Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion, 49187-49193 [05-16688]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ANE MA D Worcester, MA [Revised]
Worcester Regional Airport, MA
(Lat. 42°16′02″ N, long. 71°52′32″ W)
Spencer Airport, MA
(Lat. 42°17′26″ N, long. 71°57′53″ W)
That airspace extending upward from the
surface to and including 3,500 feet MSL
within a 4.2-mile radius of Worcester
Regional Airport, excluding that airspace
from the surface up to but not including
1,900 feet MSL within a 1-mile radius of the
Spencer Airport. This Class D airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and
times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the
Airport/Facility Directory.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in Jamaica, New York, on August
17, 2005.
John G. McCartney,
Acting Area Director, Eastern Terminal
Operations.
[FR Doc. 05–16740 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
History
On June 8, 2005, the FAA proposed to
amend part 71 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) by
establishing Class E airspace at Marion,
KY, (70 FR 33403). This action provides
adequate Class E airspace for IFR
operations at Marion-Crittenden County
Airport. Designations for Class E
airspace areas extending upward from
700 feet or more above the surface of the
earth are published in FAA Order
7400.9M, dated August 30, 2004, and
effective September 16, 2004, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR
part 71.1. The Class E designations
listed in this document will be
published subsequently in this Order.
Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal
were received.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
The Rule
Federal Aviation Administration
This amendment to part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR
part 71) establishes Class E airspace at
Marion, KY.
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.
14 CFR Part 71
[Docket No. FAA–2005–21226; Airspace
Docket No. 05–ASO–8]
Establishment of Class E Airspace;
Marion, KY
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action establishes Class
E airspace at Marion, KY. Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning
System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAP) Runway
(RWY) 7 and RWY 25 have been
developed for Marion-Crittenden
County Airport. As a result, controlled
airspace extending upward from 700
feet Above Ground Level (AGL) is
needed to contain the SIAPs and for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
at Marion-Crittenden County Airport.
The operating status of the airport will
change from Visual Flight Rules (VFR)
to include IFR operations concurrent
with the publication of the SIAP.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC, October 27,
2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark D. Ward, Manager, Airspace and
Operations Branch, Eastern En Route
and Oceanic Service Area, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305–5586.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (Air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as
follows:
I
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49187
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;
AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING
POINTS
1. The authority citation for Part 71
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,
40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–
1963 Comp., p. 389.
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14
CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9L, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points,
dated September 2, 2003, and effective
September 16, 2003, is amended as
follows:
I
Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas
Extending Upward from 700 feet or More
Above the Surface of the Earth.
*
*
*
*
*
ASO KY E5 Marion, KY [NEW]
Marion-Crittenden County Airport, KY
(Lat. 37°20′04″ N, long. 88°06′54″ W)
That airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface within a 6.7—radius of
Marion-Crittenden County Airport; excluding
that airspace within the Sturgis, KY, Class E
airspace area.
*
*
*
*
*
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 29,
2005.
Mark D. Ward,
Acting Area Director, Air Traffic Division,
Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 05–16746 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW–FRL–7957–6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting petitions
submitted by Shell Oil Company (Shell
Oil Company) to exclude (or delist)
certain wastes generated by its Houston,
TX Deer Park facility from the lists of
hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to petitions submitted by Shell
Oil Company to delist F039 and F037
wastes. The F039 waste is generated
from the refinery wastewater treatment
plant, North Effluent Treater (NET) and
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
49188
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
primary solids from Shell Chemical and
the South Effluent Treatment (SET). The
F037 waste North Pond Sludge is
generated from the process wastewater,
gravel and road base that has settled
from storm water flow to the pond.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the
petitioned wastes are not hazardous
waste. The F039 exclusion applies to
3.36 million gallons per year (16,619
cubic yards) of multi-source landfill
leachate. The F037 exclusion is a one
time exclusion for 15,000 cubic yards of
the sludge. Accordingly, this final rule
excludes the petitioned wastes from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from
9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
(214) 665–6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is F–
04–TEXDEL–Shell Oil. The public may
copy material from any regulatory
docket at no cost for the first 100 pages
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for
additional copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD–C),
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Michelle
Peace, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, at (214) 665–7430, or
peace.michelle@epa.gov.
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Shell Oil Company manage
the wastes, if they are delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator
supply?
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Shell Oil Company
petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did Shell Oil
Company propose to delist?
A. How did Shell Oil Company sample and
analyze the waste data in these petitions?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusions
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rules?
B. Where were the comments and what are
EPA’s responses to them?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petitions for Shell
Oil Company, EPA proposed, on
December 28, 2004 and February 9,
2005, respectively, to exclude the
wastes from the lists of hazardous waste
under § 261.31. EPA is finalizing:
(1) The decision to grant Shell Oil
Company’s delisting petition to have its
F039 multi-source landfill leachate
underlying the Minimum Technology
Requirements (MTR) hazardous waste
landfill excluded, or delisted, from the
definition of a hazardous waste; and
subject to certain verification and
monitoring conditions; and
(2) The decision to grant Shell Oil
Company’s delisting petition to have its
North Pond F037 sludge excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, once it is disposed in
a Subtitle D landfill.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Shell Oil Company’s petitions request
a delisting from the F039 and F037
wastes listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22. Shell Oil Company does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria for which EPA listed it.
Shell Oil Company also believes no
additional constituents or factors could
cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA’s
review of these petitions included
consideration of the original listing
criteria, and the additional factors
required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
See section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)–(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are
to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).
In making the final delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned wastes against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the wastes are nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA
evaluated the wastes with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the wastes to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the wastes are
acutely toxic, the concentrations of the
constituents in the wastes, their
tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the
environment once released from the
waste, plausible and specific types of
management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of waste generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the
petitioned wastes do not meet the listing
criteria and thus should not be listed
wastes. EPA’s final decision to delist
wastes from Shell Oil Company’s
facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the wastes and
analytical data from the Deer Park, TX
facility.
C. What Are the Limits of This
Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the Shell Oil Company
petitions only if the requirements
described in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix
IX, Table 1 and the conditions
contained herein are satisfied.
D. How Will Shell Oil Company Manage
the Wastes, If They Are Delisted?
If the multi-source landfill leachate is
delisted, Shell Oil Company will make
piping modifications to allow the
leachate to be routed to the North
Effluent Treater (NET) for treatment.
After its treatment, the multi-source
landfill leachate will be discharged
through a TPDES-permitted outfall in
compliance with its TPDES permit. If
F037 North Pond Sludge is delisted,
Shell Oil Company will dispose of it in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted,
licensed, or registered by a state to
manage industrial waste.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
This rule is effective August 23, 2005.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allow rules to become effective in less
than six months after the rule is
published when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is
the case here because this rule reduces,
rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under
the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect
States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion
under the Federal RCRA delisting
program, only states subject to Federal
RCRA delisting provisions would be
affected. This would exclude states
which have received authorization from
EPA to make their own delisting
decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that
are more stringent than EPA’s, under
section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929.
These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system
(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and State
(non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a
petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners
to contact the State regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes
under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some states
(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA
delisting program in place of the Federal
program, that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion
does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule
part of its authorized program. If Shell
Oil Company transports the petitioned
waste to or manages the waste in any
state with delisting authorization, Shell
Oil Company must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it
can manage the waste as nonhazardous
in the state.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to EPA or another agency
with jurisdiction to exclude or delist,
from the RCRA list of hazardous waste,
waste the generator believes should not
be considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To
Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
facilities may petition EPA to remove
their wastes from hazardous waste
regulation by excluding them from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
§ 260.20 allows any person to petition
the Administrator to modify or revoke
any provision of 40 CFR parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from a particular generating
facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the
Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe
that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste and that
such factors do not warrant retaining the
waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Wastes Did Shell Oil Company
Petition EPA To Delist?
On January 29, 2003, Shell Oil
Company petitioned EPA to exclude
from the lists of hazardous waste
contained in § 261.31, multi-source
landfill leachate (F039) generated from
its facility located in Deer Park, TX.
Then on December 30, 2003, Shell Oil
Company petitioned EPA to exclude
from the lists of hazardous waste
contained in §§ 261.31 and 261.32, F037
North Pond Sludge.
B. How Much Waste Did Shell Oil
Company Propose To Delist?
Shell Oil Company requested that
EPA grant an exclusion for 3.36 million
gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per year of the
multi-source landfill leachate in its
January 29, 2003 petition. In the
December 30, 2003 petition, Shell Oil
Company requested that EPA grant a
one time exclusion for 15,000 cubic
yards of the F037 North Pond Sludge.
C. How Did Shell Oil Company Sample
and Analyze the Waste Data in These
Petitions?
To support its petitions, Shell Oil
Company submitted:
(1) Historical information on past
waste generation and management
practices including analytical data from
eleven samples collected in September
2003 for the F037 North Pond Sludge
and four samples of combined leachate
data for the F039 multi-source landfill
leachate;
(2) Results of the total constituent list
for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX
volatiles, semivolatiles, metals,
pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and PCBs
for the F037 North Pond Sludge and the
F039 multi-source landfill leachate;
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
49189
(3) Results of the constituent list for
40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX on
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals for the F037
North Pond Sludge and the F039 multisource landfill leachate;
(4) Analytical constituents of concern
for F037 and F039;
(5) Results from total oil and grease
analyses;
(6) Multiple pH testing for the
petitioned wastes.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rules?
No comments were received on the
proposed rule for the F037 wastes.
Comments were submitted by Shell
Deer Park Refining Company (Shell) to
correct information contained in the
proposed rule for F039.
B. What Were the Comments and What
Are EPA’s Responses to Them?
Shell noted that Chloronated Plate
Interceptor should be Corrugated Plate
Interceptor. EPA has noted this and
made appropriate changes in the final
rule and exclusion language to reflect
this change.
Shell noted that: (1) the compound pcresol (4-methlyphenol) should be
added to Table I; and (2) the compound
trichloropropane should be deleted from
Table I as this constituent was not
detected in any of the samples above the
reporting level.
The compound p-cresol (4methlyphenol) appears in Table 1.—
Waste Excluded From the Non-Specific
Sources as ‘‘Cresol, p.’’ EPA has made
the appropriate change to read p-Cresol.
The compound trichloropropane
estimated value of 0.00025 mg/l was
reported in the revised analyses on
October 11, 2004, Combined Leachate
Data, and thus it will not be deleted.
Shell requested: (1) that the following
constituents be deleted from Table 1—
Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific
Sources in the exclusion language to be
consistent with Table I in Section III. D
in the preamble of the proposed rule:
Thallium, Acrylonitrile, Bis (2chlorethyl) ether, Bis (2-ethylhexyl)
phthlate, Dichlorobenzene 1,3,
Dimethoate, Dimethylphenol 2,4,
Dinitrophenol, Dinitrotoluene 2,6,
Diphenylhydrazine, Dichloroethylene
1,1, Kepone, Methacrylonitrile,
Methanol, Nitrobenzene,
Nitrosodiethylamine,
Nitrosodimethylamine, Nitrosodi-nbutylamine, N-Nitrodi-n-propylamine,
N-Nitrosopiperdine, N-
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
49190
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Nitrosopyrrolidine, NNitrosomethylethylamine, PCBs,
Pentachlorophenol, Pyridine,
Trichloropropane, Vinyl Chloride; and
(2) that the compound phenanthrene
should be added with a delisting level
of 1.36 mg/L to be consistent with Table
I in Section III. D.
EPA has made the deletions as
prescribed. EPA has added the
compound phenanthrene with a
delisting level of 1.36 mg/L to Table 1.—
Waste Excluded From Non-Specific
Sources. EPA also added compounds
toluene, fluorene, and vanadium
because they were inadvertently left off
of Table 1—Wastes Excluded from NonSpecific Sources.
Shell noted that in the exclusion
language paragraph (3)(A)(i) of Table
1—Waste Excluded from Non-Specific
Sources, the number of samples to be
collected within the first 60 days should
be changed from eight to four. Also in
paragraph (3)(B) for subsequent
verification sampling, Shell Oil
Company requested that the number of
samples per quarter be changed from
two to one. Previous discussions
between EPA and Shell Oil Company
were based on two different waste
streams. Since this is one stream, EPA
will allow the changes in the number of
samples collected and the number of
samples taken per quarter.
In addition, on October 30, 2002, (67
FR 66251), EPA proposed the Methods
Innovation Rule to remove from the
regulations unnecessary requirements
other than those considered to be
Method Defined Parameters (MDP). An
MDP is a method that, by definition or
design, is the only one capable of
measuring the particular property (e.g.
Method 1311–TCLP). Therefore, EPA is
no longer generally requiring the use of
only SW–846 methods for regulatory
applications other than those involving
MDPs. The general purpose of this rule
is to allow more flexibility when
conducting RCRA-related sampling and
analysis activities. We retained only
those methods considered to be MDPs
in the regulations and incorporate them
by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. EPA is
changing Shell’s delisting exclusion
language found in paragraph (3) of the
F039 exclusion language to reflect the
generic language placed in all delisting
exclusions as a result of the Methods
Innovation Rule (70 FR 34537) which
was finalized on June 14, 2005.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA). Because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203
of UMRA. Because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, this final rule
does not have federalism implications.
It will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. Similarly,
because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this final rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used the DRAS program, which
considers health and safety risks to
infants and children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. The Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report which includes a copy of the
rule to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules
(1) rules of particular applicability; (2)
rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that
do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties 5
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding today’s
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f)
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, Region 6.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
40 CFR part 261 is to be amended as
follows:
I
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for Part 261
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part
261 add the following waste stream in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
I
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
49191
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
*
Shell Oil Company ....
*
Deer Park, TX ..
Shell Oil Company ....
Deer Park, TX ..
*
*
*
*
*
North Pond Sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one time at a volume of 15,000
cubic yards August 23, 2005 and disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. This is a one time exclusion and
applies to 15,000 cubic yards of North Pond Sludge.
(1) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Shell possesses or is otherwise made aware of
any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water monitoring data)
or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent identified for the
delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director
within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(B) If Shell fails to submit the information described in paragraph (A) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether
the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health or the environment. Further
action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary
to protect human health and the environment.
(C) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require EPA action, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the
proposed action and a statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of
the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(D) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (C) or if no information is presented under paragraph (C), the Division Director will issue a final written determination
describing the actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately,
unless the Division Director provides otherwise.
(2) Notification Requirements: Shell must do the following before transporting the delisted waste:
Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible
revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state regulatory agency to which or through which
they will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such
activities.
(B) Update the one-time written notification, if they ship the delisted waste to a different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible
revocation of the decision.
Multi-source landfill leachate (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F039) generated at a maximum annual rate
of 3.36 million gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per calendar year after August 23, 2005 and disposed in
accordance with the TPDES permit.
The delisting levels set do not relieve Shell Oil Company of its duty to comply with the limits set in its
TPDES permit. For the exclusion to be valid, Shell Oil Company must implement a verification testing program that meets the following paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All total concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the following levels (mg/l). The petitioner must analyze the aqueous waste on a total basis to measure constituents
in the multi-source landfill leachate.
Multi-source landfill leachate (i) Inorganic Constituents Antimony-0.0204; Arsenic-0.385; Barium-2.92;
Copper-418.00; Chromium-5.0; Cobalt-2.25; Nickel-1.13; Selenium-0.0863; Thallium-0.005; Vanadium-0.838
(ii) Organic Constituents Acetone-1.46; Acetophenone-1.58; Benzene-0.0222; p-Cresol-0.0788; Bis(2ethylhexyl)phthlate-15800.00; Dichloroethane, 1,2–0.0803; Ethylbenzene-4.51; Fluorene-1.87;
Napthalene-1.05; Phenol-9.46; Phenanthrene-1.36; Pyridine-0.0146; 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalents as
TEQ–0.0000926; Toluene-4.43; Trichloropropane-0.000574; Xylenes (total)-97.60
(2) Waste Management:
(A) Shell Oil Company must manage as hazardous all multi-source landfill leachate generated, until it
has completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and
valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the multi-source landfill leachate that do not
exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. Shell Oil Company can manage
and dispose of the non-hazardous multi-source landfill leachate according to all applicable solid
waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1), Shell Oil
Company can collect one additional sample and perform expedited analyses to verify if the constituent exceeds the delisting level. If this sample confirms the exceedance, Shell Oil Company
must, from that point forward, treat the waste as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste
again meets the levels in paragraph (1).
(D) If the facility has not treated the waste, Shell Oil Company must manage and dispose of the
waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA from the time that it becomes aware of any exceedance.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
49192
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(E) Upon completion of the Verification Testing described in paragraph 3(A) and (B) as appropriate
and the transmittal of the results to EPA, and if the testing results meet the requirements of paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company may proceed to manage its multi-source landfill leachate as non-hazardous waste. If Subsequent Verification Testing indicates an exceedance of the delisting levels in
paragraph (1), Shell Oil Company must manage the multi-source landfill leachate as a hazardous
waste until two consecutive quarterly testing samples show levels below the delisting levels in
Table I.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements: Shell Oil Company must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control procedures, using appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 0010, 0011, 0020, 0023A, 0030, 0031, 0040, 0050, 0051, 0060, 0061,
1010A, 1020B, 1110A, 1310B, 1311, 1312, 1320, 1330A, 9010C, 9012B, 9040C, 9045D, 9060A,
9070A (uses EPA Method 1664, Rev. A), 9071B, and 9095B. Methods used must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality Objectives demonstrate that
representative samples of the Shell-Deer Park multi-source landfill leachate are collected and meet
the delisting levels in paragraph (1).
(A) Initial Verification Testing: After EPA grants the final exclusion, Shell Oil Company must do the
following:
(i) Within 60 days of this exclusions becoming final, collect four samples, before disposal, of the
multi-source landfill leachate.
(ii) The samples are to be analyzed and compared against the delisting levels in paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this exclusion becomes final, Shell Oil Company will report initial
verification analytical test data for the multi-source landfill leachate, including analytical quality control information for the first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion becomes final. If levels
of constituents measured in the samples of the multi-source landfill leachate that do not exceed
the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are also non-hazardous in two consecutive quarters after the
first thirty (30) days of operation after this exclusion become effective, Shell Oil Company can
manage and dispose of the multi-source landfill leachate according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing: Following written notification by EPA, Shell Oil Company may
substitute the testing conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Shell Oil Company must continue to monitor
operating conditions, and analyze one representative sample of the multi-source landfill leachate
for each quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. The sample must represent
the waste generated during the quarter. After the first year of analytical sampling verification sampling can be performed on a single annual sample of the multi-source landfill leachate. The results
are to be compared to the delisting levels in paragraph (1).
(C) Termination of Testing:
(i) After the first year of quarterly testing, if the delisting levels in paragraph (1) are being met, Shell
Oil Company may then request that EPA not require quarterly testing. After EPA notifies Shell Oil
Company in writing, the company may end quarterly testing.
(ii) Following cancellation of the quarterly testing, Shell Oil Company must continue to test a representative sample for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) annually.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Shell Oil Company significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could significantly affect the composition or type of waste generated as established under paragraph (1) (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing; it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new
process as nonhazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has
received written approval to do so from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals: Shell Oil Company must submit the information described below. If Shell Oil
Company fails to submit the required data within the specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis to reopen the exclusion as described in paragraph 6. Shell Oil Company must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Section Chief, Region 6 Corrective Action
and Waste Minimization Section, EPA, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code,
(6PD–C) within the time specified.
(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and
maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or the state of Texas request them for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement, to attest to the
truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or fraudulent statements
or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001 and 42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained
in or accompanying this document is true, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I cannot personally verify its (their)
truth and accuracy, I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions, made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
49193
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion
of waste will be void as if it never had effect or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.
(6) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Shell Oil Company possesses or is otherwise
made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent
identified for the delisting verification testing is at a level higher than the delisting level allowed by
the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the
Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(B) If the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Shell
Oil Company must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(C) If Shell Oil Company fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5),(6)(A) or (6)(B) or
if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health
and/or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other
appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require action, he will notify
the facility in writing of the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a
statement providing the facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed
action by EPA is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph (6)(D) or if no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing the actions that are necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective
immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements: Shell Oil Company must do the following before transporting the
delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state regulatory agency to which or through which it
will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities.
(B) Update the one-time written notification if it ships the delisted waste into a different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting exclusion and a possible
revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
*
*
Effective September 1, 2005.
[FR Doc. 05–16688 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am]
DATES:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS
45 CFR Part 2102
Procedures and Policies Amendment
The Commission of Fine Arts.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: This document amends the
procedures and policies governing the
administration of the U.S. Commission
of Fine Arts. This document serves to
establish a Consent Calendar and to
clarify the functions and requirements
of a Consent Calendar and Appendices
for the review of projects submitted to
the Commission in order to address
more efficiently the needs of the Federal
government and the public.
VerDate jul<14>2003
16:13 Aug 22, 2005
Jkt 205001
Thomas Luebke, Secretary, (202) 504–
2200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As
established by Congress in 1910, the
Commission of Fine Arts is a small
independent advisory body made up of
seven Presidentially appointed ‘‘well
qualified judges of the arts’’ whose
primary role is architectural review of
designs for buildings, parks, monuments
and memorials erected by the Federal or
District of Columbia governments in
Washington, DC. In addition to
architectural review, the Commission
considers and advises on the designs for
coins, medals and U.S. memorials on
foreign soil. The Commission also
advises the District of Columbia
government on private building projects
within the Georgetown Historic District,
the Rock Creek Park perimeter and the
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Monumental Core area. The
Commission advises Congress, the
President, Federal agencies, and the
District of Columbia government on the
general subjects of design, historic
preservation and on orderly planning on
matters within its jurisdiction.
The regulations amended with this
rule were last published in the Federal
Register on January 31, 1997 (45 CFR
Parts 2101, 2102, 2103). Specific items
this document amends include
providing the current address and
telephone number of the agency, and
clarifying a series of procedural
functions. Therefore, as these changes
clarify established and new procedures,
and are minor in nature, the
Commission determines that notice and
comment are unnecessary and that, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),
good cause to waive notice and
comment is established.
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 23, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49187-49193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[SW-FRL-7957-6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting petitions
submitted by Shell Oil Company (Shell Oil Company) to exclude (or
delist) certain wastes generated by its Houston, TX Deer Park facility
from the lists of hazardous wastes. This final rule responds to
petitions submitted by Shell Oil Company to delist F039 and F037
wastes. The F039 waste is generated from the refinery wastewater
treatment plant, North Effluent Treater (NET) and
[[Page 49188]]
primary solids from Shell Chemical and the South Effluent Treatment
(SET). The F037 waste North Pond Sludge is generated from the process
wastewater, gravel and road base that has settled from storm water flow
to the pond.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned wastes are not
hazardous waste. The F039 exclusion applies to 3.36 million gallons per
year (16,619 cubic yards) of multi-source landfill leachate. The F037
exclusion is a one time exclusion for 15,000 cubic yards of the sludge.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the petitioned wastes from the
requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 23, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act review room on the 7th floor from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The reference number for this docket is F-04-TEXDEL-Shell
Oil. The public may copy material from any regulatory docket at no cost
for the first 100 pages and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Banipal, Section Chief of the
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning
and Permitting Division (6PD-C), Environmental Protection Agency Region
6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202, at (214) 665-
7430, or peace.michelle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Shell Oil Company manage the wastes, if they are
delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How does this final rule affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What information must the generator supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Shell Oil Company petition EPA to delist?
B. How much waste did Shell Oil Company propose to delist?
A. How did Shell Oil Company sample and analyze the waste data
in these petitions?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusions
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rules?
B. Where were the comments and what are EPA's responses to them?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petitions for Shell Oil Company, EPA proposed,
on December 28, 2004 and February 9, 2005, respectively, to exclude the
wastes from the lists of hazardous waste under Sec. 261.31. EPA is
finalizing:
(1) The decision to grant Shell Oil Company's delisting petition to
have its F039 multi-source landfill leachate underlying the Minimum
Technology Requirements (MTR) hazardous waste landfill excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste; and subject to
certain verification and monitoring conditions; and
(2) The decision to grant Shell Oil Company's delisting petition to
have its North Pond F037 sludge excluded, or delisted, from the
definition of a hazardous waste, once it is disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Shell Oil Company's petitions request a delisting from the F039 and
F037 wastes listing under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Shell Oil Company
does not believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which
EPA listed it. Shell Oil Company also believes no additional
constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's
review of these petitions included consideration of the original
listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 3001(f) of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22 (d)(1)-(4) (hereinafter all
sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated). In
making the final delisting determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned
wastes against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the
petitioner that the wastes are nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. (If EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors for which the
waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the
petition.) EPA evaluated the wastes with respect to other factors or
criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that
such additional factors could cause the wastes to be hazardous. EPA
considered whether the wastes are acutely toxic, the concentrations of
the constituents in the wastes, their tendency to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the waste, plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned
waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned wastes do not meet the listing criteria
and thus should not be listed wastes. EPA's final decision to delist
wastes from Shell Oil Company's facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes
and analytical data from the Deer Park, TX facility.
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the Shell Oil
Company petitions only if the requirements described in 40 CFR part
261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the conditions contained herein are
satisfied.
D. How Will Shell Oil Company Manage the Wastes, If They Are Delisted?
If the multi-source landfill leachate is delisted, Shell Oil
Company will make piping modifications to allow the leachate to be
routed to the North Effluent Treater (NET) for treatment. After its
treatment, the multi-source landfill leachate will be discharged
through a TPDES-permitted outfall in compliance with its TPDES permit.
If F037 North Pond Sludge is delisted, Shell Oil Company will dispose
of it in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a state to manage industrial waste.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective August 23, 2005. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), allow rules to become effective in less than six months
after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here
because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a
[[Page 49189]]
basis for making this rule effective immediately, upon publication,
under the Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude states which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's
waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some states (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in
place of the Federal program, that is, to make state delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
states unless that state makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If Shell Oil Company transports the petitioned waste to or manages the
waste in any state with delisting authorization, Shell Oil Company must
obtain delisting authorization from that state before it can manage the
waste as nonhazardous in the state.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude or delist, from the RCRA
list of hazardous waste, waste the generator believes should not be
considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically, Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity
to petition the Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular
generating facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Wastes Did Shell Oil Company Petition EPA To Delist?
On January 29, 2003, Shell Oil Company petitioned EPA to exclude
from the lists of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.31, multi-
source landfill leachate (F039) generated from its facility located in
Deer Park, TX. Then on December 30, 2003, Shell Oil Company petitioned
EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, F037 North Pond Sludge.
B. How Much Waste Did Shell Oil Company Propose To Delist?
Shell Oil Company requested that EPA grant an exclusion for 3.36
million gallons (16,619 cu. yards) per year of the multi-source
landfill leachate in its January 29, 2003 petition. In the December 30,
2003 petition, Shell Oil Company requested that EPA grant a one time
exclusion for 15,000 cubic yards of the F037 North Pond Sludge.
C. How Did Shell Oil Company Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in These
Petitions?
To support its petitions, Shell Oil Company submitted:
(1) Historical information on past waste generation and management
practices including analytical data from eleven samples collected in
September 2003 for the F037 North Pond Sludge and four samples of
combined leachate data for the F039 multi-source landfill leachate;
(2) Results of the total constituent list for 40 CFR part 264,
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals, pesticides, herbicides,
dioxins and PCBs for the F037 North Pond Sludge and the F039 multi-
source landfill leachate;
(3) Results of the constituent list for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix
IX on Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for
volatiles, semivolatiles, and metals for the F037 North Pond Sludge and
the F039 multi-source landfill leachate;
(4) Analytical constituents of concern for F037 and F039;
(5) Results from total oil and grease analyses;
(6) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned wastes.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rules?
No comments were received on the proposed rule for the F037 wastes.
Comments were submitted by Shell Deer Park Refining Company (Shell) to
correct information contained in the proposed rule for F039.
B. What Were the Comments and What Are EPA's Responses to Them?
Shell noted that Chloronated Plate Interceptor should be Corrugated
Plate Interceptor. EPA has noted this and made appropriate changes in
the final rule and exclusion language to reflect this change.
Shell noted that: (1) the compound p-cresol (4-methlyphenol) should
be added to Table I; and (2) the compound trichloropropane should be
deleted from Table I as this constituent was not detected in any of the
samples above the reporting level.
The compound p-cresol (4-methlyphenol) appears in Table 1.--Waste
Excluded From the Non-Specific Sources as ``Cresol, p.'' EPA has made
the appropriate change to read p-Cresol. The compound trichloropropane
estimated value of 0.00025 mg/l was reported in the revised analyses on
October 11, 2004, Combined Leachate Data, and thus it will not be
deleted.
Shell requested: (1) that the following constituents be deleted
from Table 1--Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific Sources in the
exclusion language to be consistent with Table I in Section III. D in
the preamble of the proposed rule: Thallium, Acrylonitrile, Bis (2-
chlorethyl) ether, Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthlate, Dichlorobenzene 1,3,
Dimethoate, Dimethylphenol 2,4, Dinitrophenol, Dinitrotoluene 2,6,
Diphenylhydrazine, Dichloroethylene 1,1, Kepone, Methacrylonitrile,
Methanol, Nitrobenzene, Nitrosodiethylamine, Nitrosodimethylamine,
Nitrosodi-n-butylamine, N-Nitrodi-n-propylamine, N-Nitrosopiperdine, N-
[[Page 49190]]
Nitrosopyrrolidine, N-Nitrosomethylethylamine, PCBs, Pentachlorophenol,
Pyridine, Trichloropropane, Vinyl Chloride; and (2) that the compound
phenanthrene should be added with a delisting level of 1.36 mg/L to be
consistent with Table I in Section III. D.
EPA has made the deletions as prescribed. EPA has added the
compound phenanthrene with a delisting level of 1.36 mg/L to Table 1.--
Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources. EPA also added compounds
toluene, fluorene, and vanadium because they were inadvertently left
off of Table 1--Wastes Excluded from Non-Specific Sources.
Shell noted that in the exclusion language paragraph (3)(A)(i) of
Table 1--Waste Excluded from Non-Specific Sources, the number of
samples to be collected within the first 60 days should be changed from
eight to four. Also in paragraph (3)(B) for subsequent verification
sampling, Shell Oil Company requested that the number of samples per
quarter be changed from two to one. Previous discussions between EPA
and Shell Oil Company were based on two different waste streams. Since
this is one stream, EPA will allow the changes in the number of samples
collected and the number of samples taken per quarter.
In addition, on October 30, 2002, (67 FR 66251), EPA proposed the
Methods Innovation Rule to remove from the regulations unnecessary
requirements other than those considered to be Method Defined
Parameters (MDP). An MDP is a method that, by definition or design, is
the only one capable of measuring the particular property (e.g. Method
1311-TCLP). Therefore, EPA is no longer generally requiring the use of
only SW-846 methods for regulatory applications other than those
involving MDPs. The general purpose of this rule is to allow more
flexibility when conducting RCRA-related sampling and analysis
activities. We retained only those methods considered to be MDPs in the
regulations and incorporate them by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. EPA is
changing Shell's delisting exclusion language found in paragraph (3) of
the F039 exclusion language to reflect the generic language placed in
all delisting exclusions as a result of the Methods Innovation Rule (70
FR 34537) which was finalized on June 14, 2005.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Because this rule will
affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health
and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the maximum
allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report
which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel;
and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding today's action under section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)
Dated: August 10, 2005.
Carl E. Edlund,
Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is to be
amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for Part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part 261 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
[[Page 49191]]
Table 1.--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Shell Oil Company.......... Deer Park, TX........ North Pond Sludge
(EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F037)
generated one time
at a volume of
15,000 cubic yards
August 23, 2005 and
disposed in a
Subtitle D
landfill. This is a
one time exclusion
and applies to
15,000 cubic yards
of North Pond
Sludge.
(1) Reopener:
(A) If, anytime
after disposal of
the delisted waste,
Shell possesses or
is otherwise made
aware of any
environmental data
(including but not
limited to leachate
data or ground
water monitoring
data) or any other
data relevant to
the delisted waste
indicating that any
constituent
identified for the
delisting
verification
testing is at level
higher than the
delisting level
allowed by the
Division Director
in granting the
petition, then the
facility must
report the data, in
writing, to the
Division Director
within 10 days of
first possessing or
being made aware of
that data.
(B) If Shell fails
to submit the
information
described in
paragraph (A) or if
any other
information is
received from any
source, the
Division Director
will make a
preliminary
determination as to
whether the
reported
information
requires EPA action
to protect human
health or the
environment.
Further action may
include suspending,
or revoking the
exclusion, or other
appropriate
response necessary
to protect human
health and the
environment.
(C) If the Division
Director determines
that the reported
information does
require EPA action,
the Division
Director will
notify the facility
in writing of the
actions the
Division Director
believes are
necessary to
protect human
health and the
environment. The
notice shall
include a statement
of the proposed
action and a
statement providing
the facility with
an opportunity to
present information
as to why the
proposed EPA action
is not necessary.
The facility shall
have 10 days from
the date of the
Division Director's
notice to present
such information.
(D) Following the
receipt of
information from
the facility
described in
paragraph (C) or if
no information is
presented under
paragraph (C), the
Division Director
will issue a final
written
determination
describing the
actions that are
necessary to
protect human
health or the
environment. Any
required action
described in the
Division Director's
determination shall
become effective
immediately, unless
the Division
Director provides
otherwise.
(2) Notification
Requirements: Shell
must do the
following before
transporting the
delisted waste:
Failure to provide
this notification
will result in a
violation of the
delisting petition
and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-
time written
notification to any
state regulatory
agency to which or
through which they
will transport the
delisted waste
described above for
disposal, 60 days
before beginning
such activities.
(B) Update the one-
time written
notification, if
they ship the
delisted waste to a
different disposal
facility.
(C) Failure to
provide this
notification will
result in a
violation of the
delisting variance
and a possible
revocation of the
decision.
Shell Oil Company.......... Deer Park, TX........ Multi-source
landfill leachate
(EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F039)
generated at a
maximum annual rate
of 3.36 million
gallons (16,619 cu.
yards) per calendar
year after August
23, 2005 and
disposed in
accordance with the
TPDES permit.
The delisting levels
set do not relieve
Shell Oil Company
of its duty to
comply with the
limits set in its
TPDES permit. For
the exclusion to be
valid, Shell Oil
Company must
implement a
verification
testing program
that meets the
following
paragraphs:
(1) Delisting
Levels: All total
concentrations for
those constituents
must not exceed the
following levels
(mg/l). The
petitioner must
analyze the aqueous
waste on a total
basis to measure
constituents in the
multi-source
landfill leachate.
Multi-source
landfill leachate
(i) Inorganic
Constituents
Antimony-0.0204;
Arsenic-0.385;
Barium-2.92; Copper-
418.00; Chromium-
5.0; Cobalt-2.25;
Nickel-1.13;
Selenium-0.0863;
Thallium-0.005;
Vanadium-0.838
(ii) Organic
Constituents
Acetone-1.46;
Acetophenone-1.58;
Benzene-0.0222; p-
Cresol-0.0788;
Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthlate-
15800.00;
Dichloroethane, 1,2-
0.0803;
Ethylbenzene-4.51;
Fluorene-1.87;
Napthalene-1.05;
Phenol-9.46;
Phenanthrene-1.36;
Pyridine-0.0146;
2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalents as TEQ-
0.0000926; Toluene-
4.43;
Trichloropropane-
0.000574; Xylenes
(total)-97.60
(2) Waste
Management:
(A) Shell Oil
Company must manage
as hazardous all
multi-source
landfill leachate
generated, until it
has completed
initial
verification
testing described
in paragraph (3)(A)
and (B), as
appropriate, and
valid analyses show
that paragraph (1)
is satisfied.
(B) Levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the
multi-source
landfill leachate
that do not exceed
the levels set
forth in paragraph
(1) are non-
hazardous. Shell
Oil Company can
manage and dispose
of the non-
hazardous multi-
source landfill
leachate according
to all applicable
solid waste
regulations.
(C) If constituent
levels in a sample
exceed any of the
delisting levels
set in paragraph
(1), Shell Oil
Company can collect
one additional
sample and perform
expedited analyses
to verify if the
constituent exceeds
the delisting
level. If this
sample confirms the
exceedance, Shell
Oil Company must,
from that point
forward, treat the
waste as hazardous
until it is
demonstrated that
the waste again
meets the levels in
paragraph (1).
(D) If the facility
has not treated the
waste, Shell Oil
Company must manage
and dispose of the
waste generated
under Subtitle C of
RCRA from the time
that it becomes
aware of any
exceedance.
[[Page 49192]]
(E) Upon completion
of the Verification
Testing described
in paragraph 3(A)
and (B) as
appropriate and the
transmittal of the
results to EPA, and
if the testing
results meet the
requirements of
paragraph (1),
Shell Oil Company
may proceed to
manage its multi-
source landfill
leachate as non-
hazardous waste. If
Subsequent
Verification
Testing indicates
an exceedance of
the delisting
levels in paragraph
(1), Shell Oil
Company must manage
the multi-source
landfill leachate
as a hazardous
waste until two
consecutive
quarterly testing
samples show levels
below the delisting
levels in Table I.
(3) Verification
Testing
Requirements: Shell
Oil Company must
perform sample
collection and
analyses, including
quality control
procedures, using
appropriate
methods. As
applicable to the
method-defined
parameters of
concern, analyses
requiring the use
of SW-846 methods
incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR
260.11 must be used
without
substitution. As
applicable, the SW-
846 methods might
include Methods
0010, 0011, 0020,
0023A, 0030, 0031,
0040, 0050, 0051,
0060, 0061, 1010A,
1020B, 1110A,
1310B, 1311, 1312,
1320, 1330A, 9010C,
9012B, 9040C,
9045D, 9060A, 9070A
(uses EPA Method
1664, Rev. A),
9071B, and 9095B.
Methods used must
meet Performance
Based Measurement
System Criteria in
which the Data
Quality Objectives
demonstrate that
representative
samples of the
Shell-Deer Park
multi-source
landfill leachate
are collected and
meet the delisting
levels in paragraph
(1).
(A) Initial
Verification
Testing: After EPA
grants the final
exclusion, Shell
Oil Company must do
the following:
(i) Within 60 days
of this exclusions
becoming final,
collect four
samples, before
disposal, of the
multi-source
landfill leachate.
(ii) The samples are
to be analyzed and
compared against
the delisting
levels in paragraph
(1).
(iii) Within sixty
(60) days after
this exclusion
becomes final,
Shell Oil Company
will report initial
verification
analytical test
data for the multi-
source landfill
leachate, including
analytical quality
control information
for the first
thirty (30) days of
operation after
this exclusion
becomes final. If
levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the
multi-source
landfill leachate
that do not exceed
the levels set
forth in paragraph
(1) are also non-
hazardous in two
consecutive
quarters after the
first thirty (30)
days of operation
after this
exclusion become
effective, Shell
Oil Company can
manage and dispose
of the multi-source
landfill leachate
according to all
applicable solid
waste regulations.
(B) Subsequent
Verification
Testing: Following
written
notification by
EPA, Shell Oil
Company may
substitute the
testing conditions
in (3)(B) for
(3)(A). Shell Oil
Company must
continue to monitor
operating
conditions, and
analyze one
representative
sample of the multi-
source landfill
leachate for each
quarter of
operation during
the first year of
waste generation.
The sample must
represent the waste
generated during
the quarter. After
the first year of
analytical sampling
verification
sampling can be
performed on a
single annual
sample of the multi-
source landfill
leachate. The
results are to be
compared to the
delisting levels in
paragraph (1).
(C) Termination of
Testing:
(i) After the first
year of quarterly
testing, if the
delisting levels in
paragraph (1) are
being met, Shell
Oil Company may
then request that
EPA not require
quarterly testing.
After EPA notifies
Shell Oil Company
in writing, the
company may end
quarterly testing.
(ii) Following
cancellation of the
quarterly testing,
Shell Oil Company
must continue to
test a
representative
sample for all
constituents listed
in paragraph (1)
annually.
(4) Changes in
Operating
Conditions: If
Shell Oil Company
significantly
changes the process
described in its
petition or starts
any processes that
generate(s) the
waste that may or
could significantly
affect the
composition or type
of waste generated
as established
under paragraph (1)
(by illustration,
but not limitation,
changes in
equipment or
operating
conditions of the
treatment process),
it must notify EPA
in writing; it may
no longer handle
the wastes
generated from the
new process as
nonhazardous until
the wastes meet the
delisting levels
set in paragraph
(1) and it has
received written
approval to do so
from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
Shell Oil Company
must submit the
information
described below. If
Shell Oil Company
fails to submit the
required data
within the
specified time or
maintain the
required records on-
site for the
specified time,
EPA, at its
discretion, will
consider this
sufficient basis to
reopen the
exclu