Hazardous Waste Management System; Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste, 69028-69035 [E9-30994]
Download as PDF
69028
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
33 CFR 117.458(b), the draw of the US
90 (Danziger) bridge, mile 3.1, shall
open on signal; except that, from 8 p.m.
to 7 a.m. the draw shall open on signal
if at least four hours notice is given, and
the draw need not be opened from 7
a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday. This deviation
allows the draw span of the bridge to
remain closed-to-navigation for 12
consecutive hours between 7 a.m. and
7 p.m. on intermittent days from
January 16, 2009 through January 30,
2009. Uncontrollable variables such as
inclement weather make it difficult to
predict the exact dates that work can be
conducted. Thus, the exact dates for the
closures cannot be firmly scheduled.
Notices will be published in the Eighth
Coast Guard District Local Notice to
Mariners and will be broadcast via the
Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to
Mariners System as soon as information
pertaining to the exact closure dates
becomes available. During the deviation
period seven new aerial cables between
the two bridge towers will be installed,
the wiring for the roadway and
navigation lighting will be replaced, and
the guide rollers and span locks will be
replaced. The closure periods are
necessary for the guide rollers and span
locks to be replaced. During the nonclosure times of the deviation period the
bridge will remain in the open position
for vessel traffic. Navigation on the
waterway consists mainly of tugs with
tows. As a result of coordination
between the Coast Guard and the
waterway users, it has been determined
that this closure will not have a
significant effect on these vessels. The
Coast Guard will inform these users
through the Local Notice to Mariners.
Vessels will be allowed to pass
underneath the bridge in the closed-tonavigation position. There are alternate
routes available to vessel traffic. The
bridge will not be able to open for
emergencies.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: December 14, 2009.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–30931 Filed 12–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2009–1059]
Drawbridge Operation Regulation;
Sacramento River, Knights Landing,
CA
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of temporary deviation
from regulations.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Commander, Eleventh
Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation
governing the operation of the Knights
Landing Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 90.1, at Knights
Landing, CA. The deviation is necessary
to allow the bridge owner, California
Department of Transportation, to paint
portions of the drawbridge. This
deviation allows the bridge owner to
operate the double leaf bascule bridge in
single leaf mode during the deviation
period.
DATES: This deviation is effective from
7 a.m. on December 30, 2009 to 7 a.m.
on February 6, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this
preamble as being available in the
docket are part of docket USCG–2009–
1059 and are available online by going
to https://www.regulations.gov, selecting
the Advanced Docket Search option on
the right side of the screen, inserting
USCG–2009–1059 in the Docket ID box,
pressing Enter, and then clicking on the
item in the Docket ID column. This
material is also available for inspection
or copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M–30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
e-mail David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District,
telephone (510) 437–3516, e-mail
David.H.Sulouff@uscg.mil. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call
Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone 202–366–
9826.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: California
Department of Transportation requested
a temporary change to the operation of
the Knights Landing Drawbridge, mile
90.1, Sacramento River, at Knights
Landing, CA. The draw opens on signal
if at least 12 hours notice is given as
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
required by 33 CFR 117.189(b). This
deviation allows the bridge owner to
operate the double leaf bascule bridge in
single leaf mode while securing one leaf
of the drawspan in the closed-tonavigation position from 7 a.m. on
December 11, 2009 to 7 a.m. on
February 6, 2010.
The Knights Landing Drawbridge
provides 3 feet vertical clearance above
the 100 year floodplain when closed
and unlimited vertical clearance in the
open-to-navigation position. The
drawbridge provides 199 feet horizontal
clearance between bridge piers. The
horizontal clearance provided by the
drawbridge during single leaf operation
is reduced by approximately 100 feet
between the tip of the closed bascule
and the opposite pier face. The vertical
clearance will be unaffected.
No alternative routes are available for
navigation. This temporary deviation
has been coordinated with all known
waterway users. No objections were
received concerning the temporary
deviation.
Vessels that can safely transit the
bridge, while in the closed-to-navigation
position, may continue to do so at any
time.
In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e),
the drawbridge must return to its regular
operating schedule immediately at the
end of the designated time period. This
deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.
Dated: December 14, 2009.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E9–30918 Filed 12–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2009–0908; SW–FRL–
9096–7]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Exclusion for Identifying and
Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is taking
direct final action to grant a petition
submitted by Professional Plating, Inc.
(PPI), in Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude
(or ‘‘delist’’) up to 140 cubic yards of
sludge per year generated by its
wastewater treatment plant from the list
of hazardous wastes.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
The Agency has decided to grant the
petition based on an evaluation of
waste-specific information provided by
PPI. This decision conditionally
excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
We conclude that PPI’s petitioned
waste is nonhazardous with respect to
the original listing criteria and that there
are no other factors which would cause
the waste to be hazardous when
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 1,
2010 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comment by January
29, 2010. If EPA receives adverse
comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
RCRA–2009–0908 by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: Todd Ramaly, Land and
Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J),
EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604.
• Hand Delivery: Todd Ramaly, Land
and Chemicals Division, EPA Region 5,
8th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604. Such deliveries are only
accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please contact Todd
Ramaly at (312) 353–9317.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–RCRA–2009–
0908. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
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 docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information
may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Records Center,
EPA Region 5, 7th Floor, 77 W. Jackson
Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. The EPA
Record Center is open from 8 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. We recommend you
telephone Todd Ramaly at (312) 353–
9317 before visiting the EPA Record
Center. The public may copy material
from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, Mail Code LR–8J,
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353–
9317; fax number: (312) 582–5190; email address: ramaly.todd@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What Is a Listed Waste?
B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
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 PPI Petition EPA To
Delist?
B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?
C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the
Waste?
D. What Were the Results of PPI’s Analysis
of the Waste?
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of
Delisting This Waste?
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69029
F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI’s
Waste?
G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It Is
Delisted?
B. What Are the Maximum Allowable
Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the
Waste?
D. What Data Must PPI Submit?
E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet the
Conditions of the Exclusion?
F. What Must PPI Do If the Process
Changes?
V. How Would This Action Affect States?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted for the Professional Plating,
Incorporated (PPI) facility located in
Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude or delist
an annual volume of 140 cubic yards of
F019 wastewater treatment sludges from
the lists of hazardous waste set forth in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) 261.32 and 261.33.
PPI claims that the petitioned waste
does not meet the criteria for which EPA
listed it, and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could
cause the waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in
section III, we agree with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous. We
reviewed the description of the process
which generates the waste and the
analytical data submitted by PPI. We
believe that the petitioned waste does
not meet the criteria for which the waste
was listed, and that there are no other
factors which might cause the waste to
be hazardous.
II. Background
A. What Is a Listed Waste?
The 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 the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has
amended this list several times and
published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32.
We list 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 (3).
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
69030
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
Individual waste streams may vary
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.
A procedure to exclude or delist a
waste is provided in 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 which allows a person, or a
facility to submit a petition to the EPA
or to an authorized State, demonstrating
that a specific waste from a particular
generating facility is not hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that a waste does not meet
any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40
CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner
must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether any factors in
addition to those for which the waste
was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f) and the background
documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the
generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that the waste remains
nonhazardous.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in
Deciding Whether To Grant a Delisting
Petition?
In reviewing this petition, we
considered the original listing criteria
and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See sec.
222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and 40
CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a), §§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3),
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 we listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
Our decision to delist waste from
PPI’s facility is based on our evaluation
of the waste for factors or criteria which
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
These factors included: (1) Whether the
waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the
toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the
waste; (4) the tendency of the
constituents to migrate and to
bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
environment of any constituents once
released from the waste; (6) plausible
and specific types of management of the
petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of
waste produced; and (8) waste
variability.
EPA must also consider as hazardous
wastes mixtures containing listed
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the
‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from
wastes are also eligible for exclusion but
remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did PPI Petition EPA To
Delist?
On June 23, 2009, PPI petitioned EPA
to exclude an annual volume of 140
cubic yards of F019 wastewater
treatment sludges generated at its
facility in Brillion, Wisconsin from the
list of hazardous wastes contained in 40
CFR 261.31. F019 is defined in § 261.32
as ‘‘Wastewater treatment sludges from
the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum except from zirconium
phosphating in aluminum can washing
when such phosphating is an exclusive
conversion coating process.’’ PPI claims
that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which F019 was listed
and that there are no other factors which
would cause the waste to be hazardous.
B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?
The F019 is generated from the rinse
waters and overflows of two zinc
phosphating lines used for conversion
coating aluminum parts. The aluminum
parts are spray cleaned, immersion
cleaned, and cleaned with a phosphoric
acid prior to conversion coating. The
rinse waters from these steps do not
contribute to the petitioned waste. Rinse
waters and overflows from the zinc
phosphating step and the remaining
steps in the treatment line are the only
wastewaters contributing to the
petitioned waste. Zinc phopshating
includes several acids and nickel- and
manganese-compounds. The parts are
sealed with compounds containing
fluorine, zirconium, and ammonium
hydroxide. Lastly, epoxy-based and
acrylic paint films are cathodically
electrodeposited on the aluminum parts.
The combined rinse waters and
overflows from these process steps go to
an on-site wastewater treatment plant
dedicated to the F019 wastewater. The
pH of the wastewater is adjusted to 9.0
standard units with either sulfuric acid
or sodium hydroxide. Coagulants
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
containing polymers, calcium chloride,
and potassium chloride are added to
assist in precipitating wastewater
contaminants. A polyacrylamide
anionic flocculant is added to gather the
coagulum into clumps large enough to
settle at the bottom of a clarifier. The
clarified water is discharged to the
sewer and the settled sludge is pumped
to a sludge thickening tank and then
through a plate and frame filter press.
Process vessels for both zinc
phosphating lines (epoxy-coating and
acrylic-coating) are periodically cleaned
out with the resulting sludges also
pressed by the plate and frame filter
press dedicated to the F019 water
treatment process.
C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the
Waste?
Six sludge samples were collected
each on a monthly basis from April
through October 2008. Sludge
accumulated in a roll-off box and was
sampled representing sludge collected
over a period of approximately 4 weeks
each. Two sludge samples representing
clean-out of the epoxy-coating line were
collected on August 25 and on October
20, 2008 in order to characterize sludge
generated from clean-out activities.
Sludge generated from the clean-out of
the acrylic-coating line was sampled on
August 11, 2008. PPI collected one
composite and one grab sample of
sludge from each roll-off box during
each sampling event. Composite
samples consisted of four individual
full-depth core grab samples mixed
together to form one sample.
PPI analyzed all composite samples
using the following methodology: (1)
Total constituent analysis and Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) for metals in Appendix IX of 40
CFR part 264, (Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods—SW–846—Methods
6010B and 1311 1); (2) total constituent
and TCLP analysis for sulfide (SW–846
Methods 9030A and 1311); (3) total
constituent and TCLP analysis for
cyanide (SW–846 Methods 9010 and
1311 2); (4) total constituent and TCLP
analysis for fluoride (SW–846 Methods
9056 and 1311); (5) flashpoint (SW–846
Method 1010); (6) pH (SW–846 Method
9040); and (7) oil & grease (SW–846
Method 9070).
PPI screened the first two of the six
monthly composite samples and one
each of the composite samples of cleanout sludges for: (1) Total constituent and
1 Method 7471 was substituted for Method 6010
for mercury.
2 Deionized water was used as the extraction fluid
instead of the fluid specified in the method.
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
TCLP analysis for 120 semi-volatile
organic compounds (SW–846 Methods
8270 and 1311); (2) total constituent and
TCLP analysis for formaldehyde (SW–
846 Methods 8315 and 1311); (3) total
constituent and TCLP analysis for
acrylamide (SW–846 Methods 8032 and
1311); (4) TCLP analysis for metals in
Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 264,
substituting the TCLP extraction fluid
with deionized water in order to assess
leachability under pH-neutral
conditions (SW–846 Methods 6010B
and 1311); and (5) TCLP analysis for
metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part
264, substituting the TCLP extraction
fluid with a buffered alkaline solution
in order to assess leachability under
alkaline conditions (SW–846 Methods
6010B and 1311). PPI analyzed two of
the six monthly full-depth core grab
samples and one each of the grab
samples of clean-out sludges for total
constituent and TCLP analysis for
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
(SW–846 Method 8260 and SW–846
Method 1311). This screening analysis
was performed to check for unexpected
organic compounds in the waste as well
as identify pH-dependence of metals in
leachate in the event landfill leachates
with neutral or alkaline pH result in
higher concentrations. Detections of
organic compounds were insignificant
and the remainder of the sludge samples
were not analyzed for these parameters.
Metals of concern were generally
preferentially leached by the acidic
TCLP test. The exception, barium,
leached more in some samples under
alkaline conditions. However,
detections of all metals, including
barium, were so far below
concentrations of concern that the
Maximum observed
concentration
remainder of the samples were not
tested at neutral and alkaline leaching
conditions.
D. What Were the Results of PPI’s
Analysis of the Waste?
The table below presents the
maximum observed total and leachate
concentrations for all detected
constituents for which maximum
allowable total and/or TCLP
concentration were available. Total
concentrations are expressed in
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Leachate concentrations are expressed
in milligrams per liter (mg/L). The table
also includes the results of analysis for
the constituents for which F019 was
listed, chromium and cyanide. PPI
submitted a signed a statement
certifying accuracy and responsibility of
the results. See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
Maximum allowable
concentration
Constituent detected
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
69031
Total
(mg/kg)
TCLP
(mg/L)
GW
(mg/L)
Volatile Organic Compounds
acetone ....................................................................
acrolein .....................................................................
benzene ...................................................................
bromomethane .........................................................
butanol .....................................................................
carbon disulfide ........................................................
chloromethane .........................................................
ethylbenzene ............................................................
formaldehyde ...........................................................
methyl ethyl ketone ..................................................
methylene chloride ...................................................
methyl isobutyl ketone .............................................
trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4- ..........................................
xylenes .....................................................................
V 0.113
0.33
0.277
0.00142 I
1.16
0.510 12
<12
0.05 I
<1.2
86.1
0.0365 I
<2.4
0.644
0.000652 I
<2.4
<0.5
<0.05
<0.05
<25
IV 0.0039
<0.05
0.0034
<10.0
0.0820
0.028
<0.5
I 0.00530
I 0.0116
NA
6,850
224,000
247,000
NA
NA
NA
NA
4,150
NA
882,000
NA
NA
NA
26,300
NA
1 0.05
NA
2,920
2,850
306
549
631
200
4.0
2,340
34.2
484
3.38
0.000504
0.00133
0.0262
3.75
3.17
0.393
0.7
0.811
22.5
0.005
3.0
0.0448
0.617
14,600
NA
18.8
0.00321
1 100
6,570
1 5.0
10.4
1,180
1 5.0
815
1 0.2
638
19,700
10,300
2.0
7.5
0.1
0.0113
1.3
0.015
0.9
0.00145
0.75
22.5
11.3
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
benzyl alcohol ..........................................................
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate ........................................
27.7
2.82
0.036
<0.02
NA
NA
Metals
barium ......................................................................
boron ........................................................................
chromium .................................................................
cobalt .......................................................................
copper ......................................................................
lead ..........................................................................
manganese ..............................................................
mercury ....................................................................
nickel ........................................................................
strontium ..................................................................
zinc ...........................................................................
132
114
153
333
422
54.9
15,100
0.0182
7,380
10,200
89,400
0.26
1.24
<1.25
<1.25
0.49
<1.25
25.2
<0.0002
37.1
C 5.13
30.2
NA
NA
3 22,700
30,300
NA
NA
NA
98.1
NA
NA
NA
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Miscellaneous Parameters
cyanide .....................................................................
sulfide .......................................................................
fluoride .....................................................................
pH (corrosivity) .........................................................
flashpoint (ignitability) ..............................................
16.3
85.1
740
<0.05
NR
22.6
5.9–8.11
> 200 °F
NA
156
NA
NA
NA
1,980
2 < pH < 12.5
< 140 °F
200
NA
2,250
NA
NA
These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any sample and do not necessarily represent the concentrations
found in a single sample.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
69032
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
1—Based
on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C.
both n-butanol and t-butanol.
on a mixture at a ratio of 1:6 hexavalent to trivalent chromium.
V—Present in blank.
NA—Maximum allowable not calculated or much higher than expected to be present.
<—Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the quantitation level.
I—Estimated value, below practicable quantitation limit.
C—Calibration check verification or quality control sample exceeded upper control limit.
NR—Analysis not run.
2—Includes
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
3—Based
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of
Delisting This Waste?
For this delisting determination, we
assumed that the waste would be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we
considered transport of waste
constituents through ground water,
surface water and air. We evaluated
PPI’s petitioned waste using the
Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents
that might be released from the
petitioned waste and to determine if the
waste would pose a threat. To predict
the potential for release to groundwater
from landfilled wastes and subsequent
routes of exposure to a receptor, the
DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors
(DAFs) derived from EPA’s Composite
Model for leachate migration with
Transformation Products (CMTP). From
a release to groundwater, the DRAS
considers routes of exposure to a human
receptor of ingestion of contaminated
groundwater, inhalation from
groundwater while showering and
dermal contact from groundwater while
bathing.
From a release to surface water by
erosion of waste from an open landfill
into storm water run-off, DRAS
evaluates the exposure to a human
receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion
of drinking water. From a release of
waste particles and volatile emissions to
air from the surface of an open landfill,
DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents,
inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential
soil and subsequent ingestion of the
contaminated soil by a child.
For a detailed description of the
DRAS program and revisions see the
Delisting Technical Support Document,
DRAS version 3.0 Update Summary,
and DRAS version 3.0 User’s Guide
available in the docket for today’s
action.
At a target cancer risk of 1×10¥6 and
a target hazard quotient of one, the
DRAS program determined maximum
allowable concentrations for each
constituent in both the waste and the
leachate at an annual waste volume of
140 cubic yards. We used the maximum
estimated annual waste volume and the
maximum reported total and leachate
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
concentrations as inputs for DRAS. If,
using an appropriate analytical method,
a constituent was not detected in any
sample nor in the leachate of any
sample, it was considered not to be
present in the waste.
F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI’s
Waste?
The maximum reported leachate
concentrations and the maximum
reported total concentrations of the
hazardous constituents found in this
waste are presented in the table above.
The table also presents the maximum
allowable concentrations. The
concentrations of all constituents in
both the waste and the leachate are
below the allowable levels of concern
calculated by the DRAS program at the
target risk levels. We therefore conclude
that PPI’s wastewater treatment sludge
is not a substantial or potential hazard
to human health and the environment
when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill. Once the exclusion becomes
effective, PPI must dispose of this waste
in a Subtitle D landfill permitted or
licensed by a State.
G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final
Rule?
EPA is publishing this rule without a
prior proposed rule because we view
this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. The
exclusion applies to a very small waste
stream generated at a single facility and
rigorous chemical analysis of the waste
indicated that concentrations of
chemicals and elements in the waste
were far below levels of concern. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. Any
parties interested in commenting must
do so at this time.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It
Is Delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, PPI
must dispose of it in a Subtitle D
landfill which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial waste.
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. What Are the Maximum Allowable
Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
The following parameters were
selected for ongoing verification because
of their prevalence in the waste relative
to the maximum allowable
concentrations. Concentrations
measured in the TCLP (or OWEP, where
appropriate) extract of the waste of these
constituents must not exceed the
following concentrations (mg/l):
chromium—5, cobalt—10.4;
manganese—815; and nickel—638.
C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the
Waste?
PPI must analyze a representative
sample of the wastewater treatment
sludges on an annual basis to
demonstrate that leachate
concentrations do not exceed the levels
of concern in Section IV.B. above. PPI
must use methods with appropriate
detection levels with appropriate
quality control procedures. SW–846
Method 1311 must be used for
generation of the leachate extract used
in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the
waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be
used for generation of the leaching
extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or
more of the waste. SW–846 Method
9071B must be used for determination
of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods
1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11.
D. What Data Must PPI Submit?
PPI must submit the data obtained
through annual verification testing to
U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, IL 60604, upon the anniversary
of the effective date of this exclusion.
PPI must compile, summarize, and
maintain on site records of operating
conditions and analytical data. PPI must
make these records available for
inspection. All data must be
accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet
the Conditions of the Exclusion?
If PPI violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
the Agency may start procedures to
withdraw the exclusion.
If any testing of the waste does not
meet the maximum allowable
concentrations described in section
IV.B. above or other data (including but
not limited to leachate data or
groundwater monitoring data) relevant
to the delisted waste indicates that any
constituent is at a level in the leachate
higher than the specified maximum
allowable concentration, or is in
groundwater at a concentration higher
than the groundwater concentrations
used in the risk evaluation, PPI must
notify the Agency within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of the
data. Maximum allowable groundwater
concentrations (mg/L) are as follows:
chromium—0.1; cobalt—0.0113;
manganese—0.9; and nickel—0.75.
The exclusion will be suspended and
the waste managed as hazardous until
PPI has received written approval from
the Agency to continue the exclusion.
PPI may provide sampling results which
support the continuation of the delisting
exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under
RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 551 (1978)
et seq. to reopen a delisting decision if
we receive new information indicating
that the conditions of this exclusion
have been violated, or are otherwise not
being met.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
F. What Must PPI Do If the Process
Changes?
If PPI significantly changes the
manufacturing or treatment process or
the chemicals used in the
manufacturing or treatment process, PPI
may not handle the wastewater
treatment sludge generated from the
new process under this exclusion until
it has demonstrated to the EPA that the
waste meets the levels set in section
IV.B. and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
40 CFR part 261 have been introduced.
PPI must manage wastes generated after
the process change as hazardous waste
until PPI has received written notice
from EPA that the delisting is reinstated.
V. How Would This Action Affect the
States?
Because EPA is issuing today’s
exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to
Federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This exclusion may
not be effective in States which have
received our authorization to make their
own delisting decisions.
EPA allows States to impose their
own non-RCRA regulatory requirements
that are more stringent than EPA’s,
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
under section 3009 of RCRA. These
more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the State. We urge petitioners
to contact the State regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes
under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States
to administer a delisting program in
place of the Federal program, that is, to
make State delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply
in those authorized States. If PPI
manages the waste in any State with
delisting authorization, PPI must obtain
delisting authorization from that State
before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that State.
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
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
final rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’,
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, this final rule
does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69033
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 DRAS, which considers health and
safety risks to children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report which includes a
copy of the rule to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. Section 804
exempts from section 801 the following
types of rules: (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency
management or personnel; and (3) rules
of agency organization, procedure, or
practice that do not substantially affect
the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report
regarding today’s action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular
applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
69034
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: November 9, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
2. Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261
is amended by adding the following
waste stream in alphabetical order by
facility to read as follows:
■
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
■
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended
as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Address
Waste description
*
Professional Plating, Incorporated.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Facility
*
*
Brillion, Wisconsin ..............
*
*
*
*
Wastewater treatment sludges, F019, which are generated at the Professional Plating, Incorporated (PPI) Brillion facility at a maximum annual rate of 140 cubic
yards per year. The sludge must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a State to accept the delisted
wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of March 1,
2010.
1. Delisting Levels: The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract
may not exceed the following levels (mg/L): chromium—5, cobalt—10.4; manganese—815; and nickel—638.
2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, PPI must collect and analyze, annually, one waste sample for
the constituents in Section 1. using methods with appropriate detection levels and
elements of quality control. SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of
the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil and grease
comprise less than 1% of the waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be used for
generation of the leaching extract if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the
waste. SW–846 Method 9071B must be used for determination of oil and grease.
SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40
CFR 260.11.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: PPI must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment
process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly change. PPI
must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has
demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the maximum allowable concentrations in Section 1. and that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced and it has received written approval
from EPA.
4. Reopener Language—(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, PPI possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating
that any constituent is at a concentration in the waste or waste leachate higher
than the maximum allowable concentrations in Section 1. above or is in the
groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater
concentrations in Paragraph (e), then PPI must report such data, in writing, to the
Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of
that data.
(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any other information
received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency 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 Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify the facility in writing of
the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human
health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed
action and a statement providing PPI with an opportunity to present information as
to why the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative
action. PPI shall have 30 days from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information.
(d) If after 30 days PPI presents no further information, the Regional Administrator
will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described
in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately,
unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.
(e) Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as follows: chromium—0.1; cobalt—0.0113; manganese—0.9; and nickel—0.75.
*
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
*
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
*
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
*
30DER1
*
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
[FR Doc. E9–30994 Filed 12–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[DA 09–2594; MB Docket No. 09–196; RM–
11578]
Television Broadcasting Services;
High Point, NC
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY: The Commission has before it
a petition for rulemaking filed by
Community Television of North
Carolina, LLC, the licensee of
WGHP(TV), channel 8, High Point,
North Carolina, requesting the
substitution of channel 35 for channel 8
at High Point.
DATES: This rule is effective December
30, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joyce L. Bernstein, Media Bureau, (202)
418–1600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Report
and Order, MB Docket No. 09–196,
adopted December 14, 2009, and
released December 15, 2009. The full
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:16 Dec 29, 2009
Jkt 220001
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
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
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
information collection burden ‘‘for
small business concerns with fewer than
25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
69035
Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to
this proceeding.
The Commission will send a copy of
this Report and Order in a report to be
sent to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television, Television broadcasting.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR Part 73 as
follows:
■
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.
§ 73.622
[Amended]
2. Section 73.622(i), the PostTransition Table of DTV Allotments
under North Carolina, is amended by
adding channel 35 and removing
channel 8 at High Point.
■
Federal Communications Commission.
Clay C. Pendarvis,
Associate Chief, Video Division, Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. E9–31017 Filed 12–29–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\30DER1.SGM
30DER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 30, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69028-69035]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-30994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2009-0908; SW-FRL-9096-7]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Exclusion for Identifying and
Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
taking direct final action to grant a petition submitted by
Professional Plating, Inc. (PPI), in Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude (or
``delist'') up to 140 cubic yards of sludge per year generated by its
wastewater treatment plant from the list of hazardous wastes.
[[Page 69029]]
The Agency has decided to grant the petition based on an evaluation
of waste-specific information provided by PPI. This decision
conditionally excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
We conclude that PPI's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous when disposed of in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.
DATES: This rule is effective on March 1, 2010 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comment by January 29, 2010. If EPA
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
RCRA-2009-0908 by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals Division, (Mail
Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604.
Hand Delivery: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals Division,
EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please contact Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-RCRA-
2009-0908. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through 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 docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Records Center, EPA Region 5, 7th Floor, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,
IL 60604. The EPA Record Center is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We recommend you telephone
Todd Ramaly at (312) 353-9317 before visiting the EPA Record Center.
The public may copy material from the regulatory docket at $0.15 per
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Ramaly, Land and Chemicals
Division, Mail Code LR-8J, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region
5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 353-
9317; fax number: (312) 582-5190; e-mail address: ramaly.todd@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What Is a Listed Waste?
B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
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 PPI Petition EPA To Delist?
B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?
C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the Waste?
D. What Were the Results of PPI's Analysis of the Waste?
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI's Waste?
G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
B. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the Waste?
D. What Data Must PPI Submit?
E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet the Conditions of the
Exclusion?
F. What Must PPI Do If the Process Changes?
V. How Would This Action Affect States?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a
petition submitted for the Professional Plating, Incorporated (PPI)
facility located in Brillion, Wisconsin to exclude or delist an annual
volume of 140 cubic yards of F019 wastewater treatment sludges from the
lists of hazardous waste set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) 261.32 and 261.33. PPI claims that the petitioned
waste does not meet the criteria for which EPA listed it, and that
there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in section III, we agree with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous. We reviewed the description
of the process which generates the waste and the analytical data
submitted by PPI. We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which the waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.
II. Background
A. What Is a Listed Waste?
The 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 the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this
list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
We list 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. Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
[[Page 69030]]
B. What Is a Delisting Petition?
Individual waste streams may vary 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.
A procedure to exclude or delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 which allows a person, or a facility to submit a
petition to the EPA or to an authorized State, demonstrating that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility is not hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that a waste does
not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 CFR 261.11 and
that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity.
The petitioner must present sufficient information for us to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f) and the background documents for the listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the generator remains obligated
under RCRA to confirm that the waste remains nonhazardous.
C. What Factors Must EPA Consider in Deciding Whether To Grant a
Delisting Petition?
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See sec. 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), Sec. Sec.
261.11(a)(2) and (3), 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 we
listed the waste if these additional factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous.
Our decision to delist waste from PPI's facility is based on our
evaluation of the waste for factors or criteria which could cause the
waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) Whether the waste is
considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the
concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the
constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in
the environment of any constituents once released from the waste; (6)
plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7)
the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did PPI Petition EPA To Delist?
On June 23, 2009, PPI petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of
140 cubic yards of F019 wastewater treatment sludges generated at its
facility in Brillion, Wisconsin from the list of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F019 is defined in Sec. 261.32 as
``Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical conversion coating of
aluminum except from zirconium phosphating in aluminum can washing when
such phosphating is an exclusive conversion coating process.'' PPI
claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
F019 was listed and that there are no other factors which would cause
the waste to be hazardous.
B. How Does PPI Generate the Waste?
The F019 is generated from the rinse waters and overflows of two
zinc phosphating lines used for conversion coating aluminum parts. The
aluminum parts are spray cleaned, immersion cleaned, and cleaned with a
phosphoric acid prior to conversion coating. The rinse waters from
these steps do not contribute to the petitioned waste. Rinse waters and
overflows from the zinc phosphating step and the remaining steps in the
treatment line are the only wastewaters contributing to the petitioned
waste. Zinc phopshating includes several acids and nickel- and
manganese-compounds. The parts are sealed with compounds containing
fluorine, zirconium, and ammonium hydroxide. Lastly, epoxy-based and
acrylic paint films are cathodically electrodeposited on the aluminum
parts.
The combined rinse waters and overflows from these process steps go
to an on-site wastewater treatment plant dedicated to the F019
wastewater. The pH of the wastewater is adjusted to 9.0 standard units
with either sulfuric acid or sodium hydroxide. Coagulants containing
polymers, calcium chloride, and potassium chloride are added to assist
in precipitating wastewater contaminants. A polyacrylamide anionic
flocculant is added to gather the coagulum into clumps large enough to
settle at the bottom of a clarifier. The clarified water is discharged
to the sewer and the settled sludge is pumped to a sludge thickening
tank and then through a plate and frame filter press.
Process vessels for both zinc phosphating lines (epoxy-coating and
acrylic-coating) are periodically cleaned out with the resulting
sludges also pressed by the plate and frame filter press dedicated to
the F019 water treatment process.
C. How Did PPI Sample and Analyze the Waste?
Six sludge samples were collected each on a monthly basis from
April through October 2008. Sludge accumulated in a roll-off box and
was sampled representing sludge collected over a period of
approximately 4 weeks each. Two sludge samples representing clean-out
of the epoxy-coating line were collected on August 25 and on October
20, 2008 in order to characterize sludge generated from clean-out
activities. Sludge generated from the clean-out of the acrylic-coating
line was sampled on August 11, 2008. PPI collected one composite and
one grab sample of sludge from each roll-off box during each sampling
event. Composite samples consisted of four individual full-depth core
grab samples mixed together to form one sample.
PPI analyzed all composite samples using the following methodology:
(1) Total constituent analysis and Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 264, (Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods--SW-846--
Methods 6010B and 1311 \1\); (2) total constituent and TCLP analysis
for sulfide (SW-846 Methods 9030A and 1311); (3) total constituent and
TCLP analysis for cyanide (SW-846 Methods 9010 and 1311 \2\); (4) total
constituent and TCLP analysis for fluoride (SW-846 Methods 9056 and
1311); (5) flashpoint (SW-846 Method 1010); (6) pH (SW-846 Method
9040); and (7) oil & grease (SW-846 Method 9070).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Method 7471 was substituted for Method 6010 for mercury.
\2\ Deionized water was used as the extraction fluid instead of
the fluid specified in the method.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PPI screened the first two of the six monthly composite samples and
one each of the composite samples of clean-out sludges for: (1) Total
constituent and
[[Page 69031]]
TCLP analysis for 120 semi-volatile organic compounds (SW-846 Methods
8270 and 1311); (2) total constituent and TCLP analysis for
formaldehyde (SW-846 Methods 8315 and 1311); (3) total constituent and
TCLP analysis for acrylamide (SW-846 Methods 8032 and 1311); (4) TCLP
analysis for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part 264, substituting the
TCLP extraction fluid with deionized water in order to assess
leachability under pH-neutral conditions (SW-846 Methods 6010B and
1311); and (5) TCLP analysis for metals in Appendix IX of 40 CFR part
264, substituting the TCLP extraction fluid with a buffered alkaline
solution in order to assess leachability under alkaline conditions (SW-
846 Methods 6010B and 1311). PPI analyzed two of the six monthly full-
depth core grab samples and one each of the grab samples of clean-out
sludges for total constituent and TCLP analysis for volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) (SW-846 Method 8260 and SW-846 Method 1311). This
screening analysis was performed to check for unexpected organic
compounds in the waste as well as identify pH-dependence of metals in
leachate in the event landfill leachates with neutral or alkaline pH
result in higher concentrations. Detections of organic compounds were
insignificant and the remainder of the sludge samples were not analyzed
for these parameters.
Metals of concern were generally preferentially leached by the
acidic TCLP test. The exception, barium, leached more in some samples
under alkaline conditions. However, detections of all metals, including
barium, were so far below concentrations of concern that the remainder
of the samples were not tested at neutral and alkaline leaching
conditions.
D. What Were the Results of PPI's Analysis of the Waste?
The table below presents the maximum observed total and leachate
concentrations for all detected constituents for which maximum
allowable total and/or TCLP concentration were available. Total
concentrations are expressed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Leachate concentrations are expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L).
The table also includes the results of analysis for the constituents
for which F019 was listed, chromium and cyanide. PPI submitted a signed
a statement certifying accuracy and responsibility of the results. See
40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
---------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected -------------------------------- GW (mg/L)
Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
acetone....................... 0.33 \V\ 0.113 NA 26,300 3.38
acrolein...................... 0.277 <0.5 6,850 NA 0.000504
benzene....................... 0.00142 \I\ <0.05 224,000 \1\ 0.05 0.00133
bromomethane.................. 1.16 <0.05 247,000 NA 0.0262
butanol....................... 0.510 \12\ <25 NA 2,920 3.75
carbon disulfide.............. <12 \IV\ 0.0039 NA 2,850 3.17
chloromethane................. 0.05 \I\ <0.05 NA 306 0.393
ethylbenzene.................. <1.2 0.0034 NA 549 0.7
formaldehyde.................. 86.1 <10.0 4,150 631 0.811
methyl ethyl ketone........... 0.0365 \I\ 0.0820 NA 200 22.5
methylene chloride............ <2.4 0.028 882,000 4.0 0.005
methyl isobutyl ketone........ 0.644 <0.5 NA 2,340 3.0
trimethylbenzene, 1,2,4-...... 0.000652 \I\ \I\ 0.00530 NA 34.2 0.0448
xylenes....................... <2.4 \I\ 0.0116 NA 484 0.617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semivolatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
benzyl alcohol................ 27.7 0.036 NA 14,600 18.8
bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.... 2.82 <0.02 NA NA 0.00321
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
barium........................ 132 0.26 NA \1\ 100 2.0
boron......................... 114 1.24 NA 6,570 7.5
chromium...................... 153 <1.25 \3\ 22,700 \1\ 5.0 0.1
cobalt........................ 333 <1.25 30,300 10.4 0.0113
copper........................ 422 0.49 NA 1,180 1.3
lead.......................... 54.9 <1.25 NA \1\ 5.0 0.015
manganese..................... 15,100 25.2 NA 815 0.9
mercury....................... 0.0182 <0.0002 98.1 \1\ 0.2 0.00145
nickel........................ 7,380 37.1 NA 638 0.75
strontium..................... 10,200 \C\ 5.13 NA 19,700 22.5
zinc.......................... 89,400 30.2 NA 10,300 11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Miscellaneous Parameters
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
cyanide....................... 16.3 <0.05 NA 156 200
sulfide....................... 85.1 NR NA NA NA
fluoride...................... 740 22.6 NA 1,980 2,250
pH (corrosivity).............. 5.9-8.11
2 < pH < 12.5 NA
flashpoint (ignitability)..... > 200 [deg]F
< 140 [deg]F NA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These levels represent the highest concentration of each constituent found in any sample and do not necessarily
represent the concentrations found in a single sample.
[[Page 69032]]
\1\--Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C.
\2\--Includes both n-butanol and t-butanol.
\3\--Based on a mixture at a ratio of 1:6 hexavalent to trivalent chromium.
\V\--Present in blank.
NA--Maximum allowable not calculated or much higher than expected to be present.
<--Denotes that the constituent was not detected at the quantitation level.
\I\--Estimated value, below practicable quantitation limit.
\C\--Calibration check verification or quality control sample exceeded upper control limit.
NR--Analysis not run.
E. How Did EPA Evaluate the Risk of Delisting This Waste?
For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of
waste constituents through ground water, surface water and air. We
evaluated PPI's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to
determine if the waste would pose a threat. To predict the potential
for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes
of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors
(DAFs) derived from EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with
Transformation Products (CMTP). From a release to groundwater, the DRAS
considers routes of exposure to a human receptor of ingestion of
contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering
and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child.
For a detailed description of the DRAS program and revisions see
the Delisting Technical Support Document, DRAS version 3.0 Update
Summary, and DRAS version 3.0 User's Guide available in the docket for
today's action.
At a target cancer risk of 1x10-\6\ and a target hazard
quotient of one, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable
concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate
at an annual waste volume of 140 cubic yards. We used the maximum
estimated annual waste volume and the maximum reported total and
leachate concentrations as inputs for DRAS. If, using an appropriate
analytical method, a constituent was not detected in any sample nor in
the leachate of any sample, it was considered not to be present in the
waste.
F. What Did EPA Conclude About PPI's Waste?
The maximum reported leachate concentrations and the maximum
reported total concentrations of the hazardous constituents found in
this waste are presented in the table above. The table also presents
the maximum allowable concentrations. The concentrations of all
constituents in both the waste and the leachate are below the allowable
levels of concern calculated by the DRAS program at the target risk
levels. We therefore conclude that PPI's wastewater treatment sludge is
not a substantial or potential hazard to human health and the
environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill. Once the
exclusion becomes effective, PPI must dispose of this waste in a
Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed by a State.
G. Why Is EPA Using a Direct Final Rule?
EPA is publishing this rule without a prior proposed rule because
we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse
comment. The exclusion applies to a very small waste stream generated
at a single facility and rigorous chemical analysis of the waste
indicated that concentrations of chemicals and elements in the waste
were far below levels of concern. If EPA receives adverse comment, we
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the
public that the rule will not take effect. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time.
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. How Will PPI Manage the Waste If It Is Delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, PPI must dispose of it in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial waste.
B. What Are the Maximum Allowable Concentrations of Hazardous
Constituents in the Waste?
The following parameters were selected for ongoing verification
because of their prevalence in the waste relative to the maximum
allowable concentrations. Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or OWEP,
where appropriate) extract of the waste of these constituents must not
exceed the following concentrations (mg/l): chromium--5, cobalt--10.4;
manganese--815; and nickel--638.
C. How Frequently Must PPI Test the Waste?
PPI must analyze a representative sample of the wastewater
treatment sludges on an annual basis to demonstrate that leachate
concentrations do not exceed the levels of concern in Section IV.B.
above. PPI must use methods with appropriate detection levels with
appropriate quality control procedures. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used
for generation of the leachate extract used in the testing of the
delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1% of the waste.
SW-846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract
if oil and grease comprise 1% or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B
must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311,
1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
D. What Data Must PPI Submit?
PPI must submit the data obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604,
upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion. PPI must
compile, summarize, and maintain on site records of operating
conditions and analytical data. PPI must make these records available
for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
E. What Happens If PPI Fails To Meet the Conditions of the Exclusion?
If PPI violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion,
[[Page 69033]]
the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If any testing of the waste does not meet the maximum allowable
concentrations described in section IV.B. above or other data
(including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is
at a level in the leachate higher than the specified maximum allowable
concentration, or is in groundwater at a concentration higher than the
groundwater concentrations used in the risk evaluation, PPI must notify
the Agency within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of
the data. Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as
follows: chromium--0.1; cobalt--0.0113; manganese--0.9; and nickel--
0.75.
The exclusion will be suspended and the waste managed as hazardous
until PPI has received written approval from the Agency to continue the
exclusion. PPI may provide sampling results which support the
continuation of the delisting exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. sec. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated, or are otherwise not being met.
F. What Must PPI Do If the Process Changes?
If PPI significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment process
or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment process, PPI
may not handle the wastewater treatment sludge generated from the new
process under this exclusion until it has demonstrated to the EPA that
the waste meets the levels set in section IV.B. and that no new
hazardous constituents listed in Appendix VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have
been introduced. PPI must manage wastes generated after the process
change as hazardous waste until PPI has received written notice from
EPA that the delisting is reinstated.
V. How Would This Action Affect the States?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in
States which have received our authorization to make their own
delisting decisions.
EPA allows States to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the State.
We urge petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States to administer a delisting
program in place of the Federal program, that is, to make State
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized States. If PPI manages the waste in any State with delisting
authorization, PPI must obtain delisting authorization from that State
before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that State.
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 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 final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties (5 U.S.C. 804(3)). EPA is not
required to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section
801 because this is a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
[[Page 69034]]
Dated: November 9, 2009.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is amended as
follows:
PART 261--IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0
1. The authority citation for part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
0
2. Table 1 of Appendix IX to Part 261 is amended by adding the
following waste stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Professional Plating, Incorporated Brillion, Wisconsin............... Wastewater treatment sludges, F019,
which are generated at the Professional
Plating, Incorporated (PPI) Brillion
facility at a maximum annual rate of
140 cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill which is licensed, permitted,
or otherwise authorized by a State to
accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes
effective as of March 1, 2010.
1. Delisting Levels: The constituent
concentrations measured in a leachate
extract may not exceed the following
levels (mg/L): chromium--5, cobalt--
10.4; manganese--815; and nickel--638.
2. Annual Verification Testing: To
verify that the waste does not exceed
the specified delisting levels, PPI
must collect and analyze, annually, one
waste sample for the constituents in
Section 1. using methods with
appropriate detection levels and
elements of quality control. SW-846
Method 1311 must be used for generation
of the leachate extract used in the
testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than 1% of the
waste. SW-846 Method 1330A must be used
for generation of the leaching extract
if oil and grease comprise 1% or more
of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B must
be used for determination of oil and
grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and
9071B are incorporated by reference in
40 CFR 260.11.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: PPI
must notify the EPA in writing if the
manufacturing process, the chemicals
used in the manufacturing process, the
treatment process, or the chemicals
used in the treatment process
significantly change. PPI must handle
wastes generated after the process
change as hazardous until it has
demonstrated that the wastes continue
to meet the maximum allowable
concentrations in Section 1. and that
no new hazardous constituents listed in
appendix VIII of part 261 have been
introduced and it has received written
approval from EPA.
4. Reopener Language--(a) If, anytime
after disposal of the delisted waste,
PPI possesses or is otherwise made
aware of any data (including but not
limited to leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) relevant to the
delisted waste indicating that any
constituent is at a concentration in
the waste or waste leachate higher than
the maximum allowable concentrations in
Section 1. above or is in the
groundwater at a concentration higher
than the maximum allowable groundwater
concentrations in Paragraph (e), then
PPI must report such data, in writing,
to the Regional Administrator within 10
days of first possessing or being made
aware of that data.
(b) Based on the information described
in paragraph (a) and any other
information received from any source,
the Regional Administrator will make a
preliminary determination as to whether
the reported information requires
Agency 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 Regional Administrator
determines that the reported
information does require Agency action,
the Regional Administrator will notify
the facility in writing of the actions
the Regional Administrator believes are
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The notice shall
include a statement of the proposed
action and a statement providing PPI
with an opportunity to present
information as to why the proposed
Agency action is not necessary or to
suggest an alternative action. PPI
shall have 30 days from the date of the
Regional Administrator's notice to
present the information.
(d) If after 30 days PPI presents no
further information, the Regional
Administrator will issue a final
written determination describing the
Agency actions that are necessary to
protect human health or the
environment. Any required action
described in the Regional
Administrator's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless
the Regional Administrator provides
otherwise.
(e) Maximum allowable groundwater
concentrations (mg/L) are as follows:
chromium--0.1; cobalt--0.0113;
manganese--0.9; and nickel--0.75.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 69035]]
[FR Doc. E9-30994 Filed 12-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P