Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion, 28768-28786 [E8-11004]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
28768
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
• Mail: Federal Docket Management
System Office, 1160 Defense Pentagon,
Washington, DC 20301–1160.
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the agency name and
docket number or Regulatory
Information Number (RIN) for this
Federal Register document. The general
policy for comments and other
submissions from members of the public
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov as they are
received without change, including any
personal identifiers or contact
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms.
Anne Hill at (301) 688–6527.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory
Planning and Review’’
It has been determined that Privacy
Act rules for the Department of Defense
are not significant rules. The rules do
not (1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy; a sector of the economy;
productivity; competition; jobs; the
environment; public health or safety; or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities; (2) Create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another Agency; (3) Materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs, or
the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the
President’s priorities, or the principles
set forth in this Executive order.
Public Law 96–354, ‘‘Regulatory
Flexibility Act’’ (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6)
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense does not have significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it is
concerned only with the administration
of Privacy Act systems of records within
the Department of Defense.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Public Law 95–511, ‘‘Paperwork
Reduction Act’’ (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35)
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rule for the Department of
Defense imposes no information
requirements beyond the Department of
Defense and that the information
collected within the Department of
Defense is necessary and consistent
with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as the
Privacy Act of 1974.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Section 202, Public Law 104–4,
‘‘Unfunded Mandates Reform Act’’
It has been determined that this
Privacy Act rulemaking for the
Department of Defense does not involve
a Federal mandate that may result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
and that such rulemaking will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’
It has been determined that the
Privacy Act rules for the Department of
Defense do not have federalism
implications. The rule does 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.
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 322
Privacy.
Accordingly, 32 CFR part 322 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for 32 CFR
part 322 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat. 1896
(5 U.S.C. 552a).
2. Section 322.7 is amended by
adding paragraph (r) to read as follows:
§ 322.7
Exempt systems of records.
*
*
*
*
*
(r) GNSA 23.
(1) System name: NSA/CSS
Operations Security Support and
Program Files.
(2) Exemption. All portions of this
system of records which fall within the
scope of 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(4) may be
exempt from the provisions of 5 U.S.C.
552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H),
(e)(4)(I) and (f).
(3) Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(4).
(4) Reasons: (i) From subsection (c)(3)
because the release of the disclosure
accounting would place the subject of
an investigation on notice that they are
under investigation and provide them
with significant information concerning
the nature of the investigation, thus
resulting in a serious impediment to law
enforcement investigations.
(ii) From subsections (d) and (f)
because providing access to records of a
civil or administrative investigation and
the right to contest the contents of those
records and force changes to be made to
the information contained therein
would seriously interfere with and
thwart the orderly and unbiased
conduct of the investigation and impede
case preparation. Providing access rights
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
normally afforded under the Privacy Act
would provide the subject with valuable
information that would allow
interference with or compromise of
witnesses or render witnesses reluctant
to cooperate; lead to suppression,
alteration, or destruction of evidence;
enable individuals to conceal their
wrongdoing or mislead the course of the
investigation; and result in the secreting
of or other disposition of assets that
would make them difficult or
impossible to reach in order to satisfy
any Government claim growing out of
the investigation or proceeding.
(iii) From subsection (e)(1) because it
is not always possible to detect the
relevance or necessity of each piece of
information in the early stages of an
investigation. In some cases, it is only
after the information is evaluated in
light of other evidence that its relevance
and necessity will be clear.
(iv) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H)
because this system of records is
compiled for investigative purposes and
is exempt from the access provisions of
subsections (d) and (f).
(v) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because
to the extent that this provision is
construed to require more detailed
disclosure than the broad, generic
information currently published in the
system notice, an exemption from this
provision is necessary to protect the
confidentiality of sources of information
and to protect privacy and physical
safety of witnesses and informants.
Dated: May 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer,
Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. E8–11140 Filed 5–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001–06–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0418; SW–FRL–
8566–6]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to use
the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of
a delisting petition. Based on waste
specific information provided by the
petitioner, EPA is proposing to use the
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
DRAS to evaluate the impact of the
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. This proposal
provides background information on the
updates and revisions made to the
DRAS, and the use of the DRAS in
delisting decision-making. The EPA is
also proposing to grant petitions
submitted by Bayer Material Science in
Baytown, Texas; Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company in Ft. Worth,
Texas; and ConnocoPhillips Company
Borger Refinery in Borger, Texas, to
exclude (or delist) certain solid wastes
generated by these facilities from the
lists of hazardous wastes.
DATES: We will accept comments until
June 18, 2008. We will stamp comments
postmarked after the close of the
comment period as ‘‘late.’’ These ‘‘late’’
comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2008–0418 by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Michelle Peace,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver
your comments to: Michelle Peace,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–
0418. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
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.
Docket. All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202. The hard copy RCRA
regulatory docket for this proposed rule,
EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0418, is
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at
$0.15 per page. EPA requests that you
contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
further technical information
concerning this document or for
appointments to view the docket or the
Bayer facility petition, contact Michelle
Peace, Environmental Protection
Agency, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail
Code: 6PD–C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
TX 75202, by calling 214–665–7430 or
by e-mail at peace.michelle@epa.gov.
For technical information regarding
the ConocoPhillips Company petition,
contact Youngmoo Kim at 214–665–
6788 or by e-mail at
kim.youngmoo@epa.gov.
For information regarding the
Lockheed Martin petition, contact
Wendy Jacques at (214) 665–7395 or by
e-mail at jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must
reach EPA by June 3, 2008. The request
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28769
must contain the information described
in § 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each
company listed in the SUMMARY
submitted a petition under 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20
allows any person to petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision of §§ 260 through 266, 268
and 273. Section 260.22(a) specifically
provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste on a ‘‘generator specific’’ basis
from the hazardous waste lists.
The Agency bases its proposed
decision to grant the petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information
provided by the petitioner. This
proposed decision, if finalized, would
conditionally exclude the petitioned
waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude the
petitioned wastes from these facilities
are nonhazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria and that the
waste process used will substantially
reduce the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from this waste.
We would also conclude that the
processes minimize short-term and
long-term threats from the petitioned
waste to human health and the
environment.
The information in this section is
organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve these
delistings?
C. What is unique about these delistings?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting
program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect states?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Individual Waste
Information and Data
A. Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown,
Texas—TDI Residue
1. What waste did Bayer petition EPA to
delist?
2. Who is Bayer and what process does it
use to generate the petitioned waste?
3. What information did the facility submit
to support this petition?
4. What were the results of Bayer’s
analyses?
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28770
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
8. What is the final disposition of the
waste?
B. ConnocoPhillips Company, Borger,
Texas—Thermal Desorber Residual
Solids
1. What waste did ConnocoPhillips
Company petition EPA to delist?
2. Who is ConnocoPhillips Company and
what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
3. How did ConnocoPhillips Company
sample and analyze the data in this
petition?
4. What were the results of
ConnocoPhillips Company’s analysis?
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
8. What is the final disposition of the
waste?
C. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Fort Worth, Texas—F019 Waste Water
Treatment Sludge
1. What waste did Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company petition EPA to
delist?
2. Who is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company and what process do they use
to generate the petition waste?
3. What information did Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company submit to support
this petition?
4. What were the results of Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company’s analysis?
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
IV. The Risk Evaluation
A. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting these wastes?
B. What Changes have been made to the
DRAS model?
V. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
B. What happens if the petitioners violates
the terms and conditions?
VI. Public Comments
A. How may I as an interested party submit
comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain
copies of the proposed exclusion?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to grant the
delisting petitions submitted by Bayer,
ConnocoPhillips Company, and
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
(Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company) to have their petitioned
wastes excluded, or delisted, from the
definition of a hazardous waste.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve
these delistings?
Each individual petition requests a
delisting for the waste stream be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
delisted. They do not believe that their
petitioned wastes meet the criteria for
which EPA listed them. They also
believe no additional constituents or
factors could cause the wastes 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). In
making the initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated each of
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 petitioners
that the wastes are non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on these reviews,
that the wastes remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petitions. 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
were acutely toxic, the concentration of
the constituents in the wastes, their
tendencies to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the
environment once released from the
wastes, plausible and specific types of
management of the petitioned waste, the
quantities of wastes generated, and
waste variability. EPA believes that the
each petitioned waste does not meet the
listing criteria and thus should not be a
listed waste. EPA’s proposed decision to
delist these individual waste streams
from the facilities above is based on the
information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the waste
and analytical data from each facility.
C. What is unique about these
delistings?
Each of the petitioned wastes has
been submitted by individual facilities.
Each waste stream has been evaluated
on its own merit. The proposed rule is
being combined because each of these
petitions have been evaluated using the
new provisional delisting numbers
generated by DRAS Version 3.0.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting
program?
EPA published an amended list of
hazardous wastes from nonspecific and
specific sources on January 16, 1981, as
part of its final and interim final
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
regulations implementing section 3001
of RCRA. EPA has amended this list
several times and published it in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. EPA lists these
wastes as hazardous because: (1) They
typically and frequently exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in Subpart C of Part
261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet
the criteria for listing contained in
§ 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary,
however, depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a waste described in these
regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual
facility meeting the listing description
may not be hazardous.
For this reason, §§ 260.20 and 260.22
provide an exclusion procedure, called
delisting, which allows persons to prove
that EPA should not regulate a specific
waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what
does it require of a petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from
a facility to EPA or an authorized State
to exclude wastes from the list of
hazardous wastes. The facility petitions
EPA because it does not believe the
wastes should be hazardous under
RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that wastes generated at a
particular facility do not meet any of the
criteria for which the waste was listed.
The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in Part 261 and further explained in
the background documents for the listed
waste.
In addition, under § 260.22, a
petitioner must prove that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide
whether factors other than those for
which the waste was listed warrant
retaining it as a hazardous waste. See
Part 261 and the background documents
for the listed waste.
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm whether their waste
remains non-hazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste.
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
Besides considering the criteria in
§ 260.22(a) and section 3001(f) of RCRA,
42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists to determine that
these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous
waste mixtures containing listed
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See
§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and (iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derivedfrom’’ rules, respectively. These wastes
are also eligible for exclusion and
remain hazardous wastes until
excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16,
2001).
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusions be finalized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically
requires EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before
granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion
unless and until it addresses all timely
public comments (including those at
public hearings, if any) on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1), at 42 USCA
6930(b)(1), allows rules to become
effective in less than six months after
EPA addresses public comments when
the regulated facility does not need the
six-month period to come into
compliance. That is the case here,
because this rule, if finalized, would
reduce the existing requirements for
persons generating hazardous wastes.
EPA believes that this exclusion
should be effective immediately upon
final publication because a six-month
deadline is not necessary to achieve the
purpose of section 3010(b), and a later
effective date would impose
unnecessary hardship and expense on
this petitioner. These reasons also
provide good cause for making this rule
effective immediately, upon final
publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
E. How would this action affect the
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 the states to impose their
own non-RCRA regulatory requirements
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
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. Delisting petitions
approved by the EPA Administrator (or
his designee) under 40 CFR 260.22 are
effective in the State of Texas only after
the final rule has been published in the
Federal Register.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Individual
Waste Information and Data
A. Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown
Texas—TDI Residue
1. What waste did Bayer petition EPA to
delist?
On September 2, 2004, Bayer
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous waste contained in
§ 261.32, toluene diisocyanate (TDI)
residues generated from its facility
located in Baytown, Texas. The waste
falls under the classification of a listed
waste under § 261.30. The waste is
listed as K027 hazardous wastes. These
are centrifuge and distillation residues
from TDI production. Specifically, in its
petition, Bayer requested that EPA grant
a conditional exclusion for 9,780 cubic
yards per year of the TDI residues.
2. Who is Bayer and what process does
it use to generate the petitioned waste?
Bayer as a facility has four
manufacturing groups: Plastics,
Coatings, Polyurethanes, and Industrial
Chemicals. They manufacture six
products within the manufacturing
groups. Hydrazine Hydrate; Maleic
Anhydride; Coatings; Makrolon
Polycarbonate; Methane Diisocyanate;
and Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) which
is used in flexible foam applications
such as auto seating, furniture and
bedding.
TDI is produced by a reaction of
toluene diamine (TDA) and phosgene.
The reaction takes place in a solvent
(orthodichlorobenzene, ODB). The
reaction produces TDI, HCL gas and a
small amount of high boiling impurities,
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28771
which are removed in the TDI residue
stream. The HCL gas is recovered and
re-used, all the phosgene is stripped
from the product stream and returned to
the process in the reaction step. The
TDI, ODB, and the residue stream are
processed further by separating the
residue from the TDI and ODB through
a distillation process. The stream
resulting from the distillation process
contains bottom residues mixed with
TDI and solvent. The residue separation
step removes the TDI and ODB, leaving
the residue waste. ODB is separated
from TDI and recycled back into the
process and pure TDI is sold as product.
3. What information did the facility
submit to support this petition?
To support its petition, Bayer
submitted:
• Analytical results of the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure
(TCLP) and total constituent analysis for
volatile and semivolatile organics,
pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans,
PCBs and metals for five TDI samples;
• Analytical results from multiple pH
leaching of metals; and
• A description of the TDI production
process.
4. What were the results of Bayer’s
analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the Bayer analytical characterization
provide a reasonable basis to grant
Bayer’s petition for an exclusion of the
TDI residues. EPA believes the data
submitted in support of the petition
show the TDI residues are nonhazardous. Analytical data for the
residue samples were used in the DRAS
to develop delisting levels. The data
summaries for compounds of concern
(COC)s are presented in Table 1. EPA
has reviewed the sampling procedures
used by Bayer and has determined that
it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations
in constituent concentrations in the TDI
residues. In addition, the data submitted
in support of the petition show that
constituents in Bayer’s waste are
presently below risk-based levels used
in the delisting decision-making. EPA
believes that Bayer has successfully
demonstrated that the TDI residues are
non-hazardous.
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28772
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE TDI RESIDUES AT
BAYER POLYMERS LLC IN BAYTOWN, TX
Maximum total
(mg/kg)
Constituents
Arsenic .......................................................................................................................
Barium ........................................................................................................................
Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride) ..............................................................................
Chromium ..................................................................................................................
Cobalt .........................................................................................................................
Copper .......................................................................................................................
Cyanide ......................................................................................................................
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid .......................................................................................
Diethyl phthalate ........................................................................................................
Endrin .........................................................................................................................
Lead ...........................................................................................................................
Nickel .........................................................................................................................
Selenium ....................................................................................................................
Tin ..............................................................................................................................
2–4 Toluenediamine ..................................................................................................
Vanadium ...................................................................................................................
Zinc ............................................................................................................................
Maximum TCLP
(mg/L)
1.0
0.17
0.09
30.2
0.42
0.64
0.265
0.0310
8.90
0.28
0.18
24.8
88.0
1.70
1.80
8.40
2.20
0.011
0.837
0.033
0.0034
0.0007
0.00610
0.0133
0.0020
0.0010
0.0002
0.00210
0.0525
0.0209
0.0196
0.020
0.0225
0.0628
Maximum
allowable TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
0.10
36.0
6.06
2.27
13.6
25.9
3.08
1.08
1000.0
0.02
0.702
13.5
0.89
22.5
0.0459
0.976
197.0
Note: 1. These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific
level found in one sample.
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
the environment from airborne exposure
to constituents from the sludge.
EPA concluded, after reviewing
Bayer’s processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other
than those for which Bayer tested, are
likely to be present or formed as
reaction products or by-products in
Bayer’s wastes. In addition, on the basis
of explanations and analytical data
provided by Bayer, pursuant to § 260.22,
EPA concludes that the petitioned
waste, sludge, does not exhibit any of
the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. See
§§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24
respectively.
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
6. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition,
in addition to the potential impacts to
the ground water, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface
runoff) for the sludge. With regard to
airborne dispersion in particular, EPA
believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from the petitioned waste
is unlikely. No appreciable air releases
are likely from the sludge under any
likely disposal conditions. EPA
evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from the waste
water in an open landfill. The results of
this worst-case analysis indicated that
there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
The descriptions by Bayer’s of the
hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization, with the proposed
verification testing requirements (as
discussed later in this notice), provide
a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the
petition. The data submitted in support
of the petition show that constituents in
the waste are below the maximum
allowable concentrations (See Table 1).
EPA believes that the sludge generated
by Bayer contains hazardous
constituents at levels which will present
minimal short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes that it should
grant to Bayer an exclusion from the list
of hazardous wastes for the TDI residue.
EPA believes that the data submitted in
support of the petition show the Bayer’s
TDI residue to be non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Bayer and has
determined they satisfy EPA’s criteria
for collecting representative samples of
variable constituent concentrations in
the TDI residue. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that
constituents in Bayer’s wastes are
presently below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting
decision-making process and would not
pose a substantial hazard to the
environment and the public. EPA
believes that Bayer has successfully
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
demonstrated that the TDI residue is
non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to Bayer for the TDI residue
described in its July 2004 petition.
EPA’s decision to exclude this waste is
based on analysis performed on samples
taken of the TDI residue.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,
EPA will no longer regulate 9,780 cubic
yards per year of TDI residue from
Bayer’s Baytown facility under parts 262
through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270.
8. What is the final disposition of the
waste?
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the
TDI residue will be disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill.
B. ConocoPhillips Company, Borger,
Texas—Thermal Desorber Residual
Solids
1. What waste did ConocoPhillips
Company petition EPA to delist?
On August 26, 2005, ConocoPhillips
Company, (now WRB Refining LLC)
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31, thermal desorber residual
solids from processing oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials
including F037, F038, K048, K049, K050
and K051 generated by its facility
located in Borger, Texas. The waste falls
under the classification of listed waste
pursuant to § 261.31. Specifically, in its
petition, ConocoPhillips Company
requested that EPA grant a conditional
exclusion for 1500 cubic yards per year
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
of thermal desorber residual solids for a
period of 10 years.
2. Who is ConocoPhillips Company and
what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
Effective, January 1, 2007,
ConocoPhillips and EnCana Corporation
of Canada created an integrated North
American heavy oil business consisting
of both upstream and downstream
assets. The downstream venture, WRB
Refining LLC, consists of
ConocoPhillips Company’s Wood River
Refinery located in Roxana, IL and
Borger Refinery, located in Borger, TX.
ConocoPhillips Company remains the
operator of both refineries.
ConocoPhillips Company operates the
WRB Refining LLC (formerly
ConocoPhillips Company Borger
Refinery which processes crude oil into
unleaded gasoline, furnace oil, jet fuels,
stove oil, kerosene, dual-purpose fuel
oil, isobutene, propane, butane, hexane,
heptane, propylene and sulfur.
Processes used in the refining of these
products are atmospheric distillation,
vacuum distillation, desalting, fluid
catalytic cracking, hydrotreating,
hydrogen fluoride alkylation reforming.
The use of the thermal desorption
enables ConocoPhillips Company
Borger Refinery to process its oil-bearing
hazardous secondary materials in a
manner that allows oil recovered from
the desorption process to be recycled
back into the refining process. The
thermal desorber residual solids are
currently disposed into the Texas
Commission for Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) Class I–H hazardous waste
landfill, and the waste to be delisted
will be disposed in the TCEQ Class I/II
proposed non-hazardous landfill
location on site. The Class I/II landfill
is located within the facility and the
nearest property line is located more
than 500 feet from the area of landfill
operations. The landfill is equipped
with a 3-foot bentonite-amended clay
liner and a 60-mil geomembrane on its
bottom and side slopes, and a leachate
collection system.
3. How did ConocoPhillips Company
sample and analyze the data in this
petition?
To support its petition,
ConocoPhillips Company submitted:
• Historical information on waste
generation and management practices;
• Results of the total constituents list
for 40 CFR part 264, Appendix IX
volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds and metals. These wastes
are also analyzed for cyanide and
sulfide.
• Results of the constituent list for
appendix IX on Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure(TCLP) extract for
volatiles, semi-volatiles, and metals.
• Results from total oil and grease
analyses and multiple pH measurements
and;
• Results from a total of ten
composite samples including two
28773
duplicates, representing 60 discrete
thermal desorber residual solids
samples.
4. What were the results of
ConocoPhillips Company’s analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the ConocoPhillips Company analytical
characterization provide a reasonable
basis to grant ConocoPhillips
Company’s petition for an exclusion of
the thermal desorber residual solids.
EPA believes the data submitted in
support of the petition show the thermal
desorber residual solids are nonhazardous. Analytical data for the
thermal desorber solid samples were
used in the DRAS to develop delisting
levels. The data summaries for
compounds of concern (COC)s are
presented in Table 2. EPA has reviewed
the sampling procedures used by
ConocoPhillips Company and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria
for collecting representative samples of
the variations in constituent
concentrations in the thermal desorber
residual solids. In addition, the data
submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in
ConocoPhillips Company’s waste are
presently below risk-based levels used
in the delisting decision-making. EPA
believes that ConocoPhillips Company
has successfully demonstrated that the
thermal desorber residual solids are
non-hazardous.
TABLE 2.—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION OF THE THERMAL DESORBER
RESIDUAL SOLIDS AT CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY COMPANY, BORGER, TEXAS
Maximum total
(mg/kg)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Constituents
Benzene .....................................................................................................................
Carbon Disulfide ........................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene .............................................................................................................
Methylene Chloride ....................................................................................................
Trichlorofluoromethane ..............................................................................................
Toluene ......................................................................................................................
Xylenes ......................................................................................................................
Acenapthene ..............................................................................................................
Anthracene .................................................................................................................
2-chlorophenol ...........................................................................................................
1,4-Dichlorobenzene ..................................................................................................
Dibenzofuran ..............................................................................................................
Fluoranthene ..............................................................................................................
Napthalene .................................................................................................................
Phenol ........................................................................................................................
Pyrene ........................................................................................................................
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene ..............................................................................................
Silver ..........................................................................................................................
Barium ........................................................................................................................
Beryllium ....................................................................................................................
Cobalt .........................................................................................................................
Chromium ..................................................................................................................
Copper .......................................................................................................................
Nickel .........................................................................................................................
Tin ..............................................................................................................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maximum TCLP
(mg/L)
0.047
0.040
0.008
0.016
0.005
0.150
0.040
2.60
0.44
0.73
1.90
0.59
0.066
0.94
1.20
1.10
2.30
8.70
734.00
1.80
70.30
320.00
1090.00
864.00
22.60
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
2.60
<0.05
<0.10
<0.10
0.23
0.14
0.015
19MYP1
Maximum
allowable TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
0.5
552.00
106.00
0.077
151.00
148.00
93.40
104.00
253.00
28.10
90.90
0.14
24.00
0.32
1690.00
43.40
9.68
5.0
100.0
0.76
130.00
5.0
234.00
129.00
379000.00
28774
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATION OF THE THERMAL DESORBER
RESIDUAL SOLIDS AT CONOCOPHILLIPS REFINERY COMPANY, BORGER, TEXAS—Continued
Maximum total
(mg/kg)
Constituents
Vanadium ...................................................................................................................
Zinc ............................................................................................................................
Antimony ....................................................................................................................
Arsenic .......................................................................................................................
Cadmium ....................................................................................................................
Lead ...........................................................................................................................
Selenium ....................................................................................................................
Chromium+6 ..............................................................................................................
Mercury ......................................................................................................................
Cyanide ......................................................................................................................
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
ConocoPhillips Company’s processes
that no other hazardous constituents of
concern, other than those for which
ConocoPhillips Company tested, are
likely to be present or formed as
reaction products or by-products in
ConocoPhillips Company’s wastes. In
addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by
ConocoPhillips Company, pursuant to
§ 260.22, EPA concludes that the
petitioned waste, sludge, does not
exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23,
and 261.24 respectively.
6. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition,
in addition to the potential impacts to
the ground water, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface
runoff) for the sludge. With regard to
airborne dispersion in particular, EPA
believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from the petitioned waste
is unlikely. No appreciable air releases
are likely from the sludge under any
likely disposal conditions. EPA
evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from the waste
water in an open landfill. The results of
this worst-case analysis indicated that
there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment from airborne exposure
to constituents from the sludge.
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions by ConocoPhillips
Company of the hazardous waste
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
267.00
1940.00
186.00
64.10
1.55
135.00
2280.00
0.06
0.05
1.30
process and analytical characterization,
with the proposed verification testing
requirements (as discussed later in this
notice), provide a reasonable basis for
EPA to grant the petition. The data
submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in the waste are
below the maximum allowable
concentrations (See Table 2). EPA
believes that the thermal desorber
residual solids generated by
ConocoPhillips Company contain
hazardous constituents at levels which
will present minimal short-term and
long-term threats from the petitioned
waste to human health and the
environment.
Thus, EPA believes that it should
grant to WRB Refining LLC (formerly
ConocoPhillips Company Borger
Refinery) an exclusion from the list of
hazardous wastes for the thermal
desorber residual solids. EPA believes
that the data submitted in support of the
petition show the ConocoPhillips
Company’s thermal desorber residual
solids to be non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by ConocoPhillips
Company and has determined they
satisfy EPA’s criteria for collecting
representative samples of variable
constituent concentrations in the
thermal desorber residual solids. The
data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in
ConocoPhillips Company’s thermal
desorber residual solids are presently
below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting
decision-making process and would not
pose a substantial hazard to the
environment and the public. EPA
believes that ConocoPhillips Company
has successfully demonstrated that the
thermal desorber residual solids are
non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to WRB Refining LLC
(formerly ConocoPhillips Company
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maximum TCLP
(mg/L)
0.24
0.52
1.69
0.25
0001
0.007
0.37
0.10
0.002
0.012
Maximum
allowable TCLP
delisting level
(mg/L)
6.93
1930.00
2.65
1.69
1.0
5.00
1.0
5.0
0.20
30.10
Borger Refinery) for the thermal
desorber residual solids described in its
2005 petition. EPA’s decision to exclude
this waste is based on analysis
performed on samples taken of the
solids.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,
EPA will no longer regulate 1500 cubic
yards per year of thermal desorber
residual solids from WRB Refining LLC
(formerly ConocoPhillips Company
Borger Refinery), Borger, TX facility
under Parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of Part 270.
8. What is the final disposition of the
waste?
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the
thermal desorber residual solids will be
disposed of in an onsite non-hazardous
industrial solid waste landfill.
C. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, Fort Worth, Texas—F019
Waste Water Treatment Sludge
1. What waste did Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company petition EPA to
delist?
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company petitioned EPA on February
21, 2006, to exclude from the lists of
hazardous waste contained in §§ 261.31
and 261.32, the sludge from its waste
water treatment plant. The sludge waste
stream is generated from the Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company facility
located in Fort Worth, Texas. The
sludge is listed under EPA Hazardous
Waste No. F019, because it is derived
from the treatment of listed waste water
which is treated at the facility’s waste
water treatment plant. Specifically, in
its petition, Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company requested that
EPA grant an exclusion for 90 cubic
yards per calendar year of sludge
resulting from the treatment of waste
waters from the manufacturing
processes at its facility.
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
2. Who is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company and what process do they use
to generate the petition waste?
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company is engaged in design,
development, production and full
system support of fighter/attack aircraft
for the United States Air Force and
foreign governments. The United States
Air Force Plant No. 4 (AFP4), operated
by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company, consists of over seven million
square feet of advanced tactical fighter
aircraft manufacturing, research,
development, and office area on a six
hundred acre site. Manufacturing
advanced aircraft requires typical metal
finishing techniques such as aqueous
cleaning, sulfuric acid anodizing, and
chromate conversion coating. Waste
water from these processes is routed to
a centralized pre-treatment industrial
waste water pre-treatment facility
through segregated waste collection
lines. Industrial waste water is primarily
generated from the sulfuric acid anodize
and chromated conversion coating
process line. This line consists of
fourteen, 8,000 gallon tanks arranged in
linear fashion for the etch-clean-rinseclean-rinse-anodize-rinse-seal process.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company intends to dispose of the
delisted sludge at a Subtitle D Landfill.
Treatment of the waste waters, which
result from the manufacturing process
generates the sludge that is classified as
F019 listed hazardous waste pursuant to
40 CFR 261.31. The 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VII hazardous constituents
which are the basis for listing F019
hazardous waste are: Hexavalent
chromium and cyanide.
3. What information did Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company submit to
support this petition?
To support its petition, Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company
submitted:
• Analytical results of the toxicity
characteristic leaching procedure and
total constituent analysis for volatile
and semivolatile organics, pesticides,
herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and
metals for six sludge samples;
• Analytical results from multiple pH
leaching of metals; and
• Descriptions of the waste water
treatment process.
28775
4. What were the results of Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company’s
analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’s waste, and the analytical
data submitted in support of the petition
show that the sludge is non-hazardous.
Analytical data from Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company’s sludge samples
were used in the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software. The data
summaries for detected constituents are
presented in Table 3. EPA has reviewed
the sampling procedures used by
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
and has determined that they satisfy
EPA’s criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations
in constituent concentrations in the
sludge. The data submitted in support of
the petition show that constituents in
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’s wastes are presently below
health-based risk levels used in the
delisting decision-making. EPA believes
that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company has successfully demonstrated
that the sludge is non-hazardous.
TABLE 3.—MAXIMUM TCLP AND TOTAL CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF THE SLUDGE AND CORRESPONDING
DELISTING LIMITS 1
Waste stream
total
concentration
(mg/kg)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Chemical name
Acetone ............................................................................................................................
Acetonitrile .......................................................................................................................
Antimony ..........................................................................................................................
Arsenic .............................................................................................................................
Barium ..............................................................................................................................
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate ..............................................................................................
Cadmium ..........................................................................................................................
Carbon Disulfide ..............................................................................................................
Chromium ........................................................................................................................
Chromium, Hexavalent ....................................................................................................
Cobalt ...............................................................................................................................
Copper .............................................................................................................................
Cyanide ............................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene ...................................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ..................................................................................................................
Lead .................................................................................................................................
Mercury ............................................................................................................................
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone) ...................................................................................
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone ....................................................................................................
Methylene Chloride ..........................................................................................................
Nickel ...............................................................................................................................
Selenium ..........................................................................................................................
Silver ................................................................................................................................
Toluene ............................................................................................................................
Vanadium .........................................................................................................................
Xylenes, Total ..................................................................................................................
Zinc ..................................................................................................................................
Waste stream
TCLP
concentration
(mg/l)
3.40E+00
2.20E–02
6.30E+02
9.30E+01
3.40E+02
3.20E+03
<1.20E+01
1.00E–02
2.50E+04
4.00E+2
8.50E+01
4.00E+03
3.00E+02
2.20E–02
1.20E+02
3.80E+03
1.90E+00
7.80E–01
<4.80E–02
3.90E–01
4.90E+03
<6.00E+01
3.30E+02
1.10E–02
1.10E+03
6.70E–02
2.50E+03
5.00E–02
<1.00E–02
1.30E–01
<5.00E–02
6.80E–01
<1.00E–01
6.10E–02
<1.00E–02
1.60E+00
<2.00E–02
5.60E–01
2.10E+01
9.90E–01
<1.00E–02
1.40E+03
1.40E–01
<2.00E–02
2.50E–02
<5.00E–02
6.00E–02
3.00E+01
2.20E–02
4.00E–02
<1.00E–02
1.30E–02
<2.50E–02
1.50E+01
Delisting
concentration
(mg/l)
4.06E+04
7.66E+02
8.45E+00
6.57E–01
1.00E+02
4.68E+29
1.00E+00
4.40E+03
5.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.04E+03
1.81E+03
2.40E+02
8.46E+02
6.76E+03
5.00E+00
2.00E–01
2.00E+02
3.61E+03
6.16E+00
3.00E+01
1.00E+00
5.00E+00
1.18E+03
5.15E+01
7.45E+02
1.58E+04
1 These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels do not necessarily represent the
specific levels found in one sample.
< # Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28776
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
5. What did EPA conclude about the
facility’s analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’s processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other
than those for which Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company tested, are likely
to be present or formed as reaction
products or by-products in Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company’s wastes.
In addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
pursuant to § 260.22, EPA concludes
that the petitioned waste, sludge, does
not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23,
and 261.24 respectively.
6. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition,
in addition to the potential impacts to
the ground water, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned
waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface
runoff) for the sludge. With regard to
airborne dispersion in particular, EPA
believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from the petitioned waste
is unlikely. No appreciable air releases
are likely from the sludge under any
likely disposal conditions. EPA
evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from the waste
water in an open landfill. The results of
this worst-case analysis indicated that
there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment from airborne exposure
to constituents from the sludge.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
7. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions by Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company of the hazardous
waste process and analytical
characterization, with the proposed
verification testing requirements (as
discussed later in this notice), provide
a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the
petition. The data submitted in support
of the petition show that constituents in
the waste are below the maximum
allowable concentrations (See Table 3).
EPA believes that the sludge generated
by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company contains hazardous
constituents at levels which will present
minimal short-term and long-term
threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Thus, EPA believes that it should
grant to Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company an exclusion from the list of
hazardous wastes for the sludge. EPA
believes that the data submitted in
support of the petition show the
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’s sludge to be non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company and has
determined they satisfy EPA’s criteria
for collecting representative samples of
variable constituent concentrations in
the sludge. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that
constituents in Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company’s wastes are
presently below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting
decision-making process and would not
pose a substantial hazard to the
environment and the public. EPA
believes that Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company has successfully
demonstrated that the sludge is nonhazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company for the sludge
described in its February 2006 petition.
EPA’s decision to exclude this waste is
based on analysis performed on samples
taken of the sludge.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,
EPA will no longer regulate 242,000
pounds per year of sludge from
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company’s Fort Worth facility under
Parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of Part 270.
IV. The Risk Evaluation
A. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
The worst case scenario for
management of the sludge was modeled
for disposal in a landfill. EPA used such
information gathered to identify
plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground
water, surface water, soil, air) for
hazardous constituents present in the
sludge. EPA determined that disposal in
a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario
for the wastes. In assessing potential
risks to ground water, EPA used the
maximum estimated waste volumes and
the maximum reported extract
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS
program to estimate the constituent
concentrations in the ground water at a
hypothetical receptor well down
gradient from the disposal site. Using
the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10¥5
and non-cancer hazard index of 0.1), the
DRAS program can back-calculate the
acceptable receptor well concentrations
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(referred to as compliance-point
concentrations) using standard risk
assessment algorithms and Agency
health-based numbers. Using the
maximum compliance-point
concentrations and EPA Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP)
fate and transport modeling factors, the
DRAS further back-calculates the
maximum permissible waste constituent
concentrations not expected to exceed
the compliance-point concentrations in
ground water.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate
and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for
possible ground water contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned
waste in a landfill, and that a reasonable
worst-case scenario is appropriate when
evaluating whether a waste should be
relieved of the protective management
constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use
of some reasonable worst-case scenarios
resulted in conservative values for the
compliance-point concentrations and
ensured that the waste, once removed
from hazardous waste regulation, will
not pose a significant threat to human
health and/or the environment. The
DRAS also uses the maximum estimated
waste volumes and the maximum
reported total concentrations to predict
possible risks associated with releases of
waste constituents through surface
pathways (e.g., volatilization or windblown particulate from the landfill). As
in the above ground water analyses, the
DRAS uses the risk level, the healthbased data and standard risk assessment
and exposure algorithms to predict
maximum compliance-point
concentrations of waste constituents at
a hypothetical point of exposure. Using
fate and transport equations, the DRAS
uses the maximum compliance-point
concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent
concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’).
In most cases, because a delisted
waste is no longer subject to hazardous
waste control, EPA is generally unable
to predict, and does not presently
control, how a petitioner will manage a
waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA
currently believes that it is
inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate
and transport model. EPA does control
the type of unit where the waste is
disposed.
EPA also considers the applicability
of ground water monitoring data during
the evaluation of delisting petitions. In
this case, the facilities have never
directly disposed of this material in a
solid waste landfill, so no representative
data exists. Therefore, EPA has
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
determined that it would be
unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data.
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the wastes and analytical
characterization which illustrate the
presence of toxic constituents at lower
concentrations in these waste streams
provide a reasonable basis to conclude
that the likelihood of migration of
hazardous constituents from the
petitioned waste will be substantially
reduced so that short-term and longterm threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.
The DRAS results, which calculated
the maximum allowable concentration
of chemical constituents in the wastes
are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
Based on the comparison of the DRAS
results and maximum TCLP
concentrations found in Tables 1, 2, and
3, the petitioned wastes should be
delisted because no constituents of
concern are likely to be present or
formed as reaction products or by
products in the wastes.
B. What changes have been made to the
DRAS model?
In July 2007, U.S. EPA prepared an
update of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) by releasing version
3.0. The update addressed a number of
issues with version 2 and improved the
fate and transport modeling.
To estimate the downgradient
concentrations of waste leachate
constituents released into groundwater,
the DRAS utilizes conservative dilutionattenuation factors (DAFs) taken from
Monte-Carlo applications of U.S. EPA’s
Composite Model for Leachate
Migration with Transformation Products
(CMTP). DRAS 3.0 includes all new
DAFs from new CMTP modeling runs.
The new modeling takes advantage of:
Updated saturated flow and transport
modules; a new surface impoundment
module and database; model corrections
for unrealistic scenarios (like water
tables modeled above the ground
surface); new isotherms for metals; and
a revised recharge and infiltration
database. As a result, many of the DAFs
used in previous versions of DRAS have
changed.
Further affecting the groundwater
calculation, the relationships for
determining scaling factors used to scale
the DAFs to account for very small
waste streams have been updated to
reflect the new database information on
landfills and surface impoundments and
were also corrected for a metric
conversion of cubic meters to cubic
yards. The new scaling factors are
generally higher than those of previous
versions of DRAS, resulting in higher
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
estimated dilution and attenuation at
lower waste volumes for both landfills
and surface impoundments.
The new metals DAFs, based on
MINTEQA2 isotherms, can vary as a
function of the landfill leachate
concentration. This means that the
effective DAF (including a scaling factor
adjustment, if necessary) for an input
concentration may differ significantly
with the effective DAF that corresponds
to the allowable leachate concentration.
DRAS 3.0 now displays the DAFs in
both the forward calculated risk tables
and the tables of maximum allowable
concentrations so that the difference is
evident to the user. The isotherms that
vary by leachate concentration are
represented in DRAS by a look-up table
with leachate concentrations paired
with DAFs. In the event that an actual
concentration input to DRAS lies
between two values in the table, or an
allowable receptor concentration lies
between two calculated receptor
concentrations from the table, DRAS 3.0
will linearly and proportionally
extrapolate between the two values to
determine the corresponding exposure
or allowable leachate concentration.
EPA changed the calculation for
particle emissions caused by vehicles
driving over the waste at the landfill to
provide a more realistic estimate. The
estimate depends upon the number of
trips per day landfill vehicles make back
and forth over the waste. In previous
versions of DRAS, this value was
conservatively set at a 100 trips per day,
corresponding with an extremely high
annual waste volume. In DRAS 3.0, a
minimum number of trips per day was
conservatively assumed from the
Subtitle D landfill survey (7.4 trips per
day at the 95th percentile of values
reported). The number of trips per day
specific to the actual waste volume is
then added to the minimum to reflect
the impact of very large waste streams.
This will considerably reduce the
particle emission estimate for wastes
generated at all but the largest annual
volumes.
EPA added a conversion from English
to metric tons to the calculation of
particle emissions from waste
unloading, resulting in a decrease of
roughly 10% over previous versions of
DRAS. We also made a unit-conversion
factor correction to part of the airvolatile pathway which will reduce the
impact to the receptor.
An error in the back-calculation for
fish ingestion pathway was corrected to
reflect the difference between freely
dissolved and total water column waste
constituent concentrations.
For the estimation of risk and hazard,
we made a number of updates to the
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28777
forward and back calculations. Previous
versions of DRAS assumed that only
12.5% of particles are absorbed by the
receptor’s respiratory system. This is no
longer necessary as toxicity reference
values for inhalation currently
recommended by U.S. EPA relate risk or
hazard directly to exposure
concentration. DRAS 3.0 does not
include the 12.5% reduction. This
change significantly increases estimated
risks due to particle inhalation and
lowers corresponding allowable
concentrations.
DRAS Version 3.0.47 has a
reformulated back calculation of the
allowable leachate concentrations from
exposure due to contaminants
volatilized during household water use
to match the forward calculation of risk.
In previous versions of DRAS, the
forward calculation summed the risks
from exposure to all three evaluated
household compartments (the shower,
the bathroom, and the whole house)
while the back calculation based the
maximum allowable level on the single
most conservative compartment. The
DRAS 3.0 maximum allowable leachate
concentrations are now based on the
combined impact of all three
compartments. The house exposure was
also expanded to a 900 minute (15 hour)
daily exposure to reflect non-working
residents who have an overall 16 hour
in-house exposure (the other 1 hour is
spent in the shower and bathroom).
EPA resolved the inconsistencies with
the way DRAS chooses limiting
pathways for specific waste constituents
in DRAS 3.0.
EPA checked all toxicity reference
values in DRAS and updated where
necessary. Approximately 180 changes
were made to the toxicity reference
values in DRAS based on data in IRIS,
PPRTV, HEAST, NCEA, CalEPA and
other sources. Some route-to-route
extrapolations of oral toxicity data to
inhalation exposure have been returned
to DRAS 3.0 if consistent with Agency
policy. See U.S. EPA 2006 for full
accounting of this methodology. The
same reference also includes
discussions of toxicity reference choices
where the multiple values were
available or where the toxicity reference
values were specific to particular
species of constituents.
V. Next Steps
A. With What Conditions Must the
Petitioners Comply?
The petitioners must comply with the
requirements in 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix IX, Tables 1 and 2 as
amended by this notice. The text below
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28778
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
gives the rationale and details of those
requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of
constituent concentrations for which the
facility must test in the petitioned
wastes, below which these wastes
would be considered non-hazardous.
EPA selected the set of inorganic and
organic constituents specified in
paragraph (1) and listed in 40 CFR Part
261, Appendix IX, Tables 1 and 2, based
on information in the petition. EPA
compiled the inorganic and organic
constituents list from descriptions of the
manufacturing processes used by the
facilities, previous test data provided for
the wastes, and the respective healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking. These delisting levels
correspond to the allowable levels
measured in the leachable
concentrations of the petitioned wastes.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
Waste classification as non-hazardous
cannot begin until compliance with the
limits set in paragraph (1) has occurred
for two consecutive quarterly sampling
events. For example, if the facility is
issued a final exclusion in August, the
first quarter samples are due in
November and the second quarter
samples are due in February. If EPA
deems that both the first and second
quarter samples (a total of four) meet all
the delisting limits, classification of the
waste as non-hazardous can begin in
March. If constituent levels in any
sample taken by the facility exceed any
of the delisting levels set in paragraph
(1), the facility must: (i) notify EPA in
accordance with paragraph (6), and; (ii)
manage and dispose of the petitioned
waste as hazardous waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
The petitioner must complete a
verification testing program on the
wastes to assure that they do not exceed
the maximum levels specified in
paragraph (1). If EPA determines that
the data collected under this paragraph
does not support the data provided in
the petition, the exclusion will not
cover the tested waste. This verification
program operates on two levels.
The first part of the quarterly
verification testing program consists of
testing a batch of sludge for specified
indicator parameters as described in
paragraph (1). Each quarterly sampling
event will consist of at least two
samples of the waste. Levels of
constituents measured in the samples of
the waste that do not exceed the levels
set forth in paragraph (1) can be
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
considered non-hazardous after two
consecutive quarters of sampling data
meet the levels listed in paragraph (1).
The second part of the verification
testing program is the annual testing of
two representative composite samples of
the wastes for all constituents specified
in paragraph (1).
If the petitioner demonstrates for two
consecutive quarters complete
attainment of all specified limits, then
the facility may request approval of EPA
to reduce the frequency of testing to
annually. If, after review of performance
of the treatment system, EPA finds that
annual testing is adequately protective
of human health and the environment,
then EPA may authorize the facility to
reduce the quarterly comprehensive
sampling frequency to an annual basis.
If the annual testing of the wastes does
not meet the delisting levels in
paragraph (1), the facility must notify
EPA according to the requirements in
paragraph (6). EPA will then take the
appropriate actions necessary to protect
human health and the environment as
described in paragraph (6). The facility
must provide sampling results that
support the rationale that the delisting
exclusion should not be withdrawn.
The exclusion is effective upon
publication in the Federal Register but
the change in waste classification as
‘‘non-hazardous’’ cannot begin until two
consecutive quarters of verification
sampling comply with the levels
specified in paragraph (1). The waste
classification as ‘‘non-hazardous’’ is also
not authorized, if the facility fails to
perform the quarterly and yearly testing
as specified herein. Should the facility
fail to conduct the quarterly/yearly
testing as specified herein, then disposal
of sludge as delisted waste may not
occur in the following quarter(s)/year(s)
until the facility obtains the written
approval of EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow the facility
the flexibility of modifying its processes
(for example, changes in equipment or
change in operating conditions) to
improve its treatment processes.
However, the facility must prove the
effectiveness of the modified process
and request approval from EPA. The
facility must manage wastes generated
during the new process demonstration
as hazardous waste through verification
sampling within 30 days of start-up.
(5) Data Submittals
To provide appropriate
documentation that the facility is
correctly managing the waste, the
facility must compile, summarize, and
keep delisting records on-site for a
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum of five years. It should keep
all analytical data obtained pursuant to
paragraph (3), including quality control
information, for five years. Paragraph (5)
requires that the facility furnish these
data upon request for inspection by any
employee or representative of EPA or
the State of Texas.
If the proposed exclusion is made
final, then it will apply only to amount
of wastes designated by the exclusion
per calendar year.
EPA would require a petitioner to
submit additional verification data
under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) If the facility significantly alters
the manufacturing process treatment
system except as described in paragraph
(4).
(b) If the facility uses any new
manufacturing or production
process(es), or significantly changes the
current process(es) described in its
petition; or
(c) If the facility makes any changes
that could affect the composition or type
of waste generated.
The facility must submit a
modification to the petition complete
with full sampling and analysis for
circumstances where the waste volume
changes and/or additional waste codes
are added to the waste stream. EPA will
publish an amendment to the exclusion
if the changes are acceptable.
The facility must manage waste
volumes greater than those designated
by the exclusion as hazardous waste
until EPA grants a revised exclusion.
When this exclusion becomes final, the
management by the facility of the wastes
covered in this petition would be
relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction.
The facility may not classify the waste
as non-hazardous until the revised
exclusion is finalized.
(6) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) is to
require the facility to disclose new or
different information related to a
condition at the facility or disposal of
the waste, if it is pertinent to the
delisting. The petitioner must also use
this procedure if the waste sample in
the annual testing fails to meet the
levels found in paragraph (1). This
provision will allow EPA to reevaluate
the exclusion, if a source provides new
or additional information to EPA. EPA
will evaluate the information on which
it based the decision to see if it is still
correct or if circumstances have
changed so that the information is no
longer correct or would cause EPA to
deny the petition, if presented.
This provision expressly requires the
petitioner to report differing site
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
conditions or assumptions used in the
petition in addition to failure to meet
the annual testing conditions within 10
days of discovery. If EPA discovers such
information itself or from a third party,
it can act on it as appropriate. The
language being proposed is similar to
those provisions found in RCRA
regulations governing no-migration
petitions at § 268.6.
It is EPA’s position that it has the
authority under RCRA and the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq., to reopen a
delisting decision. EPA may reopen a
delisting decision when it receives new
information that calls into question the
assumptions underlying the delisting.
EPA believes a clear statement of its
authority in delisting is merited in light
of EPA’s experience. See the Federal
Register notice regarding Reynolds
Metals Company at 62 FR 37694 (July
14, 1997) and 62 FR 63458 (December
1, 1997) where the delisted waste
leached at greater concentrations into
the environment than the
concentrations predicted when
conducting the TCLP, leading EPA to
repeal the delisting. If an immediate
threat to human health and the
environment presents itself, EPA will
continue to address these situations on
a case-by-case basis. Where necessary,
EPA will make a good cause finding to
justify emergency rulemaking. See APA
section 553 (b)(3)(B).
B. What happens if the petitioner
violates the terms and conditions?
If the petitioner violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
EPA will start procedures to withdraw
the exclusion. Where there is an
immediate threat to human health and
the environment, EPA will evaluate the
need for enforcement activities on a
case-by-case basis. EPA expects the
petitioner to conduct the appropriate
waste analysis and comply with the
criteria explained above in paragraph (1)
of the exclusion.
VI. Public Comments
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
A. How may I as an interested party
submit comments?
EPA is requesting public comments
on this proposed decision. You may
submit comments on one of the three
petitions or the decision as a whole.
Please send three copies of your
comments. Send two copies to the
Chief, Corrective Action and Waste
Minimization Section, Multimedia
Permitting and Planning Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. Send a third copy to the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Industrial Hazardous Waste Permits
Division, Technical Evaluation Team,
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, TX
78711–3087. Identify your comments at
the top with this regulatory docket
number. You may submit your
comments electronically to Michelle
Peace at peace.michelle@epa.gov.
B. How may I review the docket or
obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?
You may review the RCRA regulatory
docket for this proposed rule at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202. It is available for viewing in the
EPA Freedom of Information Act
Review Room from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. Call (214) 665–6444
for appointments. The public may copy
material from any regulatory docket at
no cost for the first 100 pages and at
fifteen cents per page for additional
copies.
VII. 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) (Pub. L. 104–4). 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
proposed 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
proposed rule does not have tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
28779
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 this
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28780
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Dated: May 2, 2008.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division.
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part
261 add the following waste streams in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
*
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
Address
Waste description
*
*
Fort Worth, TX ..........
*
*
*
*
Sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste Number F019) generated at a maximum rate of 90 cubic
yards per calendar year after [insert publication date of the final rule].
For the exclusion to be valid, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company must implement a
verification testing program that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
Sludge Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—8.45; Arsenic—0.657; Barium—
100.0; Cadmium—1.00; Chromium—5.0; Chromium, Hexavalent—5.0; Cobalt—1040;
Copper—1810; Cyanide—240; Lead—5.0; Mercury—0.20; Nickel—1040; Selenium—
1.0; Silver—5.0; Vanadium—51.5; Zinc—15800; Acetone—40600; Acetonitrile—766;
Carbon Disulfide—4400; Ethylbenzene—846; Methyl Ethyl Ketone—200.0; Methyl Isobutyl Ketone—3610; Methylene Chloride—6.16; Toluene—1180; Xylenes—745.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits
set in paragraph (1) for sludge has occurred for two consecutive quarterly sampling
events.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the sludge, Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and
(ii) Manage and dispose of the sludge as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of
RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming final, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company may perform
quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the sludge as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Collect two representative composite samples of the sludge at quarterly intervals after
EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any time
after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance with
the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample
taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge must be
disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking each quarterly sample, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company will report its quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in
paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters or sampling events, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company can manage and dispose the non-hazardous sludge
according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company completes the quarterly testing specified in
paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the
limits set forth in paragraph (1), Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company may begin annual testing as follows: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company must test two representative composite samples of the sludge for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at
least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to 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
must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality
Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company sludge are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
28781
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample
taken.
(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could affect the composition or type of waste generated
(by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as non-hazardous until the wastes meet the delisting
levels set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for circumstances where the waste volume
changes and/or additional waste codes are added to the waste stream.
(5) Data Submittals:
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company must submit the information described below. If
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 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). Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, Corrective Action and
Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas, 75202, within the
time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable
electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained
on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests 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.
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 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
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 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 either the quarterly or annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 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 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28782
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information requires action by
EPA, 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.
(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 initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA 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.
*
*
*
*
*
2. In Table 1of 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 §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
*
WRB Refining LLC .............
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Facility
*
*
Borger, TX .................
*
*
*
*
Thermal desorber residual solids (Hazardous Waste No. F037, F038, K048, K049, K050,
K051) generated at a maximum annual rate of 1,500 cubic yards per calendar year
after [insert publication date of the final rule] and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill.
For the exclusion to be valid, WRB Refining LLC must implement a verification testing
program that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph.
Thermal Desorber Residual Solid Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—2.65; Arsenic—1.69; Barium—100; Beryllium—0.76; Cadmium—1.00; Chromium—5.0; Chromium, Hexavalent—5.0; Cobalt—130.0; Copper—234.0; Cyanide—30.10; Lead—5.0;
Mercury—0.20; Nickel—129.0; Selenium—1.0; Silver—5.0; Tin—3790.00; Vanadium—
6.93; Zinc—1930.0;
Acenapthene—104.0; Anthracene—253.0; Benzene—0.5; Carbon Disulfide—552.0;
Dibenzofuran—0.14; 1,4-Dichlororbenzene—7.50; Ethylbenzene—106.0; Fluoranthene—24.00; Methylene Chloride—0.077; Naphthalene—0.32; Phenol—1690.00; Pyrene—43.40; Toluene—148.0; 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene—9.68; Trichlorofluoromethane—
151.0; Xylenes—93.40.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance with the limits
set in paragraph (1) for thermal desorber residual solids has occurred for two consecutive quarterly sampling events.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample taken by WRB Refining LLC exceed any of the
delisting levels set in paragraph (1) for the thermal desorber residual solids, WRB Refining LLC must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and
(ii) Manage and dispose the thermal desorber residual solids as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming final, WRB Refining LLC may perform quarterly analytical
testing by sampling and analyzing the desorber residual solids as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Collect two representative composite samples of the sludge at quarterly intervals after
EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any time
after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance with
the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample
taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the sludge must be
disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking its first quarterly sample, WRB Refining LLC will report its first quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the sludge do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion for two consecutive quarters, WRB Refining LLC can manage and dispose the
non-hazardous thermal desorber residual solids according to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
28783
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If WRB Refining LLC completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above
and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in
paragraph (1), WRB Refining LLC may begin annual testing as follows: WRB Refining
LLC must test two representative composite samples of the thermal desorber residual
solids for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to 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
must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality
Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the WRB Refining LLC thermal desorber
residual solids are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample
taken.
(iv) The annual testing report should include the total amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If WRB Refining LLC significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any processes that generate(s) the waste that may
or could affect the composition or type of waste generated (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must
notify EPA in writing and it may no longer handle the wastes generated from the new
process as non-hazardous until the wastes meet the delisting levels set in paragraph
(1) and it has received written approval to do so from EPA.
WRB Refining LLC must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling
and analysis for circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional
waste codes are added to the waste stream.
(5) Data Submittals:
WRB Refining LLC must submit the information described below. If WRB Refining LLC
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). WRB Refining LLC must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Chief, Corrective Action and
Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas, 75202, within
the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained
on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests 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.
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 WRB Refining LLC 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.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28784
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(B) If either the quarterly or annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, WRB Refining LLC 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 WRB Refining LLC 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 requires action by
EPA, 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.
(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 initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA 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.
*
*
*
*
*
3. In Table 2 of Appendix IX of Part
261 add the following waste streams in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under § § 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
Bayer Material Science LLC
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Baytown, TX ..............
Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) Residue (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. K027) generated at a
maximum rate of 9,780 cubic yards per calendar year after [insert publication date of
the final rule]. For the exclusion to be valid, Bayer must implement a verification testing
program that meets the following Paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels:
All concentrations for those constituents must not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified in this paragraph. TDI Residue Leachable Concentrations
(mg/l): Arsenic—0.10, Barium—36.0; Chloromethane—6.06; Chromium—2.27; Cobalt—
13.6; Copper—25.9; Cyanide—3.08; Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid—1.08; Diethyl phthalate—1000.0; Endrin—0.02; Lead—0.702; Nickel—13.5; Selenium—0.89; Tin—22.5; Vanadium—0.976; Zinc—197.0; 2,4-Toluenediamine—0.0459.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits
set in paragraph (1) for the TDI residue has occurred for two consecutive quarterly
sampling events and the reports have been approved by EPA.
(B) If constituent levels in any sample taken by Bayer exceed any of the delisting levels
set in paragraph (1) for the TDI residue, Bayer must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and
(ii) Manage and dispose of the TDI residue as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle
C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements: Upon this exclusion becoming final, Bayer must perform quarterly analytical testing by sampling and analyzing the TDI residue as follows:
(A) Quarterly Testing:
(i) Collect two representative composite samples of the TDI residue at quarterly intervals
after EPA grants the final exclusion. The first composite samples may be taken at any
time after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling should be performed in accordance
with the sampling plan approved by EPA in support of the exclusion.
(ii) Analyze the samples for all constituents listed in paragraph (1). Any composite sample
taken that exceeds the delisting levels listed in paragraph (1) for the TDI residue must
be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance with the applicable hazardous waste
requirements.
(iii) Within thirty (30) days after taking its first quarterly sample, Bayer will report its first
quarterly analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples
of the TDI residue do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this exclusion
for two consecutive quarters, Bayer can manage and dispose the non-hazardous TDI
residue according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
28785
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(i) If Bayer completes the quarterly testing specified in paragraph (3) above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1),
Bayer can begin annual testing as follows: Bayer must test two representative composite samples of the TDI residue for all constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least
once per calendar year.
(ii) The samples for the annual testing shall be a representative composite sample according to 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
must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which the Data Quality
Objectives are to demonstrate that samples of the Bayer spent carbon are representative for all constituents listed in paragraph (1).
(iii) The samples for the annual testing taken for the second and subsequent annual testing events shall be taken within the same calendar month as the first annual sample
taken.
(iv) The annual testing report must include the total amount of waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If Bayer significantly changes the process described
in its petition or starts any process that generates the waste that may or could affect
the composition or type of waste generated (by illustration, but not limitation, changes in
equipment or operating conditions of the treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing and 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. Bayer must submit a modification to the petition complete with full sampling and analysis for circumstances where the waste volume changes and/or additional waste codes are added to the waste stream.
(5) Data Submittals:
Bayer must submit the information described below. If Bayer 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). Bayer must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph 3 to the Chief, Corrective Action and
Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Ave., Dallas, Texas 75202, within
the time specified. All supporting data can be submitted on CD–ROM or some comparable electronic media.
(B) Compile records of analytical data from paragraph (3), summarized, and maintained
on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when either EPA or the State of Texas requests 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. 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 Bayer 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 a level higher than the
delisting level allowed by EPA in granting the petition, then the facility must report the
data, in writing, to EPA within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(B) If either the quarterly or annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, Bayer must report the data, in writing, to EPA within 10
days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
28786
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 97 / Monday, May 19, 2008 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) If Bayer fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B) or
if any other information is received from any source, EPA will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires 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 EPA determines that the reported information requires action, EPA will notify the facility in writing of the actions it 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 explaining why the
proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of
EPA’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 initial receipt of information
described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), EPA 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 EPA’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless EPA provides otherwise.
*
*
*
*
*
4. In Table 2 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 §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 2.—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
*
WRB Refining LLC (formerly ConocoPhillips
Company).
Address
Waste description
*
*
Borger, TX .................
*
*
*
*
Thermal desorber residual solids (Hazardous Waste No. F037, F038, K048, K049, K050,
K051) generated at a maximum annual rate of 1,500 cubic yards per calendar year
after [insert publication date of the final rule] and disposed in Subtitle D Landfill.
ConocoPhillips must implement the testing program described in Table 1.—Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources for the petition to be valid.
[FR Doc. E8–11004 Filed 5–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 761
[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0123; FRL–8567–2]
RIN 2050–AG42
Polychlorinated Biphenyls:
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of informal hearing.
AGENCY:
This Federal Register
publication is providing notice that EPA
will hold an informal public hearing on
June 19, 2008, in Port Arthur, Texas, on
the proposed rule entitled,
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs):
Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C.
published on March 6, 2008 (73 FR
12053). On November 14, 2006, Veolia
ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C., (Veolia)
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:51 May 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
submitted a petition to EPA to import
up to 20,000 tons of PCB waste from
Mexico for disposal at Veolia’s TSCAapproved facility in Port Arthur, Texas.
As a result of that petition, on March 6,
2008, EPA proposed to grant the request
and provided a 45-day public comment
period. The Agency extended the
comment period, based on a request
from a commenter, by 45 days to June
5, 2008. In addition, the Agency also
agreed to hold a public hearing on the
proposed rule.
The hearing will take place on
Thursday, June 19, 2008, from 3:30 p.m.
to 8:30 p.m. All those wishing to
provide oral comments at the hearing
must send a written request to EPA.
Requests must be received on or before
June 12, 2008.
DATES:
The hearing will be held at
City Hall, 444 4th Street, Port Arthur,
Texas 77640, telephone (409) 983–8105.
The hearing will be on the 5th floor of
City Hall in the Council Chambers.
Requests to Participate: A request to
provide oral comments at the informal
hearing must be submitted to the
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Hearing Clerk by one of the following
methods.
• E-mail: Requests may be sent by
electronic mail to:
noggle.william@epa.gov, Attention
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–
0123.
• Fax: Requests may be faxed to (703)
308–0514, Attention: William Noggle;
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–
0123.
• Mail: Requests may be sent to
William Noggle, U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste, 5304P, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
RCRA–2008–0123. Request must be
received by June 12, 2008. Note that
mail is subject to significant delays due
to security screening, so please plan for
additional delivery time.
• Hand Delivery: Requests may be
hand delivered to William Noggle, U.S.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Two
Potomac Yard, 2733 South Crystal
Drive, 5th Floor, N5612, Arlington, VA
22202. Such deliveries are only
accepted during business hours from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday through
Friday.
E:\FR\FM\19MYP1.SGM
19MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 97 (Monday, May 19, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28768-28786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11004]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2008-0418; SW-FRL-8566-6]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to use the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of a delisting petition.
Based on waste specific information provided by the petitioner, EPA is
proposing to use the
[[Page 28769]]
DRAS to evaluate the impact of the petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. This proposal provides background information on the
updates and revisions made to the DRAS, and the use of the DRAS in
delisting decision-making. The EPA is also proposing to grant petitions
submitted by Bayer Material Science in Baytown, Texas; Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company in Ft. Worth, Texas; and ConnocoPhillips Company
Borger Refinery in Borger, Texas, to exclude (or delist) certain solid
wastes generated by these facilities from the lists of hazardous
wastes.
DATES: We will accept comments until June 18, 2008. We will stamp
comments postmarked after the close of the comment period as ``late.''
These ``late'' comments may not be considered in formulating a final
decision.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2008-0418 by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
2. E-mail: peace.michelle@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Michelle Peace, Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to: Michelle
Peace, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0418. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://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.
Docket. All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, RCRA Branch, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202. The
hard copy RCRA regulatory docket for this proposed rule, EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0418, is available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per page. EPA requests
that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested persons
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the
office at least 24 hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further technical information
concerning this document or for appointments to view the docket or the
Bayer facility petition, contact Michelle Peace, Environmental
Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA
Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-C, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by
calling 214-665-7430 or by e-mail at peace.michelle@epa.gov.
For technical information regarding the ConocoPhillips Company
petition, contact Youngmoo Kim at 214-665-6788 or by e-mail at
kim.youngmoo@epa.gov.
For information regarding the Lockheed Martin petition, contact
Wendy Jacques at (214) 665-7395 or by e-mail at jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by June 3, 2008. The
request must contain the information described in Sec. 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each company listed in the SUMMARY submitted
a petition under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22(a). Section 260.20 allows any
person to petition the Administrator to modify or revoke any provision
of Sec. Sec. 260 through 266, 268 and 273. Section 260.22(a)
specifically provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste on a ``generator specific'' basis from
the hazardous waste lists.
The Agency bases its proposed decision to grant the petition on an
evaluation of waste-specific information provided by the petitioner.
This proposed decision, if finalized, would conditionally exclude the
petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
If finalized, we would conclude the petitioned wastes from these
facilities are nonhazardous with respect to the original listing
criteria and that the waste process used will substantially reduce the
likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from this waste. We
would also conclude that the processes minimize short-term and long-
term threats from the petitioned waste to human health and the
environment.
The information in this section is organized as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve these delistings?
C. What is unique about these delistings?
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect states?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Individual Waste Information and Data
A. Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown, Texas--TDI Residue
1. What waste did Bayer petition EPA to delist?
2. Who is Bayer and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
3. What information did the facility submit to support this
petition?
4. What were the results of Bayer's analyses?
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
[[Page 28770]]
8. What is the final disposition of the waste?
B. ConnocoPhillips Company, Borger, Texas--Thermal Desorber
Residual Solids
1. What waste did ConnocoPhillips Company petition EPA to
delist?
2. Who is ConnocoPhillips Company and what process does it use
to generate the petitioned waste?
3. How did ConnocoPhillips Company sample and analyze the data
in this petition?
4. What were the results of ConnocoPhillips Company's analysis?
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
8. What is the final disposition of the waste?
C. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas--F019
Waste Water Treatment Sludge
1. What waste did Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company petition
EPA to delist?
2. Who is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and what process
do they use to generate the petition waste?
3. What information did Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
submit to support this petition?
4. What were the results of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company's analysis?
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. The Risk Evaluation
A. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting these wastes?
B. What Changes have been made to the DRAS model?
V. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens if the petitioners violates the terms and
conditions?
VI. Public Comments
A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?
B. How may I review the docket or obtain copies of the proposed
exclusion?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to grant the delisting petitions submitted by
Bayer, ConnocoPhillips Company, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
(Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company) to have their petitioned wastes
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve these delistings?
Each individual petition requests a delisting for the waste stream
be delisted. They do not believe that their petitioned wastes meet the
criteria for which EPA listed them. They also believe no additional
constituents or factors could cause the wastes 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). In making the initial
delisting determination, EPA evaluated each of the petitioned wastes
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this review, EPA agrees with the
petitioners that the wastes are non-hazardous with respect to the
original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based on these reviews,
that the wastes remained hazardous based on the factors for which the
waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to deny the
petitions. 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 were acutely toxic, the concentration of
the constituents in the wastes, their tendencies to migrate and to
bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once released from
the wastes, plausible and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of wastes generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the each petitioned waste does not meet
the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's
proposed decision to delist these individual waste streams from the
facilities above is based on the information submitted in support of
this rule, including descriptions of the waste and analytical data from
each facility.
C. What is unique about these delistings?
Each of the petitioned wastes has been submitted by individual
facilities. Each waste stream has been evaluated on its own merit. The
proposed rule is being combined because each of these petitions have
been evaluated using the new provisional delisting numbers generated by
DRAS Version 3.0.
II. Background
A. What is the history of the delisting program?
EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from nonspecific
and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and
interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. EPA has
amended this list several times and published it in Sec. Sec. 261.31
and 261.32. EPA lists these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They
typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of Part 261 (that is,
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet
the criteria for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (a)(3).
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw
materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste
described in these regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste
from an individual facility meeting the listing description may not be
hazardous.
For this reason, Sec. Sec. 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion
procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that EPA
should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating
facility as a hazardous waste.
B. What is a delisting petition, and what does it require of a
petitioner?
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to EPA or an
authorized State to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes.
The facility petitions EPA because it does not believe the wastes
should be hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in Part 261 and further explained in the background documents for
the listed waste.
In addition, under Sec. 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics and
present sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other
than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. See Part 261 and the background documents for the
listed waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
Besides considering the criteria in Sec. 260.22(a) and section
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those
[[Page 28771]]
for which EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists to
determine that these additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iii) and
(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusions be finalized?
RCRA section 3001(f) specifically requires EPA to provide notice
and an opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final
exclusion. Thus, EPA will not grant the exclusion unless and until it
addresses all timely public comments (including those at public
hearings, if any) on this proposal.
RCRA section 3010(b)(1), at 42 USCA 6930(b)(1), allows rules to
become effective in less than six months after EPA addresses public
comments when the regulated facility does not need the six-month period
to come into compliance. That is the case here, because this rule, if
finalized, would reduce the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes.
EPA believes that this exclusion should be effective immediately
upon final publication because a six-month deadline is not necessary to
achieve the purpose of section 3010(b), and a later effective date
would impose unnecessary hardship and expense on this petitioner. These
reasons also provide good cause for making this rule effective
immediately, upon final publication, under the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
E. How would this action affect the 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 the 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. Delisting
petitions approved by the EPA Administrator (or his designee) under 40
CFR 260.22 are effective in the State of Texas only after the final
rule has been published in the Federal Register.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Individual Waste Information and Data
A. Bayer Material Science LLC, Baytown Texas--TDI Residue
1. What waste did Bayer petition EPA to delist?
On September 2, 2004, Bayer petitioned EPA to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.32, toluene
diisocyanate (TDI) residues generated from its facility located in
Baytown, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of a listed
waste under Sec. 261.30. The waste is listed as K027 hazardous wastes.
These are centrifuge and distillation residues from TDI production.
Specifically, in its petition, Bayer requested that EPA grant a
conditional exclusion for 9,780 cubic yards per year of the TDI
residues.
2. Who is Bayer and what process does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
Bayer as a facility has four manufacturing groups: Plastics,
Coatings, Polyurethanes, and Industrial Chemicals. They manufacture six
products within the manufacturing groups. Hydrazine Hydrate; Maleic
Anhydride; Coatings; Makrolon Polycarbonate; Methane Diisocyanate; and
Toluene Diisocyanate (TDI) which is used in flexible foam applications
such as auto seating, furniture and bedding.
TDI is produced by a reaction of toluene diamine (TDA) and
phosgene. The reaction takes place in a solvent (orthodichlorobenzene,
ODB). The reaction produces TDI, HCL gas and a small amount of high
boiling impurities, which are removed in the TDI residue stream. The
HCL gas is recovered and re-used, all the phosgene is stripped from the
product stream and returned to the process in the reaction step. The
TDI, ODB, and the residue stream are processed further by separating
the residue from the TDI and ODB through a distillation process. The
stream resulting from the distillation process contains bottom residues
mixed with TDI and solvent. The residue separation step removes the TDI
and ODB, leaving the residue waste. ODB is separated from TDI and
recycled back into the process and pure TDI is sold as product.
3. What information did the facility submit to support this petition?
To support its petition, Bayer submitted:
Analytical results of the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure (TCLP) and total constituent analysis for volatile and
semivolatile organics, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and
metals for five TDI samples;
Analytical results from multiple pH leaching of metals;
and
A description of the TDI production process.
4. What were the results of Bayer's analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the Bayer analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Bayer's petition
for an exclusion of the TDI residues. EPA believes the data submitted
in support of the petition show the TDI residues are non-hazardous.
Analytical data for the residue samples were used in the DRAS to
develop delisting levels. The data summaries for compounds of concern
(COC)s are presented in Table 1. EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Bayer and has determined that it satisfies EPA
criteria for collecting representative samples of the variations in
constituent concentrations in the TDI residues. In addition, the data
submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in Bayer's
waste are presently below risk-based levels used in the delisting
decision-making. EPA believes that Bayer has successfully demonstrated
that the TDI residues are non-hazardous.
[[Page 28772]]
Table 1.--Analytical Results and Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentrations of the TDI Residues at Bayer
Polymers LLC In Baytown, TX
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Maximum total Maximum TCLP (mg/ allowable TCLP
Constituents (mg/kg) L) delisting level
(mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.................................................. 1.0 0.011 0.10
Barium................................................... 0.17 0.837 36.0
Chloromethane (Methyl Chloride).......................... 0.09 0.033 6.06
Chromium................................................. 30.2 0.0034 2.27
Cobalt................................................... 0.42 0.0007 13.6
Copper................................................... 0.64 0.00610 25.9
Cyanide.................................................. 0.265 0.0133 3.08
Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid............................... 0.0310 0.0020 1.08
Diethyl phthalate........................................ 8.90 0.0010 1000.0
Endrin................................................... 0.28 0.0002 0.02
Lead..................................................... 0.18 0.00210 0.702
Nickel................................................... 24.8 0.0525 13.5
Selenium................................................. 88.0 0.0209 0.89
Tin...................................................... 1.70 0.0196 22.5
2-4 Toluenediamine....................................... 1.80 0.020 0.0459
Vanadium................................................. 8.40 0.0225 0.976
Zinc..................................................... 2.20 0.0628 197.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: 1. These levels represent the highest constituent concentration found in any one sample and do not
necessarily represent the specific level found in one sample.
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing Bayer's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which Bayer
tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-
products in Bayer's wastes. In addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by Bayer, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA
concludes that the petitioned waste, sludge, does not exhibit any of
the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity. See Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24
respectively.
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition, in addition to the
potential impacts to the ground water, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface runoff) for the sludge. With
regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure
to airborne contaminants from the petitioned waste is unlikely. No
appreciable air releases are likely from the sludge under any likely
disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from
the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents
released from the waste water in an open landfill. The results of this
worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
exposure to constituents from the sludge.
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions by Bayer's of the hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization, with the proposed verification testing
requirements (as discussed later in this notice), provide a reasonable
basis for EPA to grant the petition. The data submitted in support of
the petition show that constituents in the waste are below the maximum
allowable concentrations (See Table 1). EPA believes that the sludge
generated by Bayer contains hazardous constituents at levels which will
present minimal short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned
waste to human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes that it should grant to Bayer an exclusion from
the list of hazardous wastes for the TDI residue. EPA believes that the
data submitted in support of the petition show the Bayer's TDI residue
to be non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Bayer and has
determined they satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting representative
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the TDI residue. The
data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in
Bayer's wastes are presently below the compliance-point concentrations
used in the delisting decision-making process and would not pose a
substantial hazard to the environment and the public. EPA believes that
Bayer has successfully demonstrated that the TDI residue is non-
hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Bayer for the TDI
residue described in its July 2004 petition. EPA's decision to exclude
this waste is based on analysis performed on samples taken of the TDI
residue.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate
9,780 cubic yards per year of TDI residue from Bayer's Baytown facility
under parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
8. What is the final disposition of the waste?
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the TDI residue will be
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill.
B. ConocoPhillips Company, Borger, Texas--Thermal Desorber Residual
Solids
1. What waste did ConocoPhillips Company petition EPA to delist?
On August 26, 2005, ConocoPhillips Company, (now WRB Refining LLC)
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists of hazardous wastes contained
in Sec. Sec. 261.31, thermal desorber residual solids from processing
oil-bearing hazardous secondary materials including F037, F038, K048,
K049, K050 and K051 generated by its facility located in Borger, Texas.
The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to
Sec. 261.31. Specifically, in its petition, ConocoPhillips Company
requested that EPA grant a conditional exclusion for 1500 cubic yards
per year
[[Page 28773]]
of thermal desorber residual solids for a period of 10 years.
2. Who is ConocoPhillips Company and what process does it use to
generate the petitioned waste?
Effective, January 1, 2007, ConocoPhillips and EnCana Corporation
of Canada created an integrated North American heavy oil business
consisting of both upstream and downstream assets. The downstream
venture, WRB Refining LLC, consists of ConocoPhillips Company's Wood
River Refinery located in Roxana, IL and Borger Refinery, located in
Borger, TX. ConocoPhillips Company remains the operator of both
refineries.
ConocoPhillips Company operates the WRB Refining LLC (formerly
ConocoPhillips Company Borger Refinery which processes crude oil into
unleaded gasoline, furnace oil, jet fuels, stove oil, kerosene, dual-
purpose fuel oil, isobutene, propane, butane, hexane, heptane,
propylene and sulfur. Processes used in the refining of these products
are atmospheric distillation, vacuum distillation, desalting, fluid
catalytic cracking, hydrotreating, hydrogen fluoride alkylation
reforming. The use of the thermal desorption enables ConocoPhillips
Company Borger Refinery to process its oil-bearing hazardous secondary
materials in a manner that allows oil recovered from the desorption
process to be recycled back into the refining process. The thermal
desorber residual solids are currently disposed into the Texas
Commission for Environmental Quality (TCEQ) Class I-H hazardous waste
landfill, and the waste to be delisted will be disposed in the TCEQ
Class I/II proposed non-hazardous landfill location on site. The Class
I/II landfill is located within the facility and the nearest property
line is located more than 500 feet from the area of landfill
operations. The landfill is equipped with a 3-foot bentonite-amended
clay liner and a 60-mil geomembrane on its bottom and side slopes, and
a leachate collection system.
3. How did ConocoPhillips Company sample and analyze the data in this
petition?
To support its petition, ConocoPhillips Company submitted:
Historical information on waste generation and management
practices;
Results of the total constituents list for 40 CFR part
264, Appendix IX volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and
metals. These wastes are also analyzed for cyanide and sulfide.
Results of the constituent list for appendix IX on
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure(TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semi-volatiles, and metals.
Results from total oil and grease analyses and multiple pH
measurements and;
Results from a total of ten composite samples including
two duplicates, representing 60 discrete thermal desorber residual
solids samples.
4. What were the results of ConocoPhillips Company's analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the ConocoPhillips Company
analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant
ConocoPhillips Company's petition for an exclusion of the thermal
desorber residual solids. EPA believes the data submitted in support of
the petition show the thermal desorber residual solids are non-
hazardous. Analytical data for the thermal desorber solid samples were
used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels. The data summaries for
compounds of concern (COC)s are presented in Table 2. EPA has reviewed
the sampling procedures used by ConocoPhillips Company and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the thermal
desorber residual solids. In addition, the data submitted in support of
the petition show that constituents in ConocoPhillips Company's waste
are presently below risk-based levels used in the delisting decision-
making. EPA believes that ConocoPhillips Company has successfully
demonstrated that the thermal desorber residual solids are non-
hazardous.
Table 2.--Analytical Results and Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentration of the Thermal Desorber Residual
Solids at ConocoPhillips Refinery Company, Borger, Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable
Constituents Maximum total Maximum TCLP (mg/ TCLP delisting
(mg/kg) L) level (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzene................................................ 0.047 <0.05 0.5
Carbon Disulfide....................................... 0.040 <0.05 552.00
Ethylbenzene........................................... 0.008 <0.05 106.00
Methylene Chloride..................................... 0.016 <0.05 0.077
Trichlorofluoromethane................................. 0.005 <0.05 151.00
Toluene................................................ 0.150 <0.05 148.00
Xylenes................................................ 0.040 <0.05 93.40
Acenapthene............................................ 2.60 <0.10 104.00
Anthracene............................................. 0.44 <0.10 253.00
2-chlorophenol......................................... 0.73 <0.10 28.10
1,4-Dichlorobenzene.................................... 1.90 <0.10 90.90
Dibenzofuran........................................... 0.59 <0.10 0.14
Fluoranthene........................................... 0.066 <0.10 24.00
Napthalene............................................. 0.94 <0.10 0.32
Phenol................................................. 1.20 <0.10 1690.00
Pyrene................................................. 1.10 <0.10 43.40
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene................................. 2.30 <0.10 9.68
Silver................................................. 8.70 <0.10 5.0
Barium................................................. 734.00 2.60 100.0
Beryllium.............................................. 1.80 <0.05 0.76
Cobalt................................................. 70.30 <0.10 130.00
Chromium............................................... 320.00 <0.10 5.0
Copper................................................. 1090.00 0.23 234.00
Nickel................................................. 864.00 0.14 129.00
Tin.................................................... 22.60 0.015 379000.00
[[Page 28774]]
Vanadium............................................... 267.00 0.24 6.93
Zinc................................................... 1940.00 0.52 1930.00
Antimony............................................... 186.00 1.69 2.65
Arsenic................................................ 64.10 0.25 1.69
Cadmium................................................ 1.55 0001 1.0
Lead................................................... 135.00 0.007 5.00
Selenium............................................... 2280.00 0.37 1.0
Chromium+6............................................. 0.06 0.10 5.0
Mercury................................................ 0.05 0.002 0.20
Cyanide................................................ 1.30 0.012 30.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing ConocoPhillips Company's processes
that no other hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for
which ConocoPhillips Company tested, are likely to be present or formed
as reaction products or by-products in ConocoPhillips Company's wastes.
In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical data provided
by ConocoPhillips Company, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA concludes that
the petitioned waste, sludge, does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
See Sec. Sec. 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24 respectively.
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition, in addition to the
potential impacts to the ground water, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface runoff) for the sludge. With
regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure
to airborne contaminants from the petitioned waste is unlikely. No
appreciable air releases are likely from the sludge under any likely
disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from
the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents
released from the waste water in an open landfill. The results of this
worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
exposure to constituents from the sludge.
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions by ConocoPhillips Company of the hazardous waste
process and analytical characterization, with the proposed verification
testing requirements (as discussed later in this notice), provide a
reasonable basis for EPA to grant the petition. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that constituents in the waste are below
the maximum allowable concentrations (See Table 2). EPA believes that
the thermal desorber residual solids generated by ConocoPhillips
Company contain hazardous constituents at levels which will present
minimal short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes that it should grant to WRB Refining LLC
(formerly ConocoPhillips Company Borger Refinery) an exclusion from the
list of hazardous wastes for the thermal desorber residual solids. EPA
believes that the data submitted in support of the petition show the
ConocoPhillips Company's thermal desorber residual solids to be non-
hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by ConocoPhillips
Company and has determined they satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting
representative samples of variable constituent concentrations in the
thermal desorber residual solids. The data submitted in support of the
petition show that constituents in ConocoPhillips Company's thermal
desorber residual solids are presently below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting decision-making process and would
not pose a substantial hazard to the environment and the public. EPA
believes that ConocoPhillips Company has successfully demonstrated that
the thermal desorber residual solids are non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to WRB Refining LLC
(formerly ConocoPhillips Company Borger Refinery) for the thermal
desorber residual solids described in its 2005 petition. EPA's decision
to exclude this waste is based on analysis performed on samples taken
of the solids.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate
1500 cubic yards per year of thermal desorber residual solids from WRB
Refining LLC (formerly ConocoPhillips Company Borger Refinery), Borger,
TX facility under Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting standards of
Part 270.
8. What is the final disposition of the waste?
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, the thermal desorber residual
solids will be disposed of in an onsite non-hazardous industrial solid
waste landfill.
C. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Fort Worth, Texas--F019 Waste
Water Treatment Sludge
1. What waste did Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company petition EPA to
delist?
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company petitioned EPA on February 21,
2006, to exclude from the lists of hazardous waste contained in
Sec. Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, the sludge from its waste water treatment
plant. The sludge waste stream is generated from the Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company facility located in Fort Worth, Texas. The sludge
is listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. F019, because it is derived
from the treatment of listed waste water which is treated at the
facility's waste water treatment plant. Specifically, in its petition,
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company requested that EPA grant an
exclusion for 90 cubic yards per calendar year of sludge resulting from
the treatment of waste waters from the manufacturing processes at its
facility.
[[Page 28775]]
2. Who is Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and what process do they
use to generate the petition waste?
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company is engaged in design,
development, production and full system support of fighter/attack
aircraft for the United States Air Force and foreign governments. The
United States Air Force Plant No. 4 (AFP4), operated by Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company, consists of over seven million square feet of
advanced tactical fighter aircraft manufacturing, research,
development, and office area on a six hundred acre site. Manufacturing
advanced aircraft requires typical metal finishing techniques such as
aqueous cleaning, sulfuric acid anodizing, and chromate conversion
coating. Waste water from these processes is routed to a centralized
pre-treatment industrial waste water pre-treatment facility through
segregated waste collection lines. Industrial waste water is primarily
generated from the sulfuric acid anodize and chromated conversion
coating process line. This line consists of fourteen, 8,000 gallon
tanks arranged in linear fashion for the etch-clean-rinse-clean-rinse-
anodize-rinse-seal process.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company intends to dispose of the
delisted sludge at a Subtitle D Landfill.
Treatment of the waste waters, which result from the manufacturing
process generates the sludge that is classified as F019 listed
hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.31. The 40 CFR Part 261,
Appendix VII hazardous constituents which are the basis for listing
F019 hazardous waste are: Hexavalent chromium and cyanide.
3. What information did Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company submit to
support this petition?
To support its petition, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
submitted:
Analytical results of the toxicity characteristic leaching
procedure and total constituent analysis for volatile and semivolatile
organics, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins/furans, PCBs and metals for
six sludge samples;
Analytical results from multiple pH leaching of metals;
and
Descriptions of the waste water treatment process.
4. What were the results of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company's
analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company's waste, and the analytical data submitted in support of the
petition show that the sludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data from
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company's sludge samples were used in the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The data summaries for detected
constituents are presented in Table 3. EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and has
determined that they satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations in constituent concentrations
in the sludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company's wastes are
presently below health-based risk levels used in the delisting
decision-making. EPA believes that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
has successfully demonstrated that the sludge is non-hazardous.
Table 3.--Maximum TCLP and Total Constituent Concentrations of the Sludge and Corresponding Delisting Limits \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waste stream Waste stream
total TCLP Delisting
Chemical name concentration concentration concentration
(mg/kg) (mg/l) (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetone................................................... 3.40E+00 5.00E-02 4.06E+04
Acetonitrile.............................................. 2.20E-02 <1.00E-02 7.66E+02
Antimony.................................................. 6.30E+02 1.30E-01 8.45E+00
Arsenic................................................... 9.30E+01 <5.00E-02 6.57E-01
Barium.................................................... 3.40E+02 6.80E-01 1.00E+02
Bis(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate............................... 3.20E+03 <1.00E-01 4.68E+29
Cadmium................................................... <1.20E+01 6.10E-02 1.00E+00
Carbon Disulfide.......................................... 1.00E-02 <1.00E-02 4.40E+03
Chromium.................................................. 2.50E+04 1.60E+00 5.00E+00
Chromium, Hexavalent...................................... 4.00E+2 <2.00E-02 5.00E+00
Cobalt.................................................... 8.50E+01 5.60E-01 1.04E+03
Copper.................................................... 4.00E+03 2.10E+01 1.81E+03
Cyanide................................................... 3.00E+02 9.90E-01 2.40E+02
Ethylbenzene.............................................. 2.20E-02 <1.00E-02 8.46E+02
Formaldehyde.............................................. 1.20E+02 1.40E+03 6.76E+03
Lead...................................................... 3.80E+03 1.40E-01 5.00E+00
Mercury................................................... 1.90E+00 <2.00E-02 2.00E-01
Methyl Ethyl Ketone (2-butanone).......................... 7.80E-01 2.50E-02 2.00E+02
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone.................................... <4.80E-02 <5.00E-02 3.61E+03
Methylene Chloride........................................ 3.90E-01 6.00E-02 6.16E+00
Nickel.................................................... 4.90E+03 3.00E+01 3.00E+01
Selenium.................................................. <6.00E+01 2.20E-02 1.00E+00
Silver.................................................... 3.30E+02 4.00E-02 5.00E+00
Toluene................................................... 1.10E-02 <1.00E-02 1.18E+03
Vanadium.................................................. 1.10E+03 1.30E-02 5.15E+01
Xylenes, Total............................................ 6.70E-02 <2.50E-02 7.45E+02
Zinc...................................................... 2.50E+03 1.50E+01 1.58E+04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any one sample. These levels
do not necessarily represent the specific levels found in one sample.
< Denotes that the constituent was below the detection limit.
[[Page 28776]]
5. What did EPA conclude about the facility's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company's processes that no other hazardous constituents of concern,
other than those for which Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products
in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company's wastes. In addition, on the
basis of explanations and analytical data provided by Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA concludes that the
petitioned waste, sludge, does not exhibit any of the characteristics
of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. See Sec. Sec.
261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24 respectively.
6. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of this petition, in addition to the
potential impacts to the ground water, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-ground water exposure
routes (i.e., air emissions and surface runoff) for the sludge. With
regard to airborne dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure
to airborne contaminants from the petitioned waste is unlikely. No
appreciable air releases are likely from the sludge under any likely
disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from
the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents
released from the waste water in an open landfill. The results of this
worst-case analysis indicated that there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and the environment from airborne
exposure to constituents from the sludge.
7. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company of the
hazardous waste process and analytical characterization, with the
proposed verification testing requirements (as discussed later in this
notice), provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant the petition. The
data submitted in support of the petition show that constituents in the
waste are below the maximum allowable concentrations (See Table 3). EPA
believes that the sludge generated by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company contains hazardous constituents at levels which will present
minimal short-term and long-term threats from the petitioned waste to
human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes that it should grant to Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company an exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes for
the sludge. EPA believes that the data submitted in support of the
petition show the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company's sludge to be
non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company and has determined they satisfy EPA's criteria for
collecting representative samples of variable constituent
concentrations in the sludge. The data submitted in support of the
petition show that constituents in Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company's wastes are presently below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting decision-making process and would
not pose a substantial hazard to the environment and the public. EPA
believes that Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company has successfully
demonstrated that the sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics Company for the sludge described in its February 2006
petition. EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on analysis
performed on samples taken of the sludge.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate
242,000 pounds per year of sludge from Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company's Fort Worth facility under Parts 262 through 268 and the
permitting standards of Part 270.
IV. The Risk Evaluation
A. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
The worst case scenario for management of the sludge was modeled
for disposal in a landfill. EPA used such information gathered to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., ground water, surface water,
soil, air) for hazardous constituents present in the sludge. EPA
determined that disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for the wastes. In assessing
potential risks to ground water, EPA used the maximum estimated waste
volumes and the maximum reported extract concentrations as inputs to
the DRAS program to estimate the constituent concentrations in the
ground water at a hypothetical receptor well down gradient from the
disposal site. Using the risk level (carcinogenic risk of
10-5 and non-cancer hazard index of 0.1), the DRAS program
can back-calculate the acceptable receptor well concentrations
(referred to as compliance-point concentrations) using standard risk
assessment algorithms and Agency health-based numbers. Using the
maximum compliance-point concentrations and EPA Composite Model for
Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP) fate and
transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates the
maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected to
exceed the compliance-point concentrations in ground water.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for possible ground water contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a landfill, and that
a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether
a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios
resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations
and ensured that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste
regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health and/or
the environment. The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes
and the maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g., volatilization or wind-blown particulate from the landfill). As
in the above ground water analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the
health-based data and standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms
to predict maximum compliance-point concentrations of waste
constituents at a hypothetical point of exposure. Using fate and
transport equations, the DRAS uses the maximum compliance-point
concentrations and back-calculates the maximum allowable waste
constituent concentrations (or ``delisting levels'').
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is
disposed.
EPA also considers the applicability of ground water monitoring
data during the evaluation of delisting petitions. In this case, the
facilities have never directly disposed of this material in a solid
waste landfill, so no representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has
[[Page 28777]]
determined that it would be unnecessary to request ground water
monitoring data.
EPA believes that the descriptions of the wastes and analytical
characterization which illustrate the presence of toxic constituents at
lower concentrations in these waste streams provide a reasonable basis
to conclude that the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents
from the petitioned waste will be substantially reduced so that short-
term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are
minimized.
The DRAS results, which calculated the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the wastes are presented in
Tables 1, 2 and 3. Based on the comparison of the DRAS results and
maximum TCLP concentrations found in Tables 1, 2, and 3, the petitioned
wastes should be delisted because no constituents of concern are likely
to be present or formed as reaction products or by products in the
wastes.
B. What changes have been made to the DRAS model?
In July 2007, U.S. EPA prepared an update of the Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) by releasing version 3.0. The update
addressed a number of issues with version 2 and improved the fate and
transport modeling.
To estimate the downgradient concentrations of waste leachate
constituents released into groundwater, the DRAS utilizes conservative
dilution-attenuation factors (DAFs) taken from Monte-Carlo applications
of U.S. EPA's Composite Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (CMTP). DRAS 3.0 includes all new DAFs from new
CMTP modeling runs. The new modeling takes advantage of: Updated
saturated flow and transport modules; a new surface impoundment module
and database; model corrections for unrealistic scenarios (like water
tables modeled above the ground surface); new isotherms for metals; and
a revised recharge and infiltration database. As a result, many of the
DAFs used in previous versions of DRAS have changed.
Further affecting the groundwater calculation, the relationships
for determining scaling factors used to scale the DAFs to account for
very small waste streams have been updated to reflect the new database
information on landfills and surface impoundments and were also
corrected for a metric conversion of cubic meters to cubic yards. The
new scaling factors are generally higher than those of previous
versions of DRAS, resulting in higher estimated dilution and
attenuation at lower waste volumes for both landfills and surface
impoundments.
The new metals DAFs, based on MINTEQA2 isotherms, can vary as a
function of the landfill leachate concentration. This means that the
effective DAF (including a scaling factor adjustment, if necessary) for
an input concentration may differ significantly with the effective DAF
that corresponds to the allowable leachate concentration. DRAS 3.0 now
displays the DAFs in both the forward calculated risk tables and the
tables of maximum allowable concentrations so that the difference is
evident to the user. The isotherms that vary by leachate concentration
are represented in DRAS by a look-up table with leachate concentrations
paired with DAFs. In the event that an actual concentration input to
DRAS lies between two values in the table, or an allowable receptor
concentration lies between two calculated receptor concentrations from
the table, DRAS 3.0 will linearly and proportionally extrapolate
between the two values to determine the corresponding exposure or
allowable leachate concentration.
EPA changed the calculation for particle emissions caused by
vehicles driving over the waste at the landfill to provide a more
realistic estimate. The estimate depends upon the number of trips per
day landfill vehicles make back and forth over the waste. In previous
versions of DRAS, this value was conservatively set at a 100 trips per
day, corresponding with an extremely high annual waste volume. In DRAS
3.0, a minimum number of trips per day was conservatively assumed from
the Subtitle D landfill survey (7.4 trips per day at the 95th
percentile of values reported). The number of trips per day specific to
the actual waste volume is then added to the minimum to reflect the
impact of very large waste streams. This will considerably reduce the
particle emission estimate for wastes generated at all but the largest
annual volumes.
EPA added a conversion from English to metric tons to the
calculation of particle emissions from waste unloading, resulting in a
decrease of roughly 10% over previous versions of DRAS. We also made a
unit-conversion factor correction to part of the air-volatile pathway
which will reduce the impact to the receptor.
An error in the back-calculation for fish ingestion pathway was
corrected to reflect the difference between freely dissolved and total
water column waste constituent concentrations.
For the estimation of risk and hazard, we made a number of updates
to the forward and back calculations. Previous versions of DRAS assumed
that only 12.5% of particles are absorbed by the receptor's respiratory
system. This is no longer necessary as toxicity reference values for
inhalation currently recommended by U.S. EPA relate risk or hazard
directly to exposure concentration. DRAS 3.0 does not include the 12.5%
reduction. This change significantly increases estimated risks due to
particle inhalation and lowers corresponding allowable concentrations.
DRAS Version 3.0.47 has a reformulated back calculation of the
allowable leachate concentrations from exposure due to contaminants
volatilized during household water use to match the forward calculation
of risk. In previous versions of DRAS, the forward calculation summed
the risks from exposure to all three evaluated household compartments
(the shower, the bathroom, and the whole house) while the back
calculation based the maximum allowable level on the single most
conservative compartment. The DRAS 3.0 maximum allowable leachate
concentrations are now based on the combined impact of all three
compartments. The house exposure was also expanded to a 900 minute (15
hour) daily exposure to reflect non-working residents who have an
overall 16 hour in-house exposure (the other 1 hour is spent in the
shower and bathroom).
EPA resolved the inconsistencies with the way DRAS chooses limiting
pathways for specific waste constituents in DRAS 3.0.
EPA checked all toxicity reference values in DRAS and updated where
necessary. Approximately 180 changes were made to the toxicity
reference values in DRAS based on data in IRIS, PPRTV, HEAST, NCEA,
CalEPA and other sources. Some route-to-route extrapolations of oral
toxicity data to inhalation exposure have been returned to DRAS 3.0 if
consistent with Agency policy. See U.S. EPA 2006 for full accounting of
this methodology. The same reference also includes discussions of
toxicity reference choices where the multiple values were available or
where the toxicity reference values were specific to particular species
of c
