ( ab+ cd+( abcd^( 1/ 2)))

Where h = Height a = b = Length and width of lagoon top c = d = Length and width of lagoon bottom L and W calculated using Equation 1 and checked with Equation 2 from Volume worksheet Check of Volume with equation 2 ( fulstrum eqn)

Volume Storage, ft3 L and W lagoon bottom, ft L and W lagoon top, ft Volume Calculated from bottom L and W, ft3 Layer: Dry 1,962,953 422.9018 463 1,962,953 Layer: Dry Sawdust 919,073 282.9421 323 919,073 Broiler 91,554 74.9847 115 91,554 Broiler Sawdust 49,726 49.5646 90 49,726 Turkey 551,652 214.5888 255 551,652 Turkey Sawdust 369,221 171.8040 212 369,221 scenario equation 1 ( Tetra Tech) Depth Slope 10 2 Volume storage))^ 0.5]/ 2h Sector Region # Head Manure Produced per Year ( tons) Layer: Wet South 3,654 149 Layer: Dry South 884,291 6,838 Broiler Mid Atlantic 36,796 587 Turkey Mid West 158,365 9,691 Total Cost of Composting with Runoff Storage Pond ( 2001$/ ton) $ 49.89 $ 59.35 $ 27.07 $ 13.74


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27877-27879]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09376]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP23-163-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, LP; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on April 18, 2023, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
(Texas Eastern), 915 North Eldridge Parkway, Suite 1000, Houston, Texas
77079, filed a prior notice request in accordance with 18 CFR 157.205
and 157.216 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations under the Natural Gas Act and Texas Eastern's blanket
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-535-000. Texas Eastern requests
authorization to: (1) abandon in-place approximately 5.3 miles of its
12-inch-diameter Line 14-K, (2) abandon by removal the related meter
and regulating station 72258, and (3) abandon by removal related
ancillary facilities, all located in Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana.
Texas Eastern states the facilities to be abandoned have not been used
to provide service in over a decade.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (www.ferc.gov/) using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room. For assistance,

contact the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions concerning this application should be directed to
Estela D. Lozano, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP,
P.O. Box 1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by email to [email protected].
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure,\1\ within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will
either: complete its environmental review and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or environmental
assessment (EA) for this proposal. The filing of an EA in the
Commission's public record for this proceeding or the issuance of a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review will serve to notify
federal and state agencies of the timing for the completion of all
necessary reviews, and the subsequent need to complete all federal
authorizations within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's FEIS or EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 157.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 26, 2023. How
to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\2\ any person \3\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \3\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\4\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is June 26, 2023. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the protestor states it also seeks
to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \5\ and the regulations under the NGA \6\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is June 26, 2023. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/how-intervene.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \6\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before June 26, 2023. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP23-163-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP23-163-000.
    To mail via USPS, use the following address: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    To mail via any other courier, use the following address: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: Estela D.
Lozano, Director, Regulatory, Texas Eastern Transmission, LP, P.O. Box
1642, Houston, Texas 77251-1642, or by email to
[email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by an

intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: April 27, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-09376 Filed 5-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 38857]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12736]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas & Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-836-000.
    Applicants: Southeast Supply Header, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Duke Energy FL K840007
Termination Cleanup to be effective 7/8/2023.
    Filed Date: 6/8/23.
    Accession Number: 20230608-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 pm ET 6/20/23.

    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.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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: June 8, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-12736 Filed 6-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P