Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Proposed Exclusion, 32846-32856 [E9-16272]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32846
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of Part
261, it is proposed to add the following
wastes in alphabetical order by facility
to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under 40 CFR §§ 260.20 and
260.22
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
*
The Valero Refining
Company—Tennessee, L.L.C.
Waste description
*
Memphis, TN ....
*
*
*
*
Storm Water Basin sediment (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one time at a volume of
2,700 cubic yards [insert publication date of the final rule] and disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
This is a one time exclusion and applies to 2,700 cubic yards of Storm Water Basin sediment. (1)
Reopener. (A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Valero possesses or is otherwise
made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water
monitoring data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent
identified for the delisting verification testing is at level higher than the delisting level allowed by
the Division Director in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the
Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data. (B) If Valero
fails to submit the information described in paragraph (A) or if any other information is received
from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires EPA action to protect human health or the environment. Further action
may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to
protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require EPA action, the Division Director will notify the facility in writing of
the actions the Division Director believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing the
facility with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed EPA action is not necessary. The facility shall have 10 days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present
such information. (D) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph
(C) or (if no information is presented under paragraph initial receipt of information described in
paragraphs (A) or (B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA
actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise. (2) Notification Requirements: Valero must do the following before transporting the delisted waste: Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of
the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision. (A) Provide a one-time written notification to any State Regulatory Agency to which or through which they will transport the delisted
waste described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities. (B) Update the onetime written notification, if they ship the delisted waste to a different disposal facility. (C) Failure to
provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible revocation
of the decision.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–16261 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0108; SW FRL–
8922–9]
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
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: EPA is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Occidental
Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) to
exclude (or delist) a certain solid waste
generated by its Ingleside, Texas, facility
from the lists of hazardous wastes. EPA
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
*
*
used the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) Version 3.0 in the
evaluation of the impact of the
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until
August 10, 2009. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the
comment period as late. These late
comments may not be considered in
formulating a final decision. Your
requests for a hearing must reach EPA
by July 24, 2009. The request must
contain the information prescribed in 40
CFR 260.20(d) (hereinafter all CFR cites
refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06–
RCRA–2009–0108 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: jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
3. Mail: Wendy Jacques,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver
your comments to: Wendy Jacques,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting
Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code:
6PD–F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX
75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–
0456. 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.
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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 https://
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–2009–0108, is
available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from any regulatory docket at
no cost for the first 100 pages and at a
cost of $0.15 per page for additional
copies. 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
OxyChem facility petition, contact
Wendy Jacques, Environmental
Protection Agency, Multimedia
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
Planning and Permitting Division,
RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD–F, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by
calling 214–665–7395 or by e-mail at
jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must
reach EPA by July 24, 2009. The request
must contain the information described
in § 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OxyChem
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 waste from this facility is
non-hazardous 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 this
delisting?
C. How will OxyChem manage the waste,
if it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect states?
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?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did OxyChem petition EPA
to delist?
B. Who is OxyChem and what process do
they use to generate the petition waste?
C. What information did OxyChem submit
to support this petition?
D. What were the results of OxyChem’s
analysis?
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32847
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about
OxyChem’s analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
B. What happens, if OxyChem violates the
terms and conditions?
V. 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?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to grant the
delisting petition submitted by
OxyChem to have its wastewater
treatment biosludge (K019, K020, F025,
F001, F003, and F005 listed hazardous
waste) excluded, or delisted, from the
definition of a hazardous waste.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this
delisting?
OxyChem’s petition requests a
delisting for the wastewater treatment
biosludge derived from the treatment of
hazardous wastewater listed as K019,
K020, F025, F001, F003, and F005.
OxyChem does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for
which EPA listed it. OxyChem also
believes no additional constituents or
factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA’s review of this petition
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 the
petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32848
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s
proposed decision to delist waste from
the facility is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule,
including descriptions of the waste and
analytical data from the OxyChem,
Ingleside, Texas facility.
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 EPA Administrator under
40 CFR 260.22 are effective in the State
of Texas only after the final rule has
been published in the Federal Register.
C. How will OxyChem manage the
waste, if it is delisted?
OxyChem will dispose of the
wastewater treatment biosludge in a
Subtitle D landfill.
II. Background
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
D. When would the proposed delisting
exclusion 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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
§§ 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
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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).
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did OxyChem petition
EPA to delist?
OxyChem petitioned EPA on
September 20, 2007, to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in
§ 261.31, the wastewater treatment
biosludge from its wastewater treatment
plant.
The wastewater treatment biosludge is
generated from the OxyChem facility
located in Ingleside, Texas. The
wastewater treatment biosludge is listed
under EPA Hazardous Waste No. K019,
K020, F025, F001, F003, and F005,
because it is generated in the bioreactors
that can, on occasion, treat incinerator
offgas treatment water. Specifically, in
its petition, OxyChem requested that
EPA grant exclusion for 7,500 cubic
yards per calendar year of K019, K020,
F025, F001, F003, and F005 waste
resulting from the treatment of waste
waters from the manufacturing
processes at its facility.
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32849
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
B. Who is OxyChem and what process
do they use to generate the petition
waste?
OxyChem produces ethylene
dichloride (EDC), vinyl chloride
monomer (VCM), chlorine, and caustic.
The facility is comprised of the ChlorAlkali plant which produces chlorine
and caustic, and the EDC/VCM plant.
Other processes with the VCM unit
include vent incineration, wastewater
treatment, VCM storage and loading
(railcar and ship), EDC and intermediate
storage and loading, cooling towers and
refrigeration and compressors.
The manufacturing processes that
contribute waste and vent gases to the
incinerators are the VCM plant and the
support plants (shop and rail loading,
product storage tanks, RCRA tank and
wastewater storage tanks). The former
EDC unit in the Chlor-Alkali Plant once
contributed waste streams, but was
idled in 2002.
OxyChem intends to dispose of the
delisted wastewater treatment biosludge
at a Subtitle D Landfill. Treatment of the
waste waters, which result from the
manufacturing process, generates the
wastewater treatment biosludge that is
classified as K019, K020, F025, F001,
F003, and F005 listed hazardous wastes
pursuant to 40 CFR 261.31. The 40 CFR
Part 261 Appendix VII hazardous
constituents which are the basis for
listing K019, K020, F025, F001, F003,
and F005 hazardous wastes are: K019—
ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1trichloroethane, 1,1,2-tricholoroethane,
tetrachloroethanes (1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane and 1,1,1,2tetrachloroethane), trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl
chloride, and vinylidene chloride;
K020—ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1trichloroethane, 1,1,2-tricholoroethane,
tetrachloroethanes (1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane and 1,1,1,2tetrachloroethane), trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl
chloride, and vinylidene chloride;
F025—chloromethane,
dichloromethane, trichloromethane,
carbon tetrachloride, chloroethylene,
1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane,
trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1dichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
1,1,2-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2tetrachloroethane, tetrachloroethylene,
pentachloroethane, hexachloroethane,
allyl chloride (3-cholopropene),
dichloropropane, dichloroprene, 2chloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-1,3butadiene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
benzene, chlorobenzene,
dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4trichlorobenzene, tetrachlorobenzene,
pentachlorobenzene,
hexachlorobenzene, toluene, and
naphthalene; F001—
tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane,
carbon tetrachloride, and chlorinated
fluorocarbons; F003—N.A.; F005—
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, carbon
disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2ethoxyethanol, benzene, and 2nitropropane.
C. What information did OxyChem
submit to support this petition?
To support its petition, OxyChem
submitted:
(1) 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 four wasterwater treatment
biosludge samples;
(2) Analytical results from multiple
pH leaching of metals; and
(3) Description of the wastewater
treatment process.
D. What were the results of OxyChem’s
analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
OxyChem’s waste, and the analytical
data submitted in support of the petition
show that the wastewater treatment
biosludge is non-hazardous. Analytical
data from OxyChem’s wastewater
treatment biosludge samples were used
in the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS). The data summaries
for detected constituents are presented
in Table 1. EPA has reviewed the
sampling procedures used by OxyChem
and has determined that they satisfy
EPA’s criteria for collecting
representative samples of the variations
in constituent concentrations in the
wastewater treatment biosludge. The
data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in OxyChem’s
wastes are presently below health-based
risk levels used in the delisting
decision-making. EPA believes that
OxyChem has successfully
demonstrated that the wastewater
treatment biosludge is non-hazardous.
TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT BIOSLUDGE 1
Maximum total
(mg/kg)
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Constituent
Antimony ..............................................................................................................
Acetone ................................................................................................................
Arsenic .................................................................................................................
Barium ..................................................................................................................
Benzoic Acid ........................................................................................................
Beryllium ..............................................................................................................
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ....................................................................................
Cadmium ..............................................................................................................
Chromium ............................................................................................................
Cobalt ...................................................................................................................
Copper .................................................................................................................
Ethylbenzene .......................................................................................................
Lead .....................................................................................................................
Mercury ................................................................................................................
Methylene Chloride ..............................................................................................
Naphthalene .........................................................................................................
Nickel ...................................................................................................................
Phenanthrene ......................................................................................................
Selenium ..............................................................................................................
Silver ....................................................................................................................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maximum TCLP
(mg/l)
0.349
0.069
3.62
27.7
<0.170
0.0623
<0.170
0.124
10.4
0.787
44.1
<0.005
2.70
0.00813
0.0058
<0.0066
25.1
<0.0066
0.633
0.0981
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
0.00263
0.170
0.0265
0.204
0.0024
<0.0100
0.0095
0.000616
0.0304
0.00744
0.274
0.048
0.00220
0.00005
0.0058
0.00066
0.290
0.00028
0.00770
<0.0100
09JYP1
Maximum allowable
TCLP delisting level
(mg/l)
0.111
533
0.178
36.9
2370
0.0799
6.15
0.0933
2.32
14.00
26.5
11.1
0.719
0.0696
0.0809
0.0335
13.8
2.72
0.912
5.0
32850
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—ANALYTICAL RESULTS AND MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DELISTING CONCENTRATIONS OF THE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT BIOSLUDGE 1—Continued
Maximum total
(mg/kg)
Constituent
Silvex (2,4,5,-TP) .................................................................................................
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 2,3,7,8- .....................................................
Thallium ...............................................................................................................
Tin ........................................................................................................................
Toluene ................................................................................................................
Trichloroethane ....................................................................................................
Trichloroethylene .................................................................................................
Vanadium .............................................................................................................
Xylenes ................................................................................................................
Zinc ......................................................................................................................
Maximum TCLP
(mg/l)
0.011
3.86E–04
0.0962
1.59
<0.005
0.0018
<0.005
6.62
<0.015
44.1
<0.0001
5.92E–08
0.00203
<0.0100
0.001
0.008
0.012
0.00586
<0.001
0.240
Maximum allowable
TCLP delisting level
(mg/l)
0.789
4.30E–05 mg/kg
0.0851
3.97E+07
15.5
11900
0.0794
1.00
9.79
202
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
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.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
The worst case scenario for
management of the wastewater
treatment biosludge 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
wastewater treatment biosludge. EPA
determined that disposal in a Subtitle D
landfill is the most reasonable, worstcase disposal scenario for OxyChem’s
wastewater treatment biosludge. EPA
applied the DRAS described in 65 FR
58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR
75637 (December 4, 2000) and 73 FR
28768 (May 19, 2008), to predict the
maximum allowable concentrations of
hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and determined the potential
impact of the disposal of OxyChem’s
petitioned waste on human health and
the environment. 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
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 site-
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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, no representative data exists.
Therefore, EPA has determined that it
would be unnecessary to request ground
water monitoring data.
EPA believes that the descriptions of
OxyChem’s wastewater treatment
biosludge 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
wastewater treatment biosludge are
presented in Table 1. Based on the
comparison of the DRAS results and
maximum TCLP concentrations found
in Table 1, the petitioned waste should
be delisted because no constituents of
concern are likely to be present or
formed as reaction products or by
products in OxyChem’s waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about
OxyChem’s analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
OxyChem’s processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other
than those for which OxyChem tested,
are likely to be present or formed as
reaction products or by-products in
OxyChem’s wastes. In addition, on the
basis of explanations and analytical data
provided by OxyChem, pursuant to
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
§ 260.22, EPA concludes that the
petitioned waste, wastewater treatment
biosludge, does not exhibit any of the
characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. See
§§ 261.21, 261.22, 261.23, and 261.24
respectively.
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
G. 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 wastewater treatment
biosludge. 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 wastewater treatment
biosludge under any likely disposal
conditions. EPA evaluated the potential
hazards resulting from the unlikely
scenario of airborne exposure to
hazardous constituents released from
the wastewater 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 wastewater treatment biosludge.
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions by OxyChem 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 wastewater
treatment biosludge generated by
OxyChem 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 OxyChem an exclusion from the
list of hazardous wastes for the
wastewater treatment biosludge. EPA
believes that the data submitted in
support of the petition show the
OxyChem’s wastewater treatment
biosludge to be non-hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by OxyChem and has
determined they satisfy EPA’s criteria
for collecting representative samples of
variable constituent concentrations in
the wastewater treatment biosludge. The
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in OxyChem’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 OxyChem has successfully
demonstrated that the wastewater
treatment biosludge is non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to OxyChem for the
wastewater treatment biosludge
described in its September 2007
petition. EPA’s decision to exclude this
waste is based on analysis performed on
samples taken of the wastewater
treatment biosludge.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule,
EPA will no longer regulate 7,500 cubic
yards/year of wastewater treatment
biosludge from OxyChem’s Ingleside
facility under Parts 262 through 268 and
the permitting standards of Part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the
petitioner comply?
The petitioner, OxyChem, must
comply with the requirements in 40
CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, Table 2 as
amended by this notice. The text below
gives the rationale and details of those
requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of
constituent concentrations for which
OxyChem wastewater treatment
biosludge, 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, Table 2, based on
information in the petition. EPA
compiled the inorganic and organic
constituents list from descriptions of the
manufacturing process used by
OxyChem, previous test data provided
for the waste, and the respective healthbased levels used in delisting decisionmaking. These delisting levels
correspond to the allowable levels
measured in the leachable
concentrations of the wastewater
treatment biosludge.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
Waste classification as non-hazardous
cannot begin until compliance with the
limits set in paragraph (1) has occurred
for four consecutive weekly sampling
events. For example, if OxyChem is
issued a final exclusion in August, the
four weekly samples can be collected in
September. If EPA deems that the four
representative composite samples meet
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
32851
all the indicator constituent delisting
limits, classification of the waste as nonhazardous can begin in October. If
constituent levels in any annual sample
(and retest, if applicable) taken by
OxyChem exceed any of the delisting
levels set in paragraph (1), OxyChem
must: (i) notify EPA in accordance with
paragraph (6), and (ii) manage and
dispose of the wastewater treatment
biosludge as hazardous waste generated
under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
OxyChem must complete a
verification testing program on the
wastewater treatment biosludge to
assure that the wastes 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 initial part of the verification
testing program consists of testing four
composite samples from four
consecutive weeks of wastewater
treatment biosludge for specified
indicator parameters as described in
paragraph (1). Levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the
wastewater treatment biosludge that do
not exceed the levels set forth in
paragraph (1) can be considered nonhazardous after all four sets of sampling
data meet the levels listed in paragraph
(1).
The second part of the verification
testing program is the annual testing of
a representative composite sample of
the wastewater treatment biosludge for
all constituents specified in paragraph
(1). If any delisting levels are not met in
an annual test sample, then a second
composite sample shall be collected
within 10 days of becoming aware of the
failure, and it must be analyzed
expeditiously for the TCLP
constituent(s) that exceeded Delisting
Levels.
If the annual testing of the wastes, and
the retest, do not meet the delisting
levels in paragraph (1), OxyChem 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). OxyChem 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 the
four weekly initial verification samples
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32852
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
comply with the levels specified in
paragraph (1). The waste classification
as ‘‘non-hazardous’’ is also not
authorized, if OxyChem fails to perform
the testing as specified herein. Should
OxyChem conduct the yearly testing as
specified herein, then disposal of
wastewater treatment biosludge as
delisted waste may not occur in the
following year(s) until OxyChem obtains
the written approval of EPA.
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow OxyChem
the flexibility of modifying its processes
(for example, changes in equipment or
change in operating conditions) to
improve its treatment processes.
However, OxyChem must prove the
effectiveness of the modified process
and request approval from EPA.
OxyChem 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 OxyChem
facility is correctly managing the
wastewater treatment biosludge,
OxyChem must compile, summarize,
and keep delisting records on-site for a
minimum of five years. OxyChem must
keep all analytical data obtained
pursuant to paragraph (3), including
quality control information, for five
years. Paragraph (5) requires that
OxyChem 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 7,500
cubic yards per calendar year of
wastewater treatment biosludge
generated at the OxyChem facility after
successful initial verification testing.
EPA would require OxyChem to
submit additional verification data
under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) If OxyChem significantly alters the
waste treatment system except as
described in paragraph (4).
(b) If OxyChem uses any new
manufacturing or production
process(es), or significantly changes the
current process(es) described in its
petition; or
(c) If OxyChem makes any changes
that could significantly affect the
composition or type of waste generated.
OxyChem 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
waste stream. EPA will publish an
amendment to the exclusion if the
changes are acceptable.
OxyChem must manage waste
volumes greater than 7,500 cubic yards
of wastewater treatment biosludge as
hazardous waste until EPA grants a
revised exclusion. When this exclusion
becomes final, the management by
OxyChem of the wastewater treatment
biosludge covered in this petition would
be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction.
OxyChem may not classify the waste as
non-hazardous until the revised
exclusion is finalized.
(6) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) is to
require OxyChem 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. OxyChem must also use this
procedure if the waste sample (and
retest, if applicable) 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
OxyChem to report differing site
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
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
553(b)(3)(B).
B. What happens if OxyChem violates
the terms and conditions?
If OxyChem 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
OxyChem to conduct the appropriate
waste analysis and comply with the
criteria explained above in paragraph (1)
of the exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How may I as an interested party
submit comments?
EPA is requesting public comments
on this proposed decision. 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 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: EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–
0108. You may submit your comments
electronically to Wendy Jacques at
jacques.wendy@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.
VI. 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
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
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
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
32853
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.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f)
Dated: June 10, 2009.
Troy C. Hill,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
2. 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
Address
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
*
*
OxyChem Corporation ...................
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
Ingleside, TX .................................. Wastewater treatment biosludge (EPA Hazardous Waste Number
K019, K020, F025, F001, F003, F005) generated at a maximum
rate of 7,500 cubic yards per calendar year after [publication date
of the final rule].
For the exclusion to be valid, OxyChem must implement a verification
testing program that meets the following paragraphs:
(1)(A) Delisting Levels: All concentrations for those constituents must
not exceed the maximum allowable concentrations in mg/l specified
in this paragraph.
Wastewater treatment biosludge Leachable Concentrations (mg/l): Antimony—0.111; Acetone—533; Arsenic—0.178; Barium—36.9;
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate—6.15; Chromium—2.32; Copper—26.5;
Ethylbenzene—11.1; Methylene Chloride—0.0809; Naphthalene—
0.0355; Nickel—13.8; Phenanthrene—2.72; Toluene—15.5; Trichloroethane—11900; Trichloroethylene—0.0794; Vanadium—1.00;
Zinc—202.
(B) Total Concentration Limits in mg/Kg: Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) 2,3,7,8 Equivalent—4.3E–05.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling:
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32854
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(A) Waste classification as non-hazardous can not begin until compliance with the limits set in paragraph (1) for wastewater treatment
biosludge has occurred for four consecutive weekly sampling
events.
(B) If constituent levels in any annual sample and retest sample taken
by OxyChem exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1)
for the wastewater treatment biosludge, OxyChem must do the following:
(i) Notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6) and
(ii) Manage and dispose the wastewater treatment biosludge as hazardous waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Testing Requirements:
Upon this exclusion becoming final, OxyChem must perform analytical
testing by sampling and analyzing the wastewater treatment biosludge as follows:
(A) Initial Verification Testing:
(i) Collect four representative composite samples of the wastewater
treatment biosludge at weekly intervals after EPA grants the final
exclusion. The first composite sample may be taken at any time
after EPA grants the final approval. Sampling must 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) indicates that the wastewater treatment biosludge
must continue to be disposed as hazardous waste in accordance
with the applicable hazardous waste requirements until such time
that four consecutive weekly samples indicate compliance with
delisting levels listed in paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after taking its last weekly sample,
OxyChem will report its analytical test data to EPA. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the wastewater treatment biosludge do not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) of this
exclusion for four consecutive weeks, OxyChem can manage and
dispose the non-hazardous wastewater treatment biosludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If OxyChem completes the weekly testing specified in paragraph
(3) above and no sample contains a constituent at a level which exceeds the limits set forth in paragraph (1), OxyChem must begin
annual testing as follows: OxyChem must test a representative
composite sample of the wastewater treatment biosludge for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1) at least once per calendar year.
If any measured constituent concentration exceeds the delisting levels set forth in paragraph (1), OxyChem must collect an additional
representative composite sample within 10 days of being made
aware of the exceedence and test it expeditiously for the constituent(s) which exceeded delisting levels in the original annual
sample.
(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 OxyChem wastewater treatment biosludge 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
delisted waste in cubic yards disposed during the calendar year.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
32855
TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
Facility
Address
Waste description
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions: If OxyChem 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.
OxyChem 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:
OxyChem must submit the information described below. If OxyChem
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). OxyChem 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 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 OxyChem possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate data or ground water monitoring
data) or any other data relevant to the delisted waste indicating that
any constituent identified for the delisting verification testing is at
level higher than the delisting level allowed by the Division Director
in granting the petition, then the facility must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10 days of first possessing or
being made aware of that data.
(B) If either the annual testing (and retest, if applicable) of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements in paragraph 1, OxyChem
must report the data, in writing, to the Division Director within 10
days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
32856
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 130 / Thursday, July 9, 2009 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 2—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
(C) If OxyChem 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 receipt 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.
(7) Notification Requirements: OxyChem must do the following before
transporting the delisted waste. Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory
Agency to which or through which it will transport the delisted waste
described above for disposal, 60 days before beginning such activities.
(B) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste
into a different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the
delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–16272 Filed 7–8–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 09–1490; MB Docket No. 09–115; RM–
11543]
Television Broadcasting Services;
Fond du Lac, WI
rmajette on DSK29S0YB1 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Commission has before it
a petition for rulemaking filed by
WWAZ License, LLC (‘‘WWAZ’’), the
licensee of station WWAZ–DT, DTV
channel 44, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
WWAZ requests the substitution of DTV
channel 5 for DTV channel 44 at Fond
du Lac.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:18 Jul 08, 2009
Jkt 217001
*
*
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before July 24, 2009, and reply
comments on or before August 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary,
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments
with the FCC, interested parties should
serve counsel for petitioner as follows:
Kathleen Victory, Esq., Fletcher, Heald
& Hildreth, PLC, 1300 North 17th Street,
11th Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David J. Brown, david.brown@fcc.gov,
Media Bureau, (202) 418–1600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No.
09–115, adopted June 29, 2009, and
released July 1, 2009. The full text of
this document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. This document
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
will also be available via ECFS (https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/). (Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This
document may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone
1–800–478–3160 or via e-mail https://
www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this
document in accessible formats
(computer diskettes, large print, audio
recording, and braille), send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission’s
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). This document does
not contain proposed information
collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
E:\FR\FM\09JYP1.SGM
09JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32846-32856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16272]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0108; SW FRL-8922-9]
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: EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Occidental
Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) to exclude (or delist) a certain solid
waste generated by its Ingleside, Texas, facility from the lists of
hazardous wastes. EPA used the Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS) Version 3.0 in the evaluation of the impact of the petitioned
waste on human health and the environment.
DATES: We will accept comments until August 10, 2009. We will stamp
comments received after the close of the comment period as late. These
late comments may not be considered in formulating a final decision.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 24, 2009. The
request must contain the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d)
(hereinafter all CFR cites refer to 40 CFR unless otherwise stated).
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R06-
RCRA-2009-0108 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: jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Wendy Jacques, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-F, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202.
4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Wendy
Jacques, Environmental Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, RCRA Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-F, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R06-RCRA-
2008-0456. 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.
[[Page 32847]]
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 https://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-
2009-0108, is available for viewing from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The public may copy
material from any regulatory docket at no cost for the first 100 pages
and at a cost of $0.15 per page for additional copies. 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
OxyChem facility petition, contact Wendy Jacques, Environmental
Protection Agency, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, RCRA
Branch, Mail Code: 6PD-F, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, by
calling 214-665-7395 or by e-mail at jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
Your requests for a hearing must reach EPA by July 24, 2009. The
request must contain the information described in Sec. 260.20(d).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: OxyChem 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 waste from this
facility is non-hazardous 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 this delisting?
C. How will OxyChem manage the waste, if it is delisted?
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion be finalized?
E. How would this action affect states?
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?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did OxyChem petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is OxyChem and what process do they use to generate the
petition waste?
C. What information did OxyChem submit to support this petition?
D. What were the results of OxyChem's analysis?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about OxyChem's analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
B. What happens, if OxyChem violates the terms and conditions?
V. 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?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA proposing?
EPA is proposing to grant the delisting petition submitted by
OxyChem to have its wastewater treatment biosludge (K019, K020, F025,
F001, F003, and F005 listed hazardous waste) excluded, or delisted,
from the definition of a hazardous waste.
B. Why is EPA proposing to approve this delisting?
OxyChem's petition requests a delisting for the wastewater
treatment biosludge derived from the treatment of hazardous wastewater
listed as K019, K020, F025, F001, F003, and F005. OxyChem does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. OxyChem also believes no additional constituents or factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous. EPA's review of this petition
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 the petitioned waste 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 petitioner that the waste is non-hazardous
with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had found, based
on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on the factors
for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have proposed to
deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to other
factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the
concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency
[[Page 32848]]
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment
once released from the waste, plausible and specific types of
management of the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated,
and waste variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not
meet the listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's
proposed decision to delist waste from the facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions
of the waste and analytical data from the OxyChem, Ingleside, Texas
facility.
C. How will OxyChem manage the waste, if it is delisted?
OxyChem will dispose of the wastewater treatment biosludge in a
Subtitle D landfill.
D. When would the proposed delisting exclusion 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 EPA Administrator under 40 CFR 260.22 are
effective in the State of Texas only after the final rule has been
published in the Federal Register.
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 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).
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did OxyChem petition EPA to delist?
OxyChem petitioned EPA on September 20, 2007, to exclude from the
lists of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.31, the wastewater
treatment biosludge from its wastewater treatment plant.
The wastewater treatment biosludge is generated from the OxyChem
facility located in Ingleside, Texas. The wastewater treatment
biosludge is listed under EPA Hazardous Waste No. K019, K020, F025,
F001, F003, and F005, because it is generated in the bioreactors that
can, on occasion, treat incinerator offgas treatment water.
Specifically, in its petition, OxyChem requested that EPA grant
exclusion for 7,500 cubic yards per calendar year of K019, K020, F025,
F001, F003, and F005 waste resulting from the treatment of waste waters
from the manufacturing processes at its facility.
[[Page 32849]]
B. Who is OxyChem and what process do they use to generate the petition
waste?
OxyChem produces ethylene dichloride (EDC), vinyl chloride monomer
(VCM), chlorine, and caustic. The facility is comprised of the Chlor-
Alkali plant which produces chlorine and caustic, and the EDC/VCM
plant. Other processes with the VCM unit include vent incineration,
wastewater treatment, VCM storage and loading (railcar and ship), EDC
and intermediate storage and loading, cooling towers and refrigeration
and compressors.
The manufacturing processes that contribute waste and vent gases to
the incinerators are the VCM plant and the support plants (shop and
rail loading, product storage tanks, RCRA tank and wastewater storage
tanks). The former EDC unit in the Chlor-Alkali Plant once contributed
waste streams, but was idled in 2002.
OxyChem intends to dispose of the delisted wastewater treatment
biosludge at a Subtitle D Landfill. Treatment of the waste waters,
which result from the manufacturing process, generates the wastewater
treatment biosludge that is classified as K019, K020, F025, F001, F003,
and F005 listed hazardous wastes pursuant to 40 CFR 261.31. The 40 CFR
Part 261 Appendix VII hazardous constituents which are the basis for
listing K019, K020, F025, F001, F003, and F005 hazardous wastes are:
K019--ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
tricholoroethane, tetrachloroethanes (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane), trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl chloride, and vinylidene
chloride; K020--ethylene dichloride, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-
tricholoroethane, tetrachloroethanes (1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane), trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, vinyl chloride, and vinylidene
chloride; F025--chloromethane, dichloromethane, trichloromethane,
carbon tetrachloride, chloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,2-
dichloroethane, trans-1,2-dichloroethylene, 1,1-dichloroethylene,
1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,1,2-trichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane,
tetrachloroethylene, pentachloroethane, hexachloroethane, allyl
chloride (3-cholopropene), dichloropropane, dichloroprene, 2-chloro-
1,3-butadiene, hexachloro-1,3-butadiene, hexachlorocyclopentadiene,
benzene, chlorobenzene, dichlorobenzene, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,
tetrachlorobenzene, pentachlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, toluene, and
naphthalene; F001--tetrachloroethylene, methylene chloride
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, and
chlorinated fluorocarbons; F003--N.A.; F005--toluene, methyl ethyl
ketone, carbon disulfide, isobutanol, pyridine, 2-ethoxyethanol,
benzene, and 2-nitropropane.
C. What information did OxyChem submit to support this petition?
To support its petition, OxyChem submitted:
(1) 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
four wasterwater treatment biosludge samples;
(2) Analytical results from multiple pH leaching of metals; and
(3) Description of the wastewater treatment process.
D. What were the results of OxyChem's analysis?
EPA believes that the descriptions of OxyChem's waste, and the
analytical data submitted in support of the petition show that the
wastewater treatment biosludge is non-hazardous. Analytical data from
OxyChem's wastewater treatment biosludge samples were used in the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS). The data summaries for
detected constituents are presented in Table 1. EPA has reviewed the
sampling procedures used by OxyChem and has determined that they
satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting representative samples of the
variations in constituent concentrations in the wastewater treatment
biosludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in OxyChem's wastes are presently below health-based risk
levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that OxyChem
has successfully demonstrated that the wastewater treatment biosludge
is non-hazardous.
Table 1--Analytical Results and Maximum Allowable Delisting Concentrations of the Wastewater Treatment Biosludge
\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum total (mg/ Maximum TCLP (mg/ Maximum allowable TCLP delisting
Constituent kg) l) level (mg/l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antimony............................. 0.349 0.00263 0.111
Acetone.............................. 0.069 0.170 533
Arsenic.............................. 3.62 0.0265 0.178
Barium............................... 27.7 0.204 36.9
Benzoic Acid......................... <0.170 0.0024 2370
Beryllium............................ 0.0623 <0.0100 0.0799
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate........... <0.170 0.0095 6.15
Cadmium.............................. 0.124 0.000616 0.0933
Chromium............................. 10.4 0.0304 2.32
Cobalt............................... 0.787 0.00744 14.00
Copper............................... 44.1 0.274 26.5
Ethylbenzene......................... <0.005 0.048 11.1
Lead................................. 2.70 0.00220 0.719
Mercury.............................. 0.00813 0.00005 0.0696
Methylene Chloride................... 0.0058 0.0058 0.0809
Naphthalene.......................... <0.0066 0.00066 0.0335
Nickel............................... 25.1 0.290 13.8
Phenanthrene......................... <0.0066 0.00028 2.72
Selenium............................. 0.633 0.00770 0.912
Silver............................... 0.0981 <0.0100 5.0
[[Page 32850]]
Silvex (2,4,5,-TP)................... 0.011 <0.0001 0.789
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) 3.86E-04 5.92E-08 4.30E-05 mg/kg
2,3,7,8-.
Thallium............................. 0.0962 0.00203 0.0851
Tin.................................. 1.59 <0.0100 3.97E+07
Toluene.............................. <0.005 0.001 15.5
Trichloroethane...................... 0.0018 0.008 11900
Trichloroethylene.................... <0.005 0.012 0.0794
Vanadium............................. 6.62 0.00586 1.00
Xylenes.............................. <0.015 <0.001 9.79
Zinc................................. 44.1 0.240 202
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
The worst case scenario for management of the wastewater treatment
biosludge 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 wastewater treatment biosludge. EPA determined that
disposal in a Subtitle D landfill is the most reasonable, worst-case
disposal scenario for OxyChem's wastewater treatment biosludge. EPA
applied the DRAS described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR
75637 (December 4, 2000) and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008), to predict the
maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste after disposal and determined the
potential impact of the disposal of OxyChem's petitioned waste on human
health and the environment. 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, no
representative data exists. Therefore, EPA has determined that it would
be unnecessary to request ground water monitoring data.
EPA believes that the descriptions of OxyChem's wastewater
treatment biosludge 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 wastewater treatment
biosludge are presented in Table 1. Based on the comparison of the DRAS
results and maximum TCLP concentrations found in Table 1, the
petitioned waste should be delisted because no constituents of concern
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by products
in OxyChem's waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about OxyChem's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing OxyChem's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which OxyChem
tested, are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-
products in OxyChem's wastes. In addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by OxyChem, pursuant to
[[Page 32851]]
Sec. 260.22, EPA concludes that the petitioned waste, wastewater
treatment biosludge, 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.
G. 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 wastewater
treatment biosludge. 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
wastewater treatment biosludge under any likely disposal conditions.
EPA evaluated the potential hazards resulting from the unlikely
scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous constituents released from
the wastewater 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 wastewater treatment biosludge.
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions by OxyChem 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
wastewater treatment biosludge generated by OxyChem 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 OxyChem an exclusion
from the list of hazardous wastes for the wastewater treatment
biosludge. EPA believes that the data submitted in support of the
petition show the OxyChem's wastewater treatment biosludge to be non-
hazardous.
EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by OxyChem and has
determined they satisfy EPA's criteria for collecting representative
samples of variable constituent concentrations in the wastewater
treatment biosludge. The data submitted in support of the petition show
that constituents in OxyChem'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 OxyChem has successfully demonstrated
that the wastewater treatment biosludge is non-hazardous.
EPA, therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to OxyChem for the
wastewater treatment biosludge described in its September 2007
petition. EPA's decision to exclude this waste is based on analysis
performed on samples taken of the wastewater treatment biosludge.
If EPA finalizes the proposed rule, EPA will no longer regulate
7,500 cubic yards/year of wastewater treatment biosludge from OxyChem's
Ingleside facility under Parts 262 through 268 and the permitting
standards of Part 270.
IV. Next Steps
A. With what conditions must the petitioner comply?
The petitioner, OxyChem, must comply with the requirements in 40
CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, Table 2 as amended by this notice. The text
below gives the rationale and details of those requirements.
(1) Delisting Levels
This paragraph provides the levels of constituent concentrations
for which OxyChem wastewater treatment biosludge, 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,
Table 2, based on information in the petition. EPA compiled the
inorganic and organic constituents list from descriptions of the
manufacturing process used by OxyChem, previous test data provided for
the waste, and the respective health-based levels used in delisting
decision-making. These delisting levels correspond to the allowable
levels measured in the leachable concentrations of the wastewater
treatment biosludge.
(2) Waste Holding and Handling
Waste classification as non-hazardous cannot begin until compliance
with the limits set in paragraph (1) has occurred for four consecutive
weekly sampling events. For example, if OxyChem is issued a final
exclusion in August, the four weekly samples can be collected in
September. If EPA deems that the four representative composite samples
meet all the indicator constituent delisting limits, classification of
the waste as non-hazardous can begin in October. If constituent levels
in any annual sample (and retest, if applicable) taken by OxyChem
exceed any of the delisting levels set in paragraph (1), OxyChem must:
(i) notify EPA in accordance with paragraph (6), and (ii) manage and
dispose of the wastewater treatment biosludge as hazardous waste
generated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Verification Testing Requirements
OxyChem must complete a verification testing program on the
wastewater treatment biosludge to assure that the wastes 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 initial part of the verification testing program consists of
testing four composite samples from four consecutive weeks of
wastewater treatment biosludge for specified indicator parameters as
described in paragraph (1). Levels of constituents measured in the
samples of the wastewater treatment biosludge that do not exceed the
levels set forth in paragraph (1) can be considered non-hazardous after
all four sets of sampling data meet the levels listed in paragraph (1).
The second part of the verification testing program is the annual
testing of a representative composite sample of the wastewater
treatment biosludge for all constituents specified in paragraph (1). If
any delisting levels are not met in an annual test sample, then a
second composite sample shall be collected within 10 days of becoming
aware of the failure, and it must be analyzed expeditiously for the
TCLP constituent(s) that exceeded Delisting Levels.
If the annual testing of the wastes, and the retest, do not meet
the delisting levels in paragraph (1), OxyChem 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). OxyChem 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 the four weekly initial verification samples
[[Page 32852]]
comply with the levels specified in paragraph (1). The waste
classification as ``non-hazardous'' is also not authorized, if OxyChem
fails to perform the testing as specified herein. Should OxyChem
conduct the yearly testing as specified herein, then disposal of
wastewater treatment biosludge as delisted waste may not occur in the
following year(s) until OxyChem obtains the written approval of EPA.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions
Paragraph (4) would allow OxyChem the flexibility of modifying its
processes (for example, changes in equipment or change in operating
conditions) to improve its treatment processes. However, OxyChem must
prove the effectiveness of the modified process and request approval
from EPA. OxyChem 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 OxyChem facility is
correctly managing the wastewater treatment biosludge, OxyChem must
compile, summarize, and keep delisting records on-site for a minimum of
five years. OxyChem must keep all analytical data obtained pursuant to
paragraph (3), including quality control information, for five years.
Paragraph (5) requires that OxyChem 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
7,500 cubic yards per calendar year of wastewater treatment biosludge
generated at the OxyChem facility after successful initial verification
testing.
EPA would require OxyChem to submit additional verification data
under any of the following circumstances:
(a) If OxyChem significantly alters the waste treatment system
except as described in paragraph (4).
(b) If OxyChem uses any new manufacturing or production
process(es), or significantly changes the current process(es) described
in its petition; or
(c) If OxyChem makes any changes that could significantly affect
the composition or type of waste generated.
OxyChem 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.
OxyChem must manage waste volumes greater than 7,500 cubic yards of
wastewater treatment biosludge as hazardous waste until EPA grants a
revised exclusion. When this exclusion becomes final, the management by
OxyChem of the wastewater treatment biosludge covered in this petition
would be relieved from Subtitle C jurisdiction. OxyChem may not
classify the waste as non-hazardous until the revised exclusion is
finalized.
(6) Reopener
The purpose of paragraph (6) is to require OxyChem 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. OxyChem
must also use this procedure if the waste sample (and retest, if
applicable) 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 OxyChem to report differing site
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 Sec. 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 553(b)(3)(B).
B. What happens if OxyChem violates the terms and conditions?
If OxyChem 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 OxyChem to conduct the appropriate waste analysis
and comply with the criteria explained above in paragraph (1) of the
exclusion.
V. Public Comments
A. How may I as an interested party submit comments?
EPA is requesting public comments on this proposed decision. 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
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: EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0108. You may submit your comments
electronically to Wendy Jacques at jacques.wendy@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.
VI. 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
[[Page 32853]]
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 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.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f)
Dated: June 10, 2009.
Troy C. Hill,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. 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 Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 2--Waste Excluded From Specific Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
OxyChem Corporation........... Ingleside, TX.... Wastewater treatment
biosludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste
Number K019, K020,
F025, F001, F003,
F005) generated at a
maximum rate of
7,500 cubic yards
per calendar year
after [publication
date of the final
rule].
For the exclusion to
be valid, OxyChem
must implement a
verification testing
program that meets
the following
paragraphs:
(1)(A) Delisting
Levels: All
concentrations for
those constituents
must not exceed the
maximum allowable
concentrations in mg/
l specified in this
paragraph.
Wastewater treatment
biosludge Leachable
Concentrations (mg/
l): Antimony--0.111;
Acetone--533;
Arsenic--0.178;
Barium--36.9; Bis(2-
ethylhexyl)phthalate
-6.15; Chromium--
2.32; Copper--26.5;
Ethylbenzene--11.1;
Methylene Chloride--
0.0809; Naphthalene--
0.0355; Nickel--
13.8; Phenanthrene--
2.72; Toluene--15.5;
Trichloroethane--119
00;
Trichloroethylene--0
.0794; Vanadium--
1.00; Zinc--202.
(B) Total
Concentration Limits
in mg/Kg:
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD)
2,3,7,8 Equivalent--
4.3E-05.
(2) Waste Holding and
Handling:
[[Page 32854]]
(A) Waste
classification as
non-hazardous can
not begin until
compliance with the
limits set in
paragraph (1) for
wastewater treatment
biosludge has
occurred for four
consecutive weekly
sampling events.
(B) If constituent
levels in any annual
sample and retest
sample taken by
OxyChem exceed any
of the delisting
levels set in
paragraph (1) for
the wastewater
treatment biosludge,
OxyChem must do the
following:
(i) Notify EPA in
accordance with
paragraph (6) and
(ii) Manage and
dispose the
wastewater treatment
biosludge as
hazardous waste
generated under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
(3) Testing
Requirements:
Upon this exclusion
becoming final,
OxyChem must perform
analytical testing
by sampling and
analyzing the
wastewater treatment
biosludge as
follows:
(A) Initial
Verification
Testing:
(i) Collect four
representative
composite samples of
the wastewater
treatment biosludge
at weekly intervals
after EPA grants the
final exclusion. The
first composite
sample may be taken
at any time after
EPA grants the final
approval. Sampling
must 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) indicates that
the wastewater
treatment biosludge
must continue to be
disposed as
hazardous waste in
accordance with the
applicable hazardous
waste requirements
until such time that
four consecutive
weekly samples
indicate compliance
with delisting
levels listed in
paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty
(60) days after
taking its last
weekly sample,
OxyChem will report
its analytical test
data to EPA. If
levels of
constituents
measured in the
samples of the
wastewater treatment
biosludge do not
exceed the levels
set forth in
paragraph (1) of
this exclusion for
four consecutive
weeks, OxyChem can
manage and dispose
the non-hazardous
wastewater treatment
biosludge according
to all applicable
solid waste
regulations.
(B) Annual Testing:
(i) If OxyChem
completes the weekly
testing specified in
paragraph (3) above
and no sample
contains a
constituent at a
level which exceeds
the limits set forth
in paragraph (1),
OxyChem must begin
annual testing as
follows: OxyChem
must test a
representative
composite sample of
the wastewater
treatment biosludge
for all constituents
listed in paragraph
(1) at least once
per calendar year.
If any measured
constituent
concentration
exceeds the
delisting levels set
forth in paragraph
(1), OxyChem must
collect an
additional
representative
composite sample
within 10 days of
being made aware of
the exceedence and
test it
expeditiously for
the constituent(s)
which exceeded
delisting levels in
the original annual
sample.
(ii) The samples for
the annual testing
shall be a
representative
composite sample
according to
appropriate methods.
As applicable to the
