Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA), 6238-6241 [06-1072]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
6238
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
section is 1 percent, compounded semiannually.
(ii) Under paragraph (a) of this section, the
loan from T to QI is treated as a
compensation-related demand loan. Because
there is no interest payable on the loan from
T to QI, the loan is a below-market loan
under section 7872. Under section 7872(e)(2),
the amount of forgone interest on the loan for
2006 is $833 ($1,000,000*.01/2*1/6). Under
section 7872(e)(2), the forgone interest for
2007 is $1667 ($1,000,000*.01/2*2/6). The
$833 for 2006 is deemed transferred as
compensation by T to QI and retransferred as
interest by QI to T on December 31, 2006.
The $1667 for 2007 is deemed transferred as
compensation by T to QI and retransferred as
interest by QI to T on March 1, 2007.
(d) Effective date. This section applies
to exchange facilitator loans issued after
the date these regulations are published
as final regulations in the Federal
Register.
Mark E. Matthews,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 06–1038 Filed 2–3–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL–8027–7; EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0015]
Site-Specific Variance From the Land
Disposal Restrictions Treatment
Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine
(1,3-PDA)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the
waste treatment standard for 1,3phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a
biosludge generated at DuPont’s
Chambers Works facility in Deepwater,
New Jersey. This variance is necessary
because the facility is unable to measure
compliance with the previously
promulgated 1,3-PDA treatment
standard in its multisource leachate
biosludge matrix. As a practical matter,
therefore, the facility cannot fully
document compliance with the
requirements of the treatment standard.
For the same reason, EPA cannot
ascertain compliance for this
constituent. Furthermore, faced with the
inability to demonstrate treatment
residual content through analytical
testing for this constituent, this facility
faces potential curtailment of 1,3-PDA
production operations. This site-specific
variance will provide alternative
technology treatment standards for 1,3PDA in multisource leachate that do not
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
require analysis of the biosludge matrix
to determine whether the numerical
treatment standard is being met, thus
ensuring that treatment reflecting
performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology occurs and that
threats to human health and the
environment from land disposal of the
waste are minimized.
In the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’
section of the Federal Register, we are
revising the 1,3-PDA multisource
leachate (F039) treatment standard for
the DuPont Chambers Works facility in
Deepwater, New Jersey without prior
proposal because we view the revision
as noncontroversial and anticipate no
adverse comment. We have explained
our reasons for this approach in the
preamble to the direct final rule. If we
receive adverse comment on this
revision, however, we will withdraw the
direct final action for that portion of the
variance and it will not take effect. We
will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. We will not institute a
second comment period on this action.
Any parties interested in commenting
on any amendment must do so at this
time.
DATES: Comments must be received by
March 9, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2005–0015, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: rcra-docket@epa.gov and
minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
• Fax: 202–566–0272.
• Mail: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Please include a
total of 3 copies.
• Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Room B102, Washington,
DC. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket’s normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–
0015. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through www.regulations.gov
or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an e-mail
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public
docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact
information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD–ROM
you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification,
EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form
of encryption, and be free of any defects
or viruses. For additional information
about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA
Docket Center homepage at https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the HQ-Docket Center, Docket ID No
EPA–HQ–RCRA–2005–0015, EPA West,
Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566–1744, and the telephone number for
the RCRA Docket is (202) 566–0270. A
reasonable fee may be charged for
copying docket materials.
For
more information on this proposed
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick,
Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid
Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,
DC 20460; telephone (703) 308–8771;
fax (703) 308–8443; or
minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
I. Background
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment
Variances?
Under section 3004(m) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA is required to set
‘‘levels or methods of treatment, if any,
which substantially diminish the
toxicity of the waste or substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the waste
so that short-term and long-term threats
to human health and the environment
are minimized.’’ We interpret this
language to authorize treatment
standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the DC Circuit in
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
We recognize that there may be
wastes that cannot be treated to levels
specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR
268.40) because an individual waste
matrix or concentration can be
substantially more difficult to treat than
those wastes we evaluated in
establishing the treatment standard (51
FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such
wastes, EPA has a process by which a
generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted,
the terms of the variance establish an
alternative treatment standard for the
particular waste at issue.
B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3PDA Treatment Standard?
The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA
was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing
on February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9138) and
it became effective on August 23, 2005.
The 1,3-PDA treatment standard was
placed in the Table of Treatment
Standards (see 40 CFR 268.40) under
‘‘K181’’ (the waste code for the Dyes and
Pigments listing) and under ‘‘F039’’ (the
waste code for multisource leachate). It
is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3PDA that is addressed in this sitespecific variance. We also added this
constituent to the Universal Treatment
Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48),
which means that when 1,3-PDA is
reasonably expected to be present in a
characteristic waste at point of
generation it must be considered an
underlying hazardous constituent
requiring treatment.
In the final rule, we set a numerical
nonwastewater treatment standard of
0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of
the best demonstrated available
technology (BDAT) of combustion. For
purposes of establishing the treatment
standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
other waste constituents (notably 1,2PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, pCresidine, 2,4-dimethylaniline, aniline
and 4-chloroaniline). No actual
treatment data were available for 1,3PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg
treatment standard was based on: (1)
The thermal stability index ranking
system and incinerability index (if the
most difficult to treat constituents can
be destroyed via incineration, then all
less stable constituents can also be
destroyed); and (2) similar chemical
structures and chemical and physical
properties that are exhibited by the
constituents in each treatability group
(incineration should be able to
destabilize and destroy each of the
compounds in a similar fashion). See
the ‘‘Best Demonstrated Available
Technology (BDAT) Background
Document for Dyes and Pigments
Production Wastes,’’ December 2004,
section 2.2.3.
II. What Is the Basis for Today’s
Determination?
A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment
Variance?
Facilities can apply for a site-specific
variance in cases where a waste that is
generated under conditions specific to
only one site cannot be treated to the
specified levels. In such cases, the
generator or treatment facility may
apply to the Administrator, or a
delegated representative, for a sitespecific variance from a treatment
standard. One of the demonstrations
that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not
physically possible to treat the waste to
the level specified in the treatment
standard (40 CFR 268.44(h)(1)). This is
the criteria pertinent to today’s variance,
in that it is not technically possible to
measure the constituent in DuPont’s
biosludge treatment residual, as
explained below.
B. What Does DuPont Request?
DuPont contacted EPA about an
analytical problem it is having with 1,3PDA in their multisource leachate
(F039) treatment biosludge. The facility
produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and
then pipes the wastewaters from
manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite
biological wastewater treatment plant.
DuPont ultimately disposes of the
biosolids containing 1,3-PDA into their
hazardous waste landfill. The mass
loading levels of the waste 1,3-PDA do
not trigger the K181 listing, so such
placement is not considered land
disposal of a hazardous waste. However,
the landfill is permitted to accept
biosolids with several listed hazardous
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6239
waste and, as a result, generates F039 (a
hazardous waste), which is reasonably
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039
is introduced by pipeline into DuPont’s
biological treatment system, a two-step
biological process that includes the use
of activated carbon. Biodegradation
reduces organics in this system by
approximately 99%. The treatment
residual is a F039 biosludge that is high
in carbon. It is this biosludge that is the
basis of the requested treatability
variance.
DuPont has sent the biosludge to
several commercial laboratories for
analysis to see if it met the treatment
standard and could be legally land
disposed. The laboratories have
consistently been unable to detect 1,3PDA in this high carbon matrix. When
asked if they could develop a new
detection method for this constituent,
only one laboratory was interested in
attempting to do so, but indicated that
it could take a year to develop and it
likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for
a similar compound, 1,4-PDA). This
detection limit is much higher than the
1,3-PDA treatment standard of 0.66 mg/
kg.
DuPont pointed out that when the
treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2phenylenediamine, ophenylenediamine), was promulgated in
the dyes and pigments listing rule, we
set a treatment standard expressed as
specified technologies because of
method detection problems: we
specified that combustion (CMBST), or
chemical oxidation (CHOXD) followed
by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment
train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont
requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as
the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA at
their Chambers Works facility, as we did
for 1,2-PDA. We believe that this is a
reasonable request because when we
evaluated the waste constituents to
determine the original treatment
standards, we grouped 1,3-PDA with
1,2-PDA (and other constituents)
because they are similar in chemical
structure and physical properties.
C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA
We are granting DuPont’s request in
today’s site-specific variance. Under one
of the criteria for a variance from the
treatment standard, the applicant must
demonstrate that it is not physically
possible to treat the waste to the level
specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today’s variance falls into
this category, in that it is technically
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
6240
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
impossible for DuPont to demonstrate
that it complies with a treatment level
when laboratories have not been able to
detect the waste in DuPont’s particular,
site-specific biosludge matrix.1
Therefore, certification that this
constituent has been treated in the F039
biosludge matrix is not possible, and
without the certification, disposal of the
F039 biosludge cannot legally occur.
This situation may impede production
of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal
disposal of this waste would no longer
be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA. 27 F.3d 642, 646–
47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal
means of disposing of wastes from a
process is equivalent to shutting down
that process).
The alternative treatment standard
established by today’s site-specific
variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or
chemical oxidation (CHOXD) followed
by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment
train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the
same treatment standard we set in the
K181 listing rule for a similar
constituent, 1,2-PDA. By altering the
treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow
certification of compliance based on the
use of specified treatment technologies
without constituent-specific testing, we
can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also
assure that threats to human health and
the environment are minimized. We
believe that DuPont’s two-step
biological treatment system that
includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039
multisource leachate waste.2 And, as
mentioned in footnote 1, we made a
similar finding that treatment of other
carbamate waste constituents would
adequately treat 1,2-PDA, when we
withdrew it as a constituent of concern
in 1998. Likewise, we believe that
treatment of the other constituents of
concern in DuPont’s F039 multisource
leachate waste will serve as a surrogate
for 1,3-PDA.
III. Administrative Requirements
For a complete discussion of all of the
administrative requirements applicable
to this action, see the direct final rule in
the Rules and Regulations section of
today’s Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This treatment variance does not
create any new regulatory requirements.
Rather, it establishes an alternative
treatment standard for a specific waste
stream that replaces a standard already
in effect, and it applies to only one
facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this proposed rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule, therefore, does not require a
regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 268—LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
and 6924.
2. Section 268.44, the table in
paragraph (o) is amended by adding in
alphabetical order an additional entry
for ‘‘DuPont Environmental Treatment
Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ’’ and
adding a new footnote 13 to read as
follows:
§ 268.44 Variance from a treatment
standard.
*
*
*
(o) * * *
*
*
TABLE.—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM THE TREATMENT STANDARDS UNDER § 268.40
Facility name 1 and address
Waste code
*
*
DuPont Environmental Treatment-Chambers Works,
Deepwater, NJ.
*
F039
*
See also
*
Standards
under
§ 268.40.
*
Regulated
hazardous
constituent
*
1,3phenylenedia-mine
(1,3-PDA).
Wastewaters
Nonwastewaters
Concentration
(mg/L)
Notes
*
NA ................
NA ................
*
Concentration
(mg/kg)
*
*
Notes
*
(13)
CMBST;
CHOXD fb
BIODG or
CARBN; or
BIODG fb
CARBN.
*
*
1A
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
*
*
*
*
*
*
13 This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
1 This finding is similar to a previous LDR
determination. We originally promulgated a
numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA (ophenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583).
However, we subsequently withdrew the treatment
standard because of poor method performance on
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide
adequate treatment for o-phenylenediamine (63 FR
47409)).
2 When we originally promulgated treatment
standards for F039, we stated that constituents on
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
the BDAT list serve as surrogates for those
constituents that may be present in the multisource
leachate that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR
22622, June 1, 1990).
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 25 / Tuesday, February 7, 2006 / Proposed Rules
[FR Doc. 06–1072 Filed 2–6–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition to List the Gunnison’s Prairie
Dog as Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
Gunnison’s prairie dog (Cynomys
gunnisoni) as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). We find that
the petition does not present substantial
scientific and commercial data
indicating that listing the Gunnison’s
prairie dog may be warranted.
Therefore, we will not be initiating a
formal status review to determine if
listing this species is warranted. We will
work with the States where information
is currently unavailable to develop
information that will assist in
determining and monitoring the status
of Gunnison’s prairie dog. Once those
results are available we will reevaluate
the status of Gunnison’s prairie dog.
DATES: The finding announced in this
document was made on January 30,
2006.
The petition, supporting
data, and comments will be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours at the
South Dakota Ecological Services Office,
420 South Garfield Avenue, Suite 400,
Pierre, South Dakota, 57501. Submit
new information, materials, comments
or questions concerning this taxon to
the Field Supervisor at the above
address.
ADDRESSES:
Pete
Gober, Field Supervisor, South Dakota
Ecological Services Office at the above
address (telephone 605–224–8693;
facsimile 605–224–9974).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erjones on PROD1PC68 with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that we
make a finding on whether a petition to
list, delist, or reclassify a species
presents substantial scientific or
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:18 Feb 06, 2006
Jkt 208001
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition
and other information that is readily
available to us (e.g., in our files). To the
maximum extent practicable, we are to
make this finding within 90 days of our
receipt of the petition, and publish our
notice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that substantial scientific
information was presented, we are
required to commence a review of the
status of the species.
In making this finding, we relied on
information provided by the petitioners
and information in our files, and
evaluated that information in
accordance with 50 CFR 424.14(b). Our
process of coming to a 90-day finding
under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act and
§ 424.14(b) of our regulations is limited
to a determination of whether the
information in the petition meets the
‘‘substantial scientific information’’
threshold.
We do not conduct additional
research to make a 90-day finding, nor
do we subject the petition to rigorous
critical review. Rather, as the Act and
regulations contemplate, in coming to a
90-day finding, we acknowledge the
petitioner’s sources and
characterizations of the information
unless we have specific information to
the contrary.
Our 90-day findings consider whether
the petition states a reasonable case for
listing on its face. Thus, our finding
expresses no view as to the ultimate
issue of whether the species should be
listed. We reach a conclusion on that
issue only after a more thorough review
of the species’ status.
Petition
On February 23, 2004, the Service
received a petition of the same date,
from Forest Guardians and 73 other
organizations and individuals (Forest
Guardians et al. 2004). This petition
requested that the Gunnison’s prairie
dog (Cynomys gunnisoni), found in
Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Utah, be listed as threatened or
endangered and that critical habitat be
designated for the species.
Action on this petition was precluded
by court orders and settlement
agreements for other listing actions that
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6241
required nearly all of our listing funds
for fiscal year 2004. On July 29, 2004,
we received a 60-day notice of intent to
sue (Forest Guardians et al. 2004) for
failure to complete a finding. On
December 7, 2004, an amended
complaint for failure to complete a
finding for this and other species was
filed (Biodiversity Conservation
Alliance et al. 2004). We reached a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
for submittal to the Federal Register of
a 90-day finding for the Gunnison’s
prairie dog by January 26, 2006. This
notice constitutes our 90-day finding for
the petition to list the Gunnison’s
prairie dog.
Species Information
The Gunnison’s prairie dog is a
member of the Sciuridae family, which
includes squirrels, chipmunks,
marmots, and prairie dogs. Prairie dogs
constitute the genus Cynomys.
Taxonomists currently recognize 5
species of prairie dogs belonging to 2
subgenera, all in North America
(Goodwin 1995). The white-tailed
subgenus, Leucocrossuromys, includes
Utah (C. parvidens), white-tailed (C.
leucurus), and Gunnison’s prairie dogs
(Goodwin 1995). The black-tailed
subgenus, Cynomys, consists of Mexican
(C. mexicanus) and black-tailed (C.
ludovicianus) prairie dogs (Goodwin
1995). The number of chromosomes for
the Gunnison’s prairie dog (2n = 40) is
different from all other prairie dog
species (2n = 50), suggesting the species’
uniqueness and its early evolutionary
divergence from other prairie dog
species (Goodwin 1995; Pizzimenti
1975).
The Gunnison’s prairie dog has
sometimes been divided into 2
subspecies: C. g. gunnisoni and C. g.
zuniensis (Hollister 1916). The petition
addressed the species, with no
subspecies consideration. However, the
petitioners later requested that the
petition be considered to apply to both
the full species and either of the
subspecies (Rosmarino in litt. 2005).
The most recent published analyses do
not support subspecies designation
(Goodwin 1995, Pizzimenti 1975), and
this is position we currently hold.
Research on the issue of subspeciation
is ongoing (Hafner 2004; Hafner et al.
2005).
Gunnison’s prairie dog adults vary in
length from 309–373 millimeters (mm)
(12–15 inches (in)) and weigh 650–1200
grams (gm) (23–42 ounces (oz)), with
males averaging slightly larger than
females (Hall 1981; Pizzimenti and
Hoffman 1973). The dorsal color is
yellowish buff intermixed with blackish
hairs. The top of the head, sides of
E:\FR\FM\07FEP1.SGM
07FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6238-6241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1072]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 268
[FRL-8027-7; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015]
Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions
Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the waste treatment standard for
1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a biosludge generated at DuPont's
Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey. This variance is
necessary because the facility is unable to measure compliance with the
previously promulgated 1,3-PDA treatment standard in its multisource
leachate biosludge matrix. As a practical matter, therefore, the
facility cannot fully document compliance with the requirements of the
treatment standard. For the same reason, EPA cannot ascertain
compliance for this constituent. Furthermore, faced with the inability
to demonstrate treatment residual content through analytical testing
for this constituent, this facility faces potential curtailment of 1,3-
PDA production operations. This site-specific variance will provide
alternative technology treatment standards for 1,3-PDA in multisource
leachate that do not require analysis of the biosludge matrix to
determine whether the numerical treatment standard is being met, thus
ensuring that treatment reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology occurs and that threats to human health and the
environment from land disposal of the waste are minimized.
In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are revising the 1,3-PDA multisource leachate (F039) treatment
standard for the DuPont Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New
Jersey without prior proposal because we view the revision as
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained
our reasons for this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive adverse comment on this revision, however, we will
withdraw the direct final action for that portion of the variance and
it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on any amendment must do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received by March 9, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2005-0015, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: rcra-docket@epa.gov and minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
Fax: 202-566-0272.
Mail: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of 3 copies.
Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2005-0015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the HQ-Docket Center, Docket
ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this proposed
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone (703) 308-8771; fax (703) 308-8443; or
minnick.rhonda@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[[Page 6239]]
I. Background
A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?
Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized.'' We interpret this
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the DC Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to
levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an
individual waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more
difficult to treat than those wastes we evaluated in establishing the
treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes,
EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the variance
establish an alternative treatment standard for the particular waste at
issue.
B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3-PDA Treatment Standard?
The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing on February 24, 2005 (70 FR
9138) and it became effective on August 23, 2005. The 1,3-PDA treatment
standard was placed in the Table of Treatment Standards (see 40 CFR
268.40) under ``K181'' (the waste code for the Dyes and Pigments
listing) and under ``F039'' (the waste code for multisource leachate).
It is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3-PDA that is addressed in this
site-specific variance. We also added this constituent to the Universal
Treatment Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48), which means that when
1,3-PDA is reasonably expected to be present in a characteristic waste
at point of generation it must be considered an underlying hazardous
constituent requiring treatment.
In the final rule, we set a numerical nonwastewater treatment
standard of 0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of the best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT) of combustion. For purposes of
establishing the treatment standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with other
waste constituents (notably 1,2-PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, p-
Cresidine, 2,4-dimethylaniline, aniline and 4-chloroaniline). No actual
treatment data were available for 1,3-PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg
treatment standard was based on: (1) The thermal stability index
ranking system and incinerability index (if the most difficult to treat
constituents can be destroyed via incineration, then all less stable
constituents can also be destroyed); and (2) similar chemical
structures and chemical and physical properties that are exhibited by
the constituents in each treatability group (incineration should be
able to destabilize and destroy each of the compounds in a similar
fashion). See the ``Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
Background Document for Dyes and Pigments Production Wastes,'' December
2004, section 2.2.3.
II. What Is the Basis for Today's Determination?
A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?
Facilities can apply for a site-specific variance in cases where a
waste that is generated under conditions specific to only one site
cannot be treated to the specified levels. In such cases, the generator
or treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or a delegated
representative, for a site-specific variance from a treatment standard.
One of the demonstrations that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard (40 CFR
268.44(h)(1)). This is the criteria pertinent to today's variance, in
that it is not technically possible to measure the constituent in
DuPont's biosludge treatment residual, as explained below.
B. What Does DuPont Request?
DuPont contacted EPA about an analytical problem it is having with
1,3-PDA in their multisource leachate (F039) treatment biosludge. The
facility produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and then pipes the wastewaters
from manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite biological wastewater treatment
plant. DuPont ultimately disposes of the biosolids containing 1,3-PDA
into their hazardous waste landfill. The mass loading levels of the
waste 1,3-PDA do not trigger the K181 listing, so such placement is not
considered land disposal of a hazardous waste. However, the landfill is
permitted to accept biosolids with several listed hazardous waste and,
as a result, generates F039 (a hazardous waste), which is reasonably
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039 is introduced by pipeline into
DuPont's biological treatment system, a two-step biological process
that includes the use of activated carbon. Biodegradation reduces
organics in this system by approximately 99%. The treatment residual is
a F039 biosludge that is high in carbon. It is this biosludge that is
the basis of the requested treatability variance.
DuPont has sent the biosludge to several commercial laboratories
for analysis to see if it met the treatment standard and could be
legally land disposed. The laboratories have consistently been unable
to detect 1,3-PDA in this high carbon matrix. When asked if they could
develop a new detection method for this constituent, only one
laboratory was interested in attempting to do so, but indicated that it
could take a year to develop and it likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for a similar compound, 1,4-PDA).
This detection limit is much higher than the 1,3-PDA treatment standard
of 0.66 mg/kg.
DuPont pointed out that when the treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine), was
promulgated in the dyes and pigments listing rule, we set a treatment
standard expressed as specified technologies because of method
detection problems: we specified that combustion (CMBST), or chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as the treatment standard for
1,3-PDA at their Chambers Works facility, as we did for 1,2-PDA. We
believe that this is a reasonable request because when we evaluated the
waste constituents to determine the original treatment standards, we
grouped 1,3-PDA with 1,2-PDA (and other constituents) because they are
similar in chemical structure and physical properties.
C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA
We are granting DuPont's request in today's site-specific variance.
Under one of the criteria for a variance from the treatment standard,
the applicant must demonstrate that it is not physically possible to
treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today's variance falls into this category, in that it is
technically
[[Page 6240]]
impossible for DuPont to demonstrate that it complies with a treatment
level when laboratories have not been able to detect the waste in
DuPont's particular, site-specific biosludge matrix.\1\ Therefore,
certification that this constituent has been treated in the F039
biosludge matrix is not possible, and without the certification,
disposal of the F039 biosludge cannot legally occur. This situation may
impede production of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal disposal of
this waste would no longer be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA. 27 F.3d 642, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal means of disposing of wastes from
a process is equivalent to shutting down that process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This finding is similar to a previous LDR determination. We
originally promulgated a numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA
(o-phenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583). However, we
subsequently withdrew the treatment standard because of poor method
performance on September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide adequate treatment for
o-phenylenediamine (63 FR 47409)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternative treatment standard established by today's site-
specific variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon adsorption (CARBN), or a
treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the same treatment standard
we set in the K181 listing rule for a similar constituent, 1,2-PDA. By
altering the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow certification of
compliance based on the use of specified treatment technologies without
constituent-specific testing, we can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also assure that threats to human health
and the environment are minimized. We believe that DuPont's two-step
biological treatment system that includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039 multisource leachate waste.\2\
And, as mentioned in footnote 1, we made a similar finding that
treatment of other carbamate waste constituents would adequately treat
1,2-PDA, when we withdrew it as a constituent of concern in 1998.
Likewise, we believe that treatment of the other constituents of
concern in DuPont's F039 multisource leachate waste will serve as a
surrogate for 1,3-PDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ When we originally promulgated treatment standards for F039,
we stated that constituents on the BDAT list serve as surrogates for
those constituents that may be present in the multisource leachate
that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR 22622, June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Administrative Requirements
For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of today's Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste stream that replaces a standard already in effect,
and it applies to only one facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.
2. Section 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding
in alphabetical order an additional entry for ``DuPont Environmental
Treatment Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ'' and adding a new footnote 13
to read as follows:
Sec. 268.44 Variance from a treatment standard.
* * * * *
(o) * * *
Table.--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec. 268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wastewaters Nonwastewaters
Regulated ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility name \1\ and address Waste code See also hazardous Concentration Concentration
constituent (mg/L) Notes (mg/kg) Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
DuPont Environmental Treatment- F039 Standards under 1,3-phenylenedia- NA.............. NA.............. CMBST; CHOXD fb (\13\)
Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ. Sec. 268.40. mine (1,3-PDA). BIODG or CARBN;
or BIODG fb
CARBN.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
\13\ This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.
[[Page 6241]]
[FR Doc. 06-1072 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
