Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Rule, 11002-11005 [2010-5097]
Download as PDF
11002
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial
direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes.
environment. This rule is categorically
excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction because this
rule involves a regulation establishing,
disestablishing, or changing Regulated
Navigation Areas and security or safety
zones.
An environmental analysis checklist
and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the
docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023–01 and
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guide the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded this action is one of a
category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
Dated: December 28, 2009.
M.E. Woodring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Houston-Galveston.
[FR Doc. 2010–5056 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R04–RCRA–2008–0900; FRL–9124–8]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
■
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting the petition
submitted by The Valero Refining
Company—Tennessee, LLC (Valero) to
exclude or ‘‘delist’’ a certain sediment
generated by its Memphis Refinery in
Memphis, Tennessee from the lists of
hazardous wastes. This final rule
responds to a petition submitted by
Valero to delist F037 waste. The F037
waste is sediment generated in the
Storm Water Basin.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
The F037 exclusion is a one-time
exclusion for 2,700 cubic yards of the
F037 Storm Water Basin sediment.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is available either
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the RCRA and OPA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, RCRA Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303 and is available for
viewing through the EPA Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) from 9 a.m. to
4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call the
FOIA Officer at (404) 562–8028 for
appointments. 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.
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. In § 165.814—
a. Remove paragraph (b);
■ b. Redesignate paragraph (c) as (b);
and
■ c. Add paragraph (a)(5)(vi) and revise
redesignated paragraph (b)(2) to read as
follows:
■
■
§ 165.814 Security Zone; Captain of the
Port Houston-Galveston Zone.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(vi) The Freeport LNG Basin
containing all waters shoreward of a
line drawn between the eastern point at
latitude 28°56′25″ N, 095°18′13″ W, and
the western point at 28°56′28″ N,
095°18′31″ W, east towards the jetties.
(b) * * *
(2) Other persons or vessels requiring
entry into a zone described in this
section must request express permission
to enter from the Captain of the Port
Houston-Galveston, or designated
representative. The Captain of the Port
Houston-Galveston’s designated
representatives are any personnel
granted authority by the Captain of the
Port Houston-Galveston to receive,
evaluate, and issue written security
zone entry permits, or the designated
on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol
personnel described in paragraph (b)(4).
*
*
*
*
*
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristin Lippert, North Enforcement and
Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD–
RCRA), RCRA and OPA Enforcement
and Compliance Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303 or call (404) 562–8605 or
via electronic mail at
lippert.kristin@epa.gov.
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste,
When Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To
Delist a Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA To
Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose
To Delist?
C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze the
Waste Data in This Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rules?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition for
Valero, EPA proposed, on July 9, 2009,
to exclude the waste from the lists of
hazardous waste under § 261.31. EPA is
finalizing the decision to grant Valero’s
delisting petition to have its F037 Storm
Water Basin Sediment excluded, or
delisted, from the definition of a
hazardous waste, once it is disposed in
a Subtitle D landfill.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Valero’s petition requests a delisting
from the F037 waste listing under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Valero does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets
the criteria for which EPA listed it.
Valero 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
section 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(1)–(4)
(hereinafter all sectional references are
to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated).
In making the final delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned 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 nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. (If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA
evaluated the 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 wastes to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentrations of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s final
decision to delist the waste from
Valero’s facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this
rule, including description of the waste
and analytical data from the Memphis,
Tennessee facility.
C. What Are the Limits of This
Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in Valero’s petition only if the
requirements described in 40 CFR part
261, Appendix IX, Table 1 and the
conditions contained herein are
satisfied.
D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste,
When Delisted?
The delisted F037 Storm Water Basin
Sediment will be dispose of in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a State to manage
industrial waste.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion
Effective?
This rule is effective March 10, 2010.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 amended section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allow rules to become effective in less
than six months after the rule is
published when the regulated
community does not need the six-month
period to come into compliance. That is
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
11003
the case here because this rule reduces,
rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating
hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a
basis for making this rule effective
immediately, upon publication, under
the Administrative Procedure Act,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect
States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion
under the Federal RCRA delisting
program, only States subject to Federal
RCRA delisting provisions would be
affected. This would exclude States
which have received authorization from
EPA to make their own delisting
decisions.
EPA allows States to impose their
own non-RCRA regulatory requirements
that are more stringent than EPA’s,
under section 3009 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6929. These more stringent
requirements may include a provision
that prohibits a Federally issued
exclusion from taking effect in the State.
A dual system (that is, both Federal
(RCRA) and State (non-RCRA)
programs) may regulate a petitioner’s
waste, EPA urges petitioners to contact
the State regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under
the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States
(for example, Louisiana, Oklahoma,
Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA
delisting program in place of the Federal
program, that is, to make State delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion
does not apply in those authorized
States unless that State makes the rule
part of its authorized program. If Valero
transports the petitioned waste to or
manages the waste in any State with
delisting authorization, Valero must
obtain delisting authorization from that
State before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from
a generator to EPA or another agency
with jurisdiction to exclude or delist,
from the RCRA list of hazardous waste,
waste the generator believes should not
be considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To
Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22,
facilities may petition EPA to remove
their wastes from hazardous waste
regulation by excluding them from the
lists of hazardous wastes contained in
§§ 261.31 and 261.32. Specifically,
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
11004
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
§ 260.20 allows any person to petition
the Administrator to modify or revoke
any provision of 40 CFR parts 260
through 265 and 268. Section 260.22
provides generators the opportunity to
petition the Administrator to exclude a
waste from a particular generating
facility from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator
Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient
information to EPA to allow EPA to
determine that the waste to be excluded
does not meet any of the criteria under
which the waste was listed as a
hazardous waste. In addition, the
Administrator must determine, where
he/she has a reasonable basis to believe
that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which
the waste was listed could cause the
waste to be a hazardous waste and that
such factors do not warrant retaining the
waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA
To Delist?
On July 25, 2008, Valero petitioned
EPA to exclude from the lists of
hazardous waste contained in § 261.31
and 261.32, F037 Storm Water Basin
Sediment.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose
To Delist?
Valero requested that EPA grant a
one-time exclusion for 2,700 cubic yards
of the F037 Storm Water Basin
Sediment.
C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze
the Waste Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Valero
submitted: (1) Facility information on
production processes and waste
generation processes including
analytical data from twelve (12) samples
collected on August 7, 2007, in the
Storm Water Basin; (2) Results of the
total constituent list for 40 CFR Part 264
Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles,
metals, pesticides, herbicides, dioxins
and PCB for the sampling on August 7,
2007; (3) Results of the constituent list
for Appendix IX on Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals for the
sampling on August 7, 2007; (4)
Analytical constituents of concern for
F037 for the sampling on August 7,
2007; (5) Results from total oil and
grease analyses for the sampling on
August 7, 2007; and (6) Summary of the
July 2006 Sediment Data (Highest
Results from Detections).
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
Jkt 220001
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the
Proposed Rules?
No comments were received on the
proposed rule for the F037 waste.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA). Because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203
of UMRA. Because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, this final rule
does not have federalism implications.
It will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132,
‘‘Federalism,’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this rule. Similarly,
because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, this final rule does
not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (59 FR
22951, 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
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
Section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. The Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report which includes a copy of the
rule to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules
(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2)
rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that
do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties 5
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding today’s
action under Section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: March 1, 2010.
G. Alan Farmer,
Director, RCRA Division, Region 4.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 261 is 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 1 of Appendix IX of part
261 add the following waste stream in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
■
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
11005
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 10, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
*
The Valero Refining Company—Tennessee, LLC.
*
Address
*
*
Memphis, TN ....
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 541
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0085]
Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Publication of final theft data.
15:01 Mar 09, 2010
*
*
*
*
Storm Water Basin sediment (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one-time at a
volume of 2,700 cubic yards March 10, 2010 and disposed in 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 one-time written notification, if they ship the delisted waste to a different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a
possible revocation of the decision.
*
[FR Doc. 2010–5097 Filed 3–9–10; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Waste description
Jkt 220001
*
*
SUMMARY: This document publishes the
final data on thefts of model year (MY)
2007 passenger motor vehicles that
occurred in calendar year (CY) 2007.
The final 2007 theft data indicated a
decrease in the vehicle theft rate
experienced in CY/MY 2007. The final
theft rate for MY 2007 passenger
vehicles stolen in calendar year 2007 is
1.86 thefts per thousand vehicles, a
decrease of ten percent from the rate of
2.08 thefts per thousand in 2006.
Publication of these data fulfills
NHTSA’s statutory obligation to
periodically obtain accurate and timely
theft data and publish the information
for review and comment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Deborah Mazyck, Office of International
Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Mazyck’s telephone number is (202)
366–0846. Her fax number is (202) 493–
2990.
NHTSA
administers a program for reducing
motor vehicle theft. The central feature
of this program is the Federal Motor
Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49
CFR part 541. The standard specifies
performance requirements for inscribing
and affixing vehicle identification
numbers (VINs) onto certain major
original equipment and replacement
parts of high-theft lines of passenger
motor vehicles.
The agency is required by 49 U.S.C.
33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from
the most reliable source, accurate and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\10MRR1.SGM
10MRR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11002-11005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5097]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R04-RCRA-2008-0900; FRL-9124-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting the petition
submitted by The Valero Refining Company--Tennessee, LLC (Valero) to
exclude or ``delist'' a certain sediment generated by its Memphis
Refinery in Memphis, Tennessee from the lists of hazardous wastes. This
final rule responds to a petition submitted by Valero to delist F037
waste. The F037 waste is sediment generated in the Storm Water Basin.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petitioned waste is not
hazardous waste. The F037 exclusion is a one-time exclusion for 2,700
cubic yards of the F037 Storm Water Basin sediment. Accordingly, this
final rule excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of
hazardous waste regulations under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA).
DATES: Effective Date: March 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is available either
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
RCRA and OPA Enforcement and Compliance Branch, RCRA Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region 4, Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal
Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303 and is available
for viewing through the EPA Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from 9
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call
the FOIA Officer at (404) 562-8028 for appointments. 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.
[[Page 11003]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Lippert, North Enforcement and
Compliance Section, (Mail Code 4WD-RCRA), RCRA and OPA Enforcement and
Compliance Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, Sam
Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303 or call (404) 562-8605 or via electronic mail at
lippert.kristin@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste, When Delisted?
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting?
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA To Delist?
B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose To Delist?
C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This
Petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rules?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?
After evaluating the petition for Valero, EPA proposed, on July 9,
2009, to exclude the waste from the lists of hazardous waste under
Sec. 261.31. EPA is finalizing the decision to grant Valero's
delisting petition to have its F037 Storm Water Basin Sediment
excluded, or delisted, from the definition of a hazardous waste, once
it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
B. Why Is EPA Approving This Action?
Valero's petition requests a delisting from the F037 waste listing
under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Valero does not believe that the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA listed it. Valero
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) (hereinafter all sectional references are to 40 CFR
unless otherwise indicated). In making the final delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on
this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is
nonhazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. (If EPA had
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition.) EPA evaluated the 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 wastes to be
hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the
concentrations of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to
migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of
the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's final
decision to delist the waste from Valero's facility is based on the
information submitted in support of this rule, including description of
the waste and analytical data from the Memphis, Tennessee facility.
C. What Are the Limits of This Exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in Valero's petition
only if the requirements described in 40 CFR part 261, Appendix IX,
Table 1 and the conditions contained herein are satisfied.
D. How Will Valero Manage the Waste, When Delisted?
The delisted F037 Storm Water Basin Sediment will be dispose of in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial waste.
E. When Is the Final Delisting Exclusion Effective?
This rule is effective March 10, 2010. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 amended section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), allow rules to become effective in less than six months
after the rule is published when the regulated community does not need
the six-month period to come into compliance. That is the case here
because this rule reduces, rather than increases, the existing
requirements for persons generating hazardous waste. This reduction in
existing requirements also provides a basis for making this rule
effective immediately, upon publication, under the Administrative
Procedure Act, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).
F. How Does This Final Rule Affect States?
Because EPA is issuing this exclusion under the Federal RCRA
delisting program, only States subject to Federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This would exclude States which have
received authorization from EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
EPA allows States to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6929. These more stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the State. A dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and
State (non-RCRA) programs) may regulate a petitioner's waste, EPA urges
petitioners to contact the State regulatory authority to establish the
status of their wastes under the State law.
EPA has also authorized some States (for example, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Georgia, Illinois) to administer a RCRA delisting program in
place of the Federal program, that is, to make State delisting
decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those authorized
States unless that State makes the rule part of its authorized program.
If Valero transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in
any State with delisting authorization, Valero must obtain delisting
authorization from that State before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in the State.
II. Background
A. What Is a Delisting Petition?
A delisting petition is a request from a generator to EPA or
another agency with jurisdiction to exclude or delist, from the RCRA
list of hazardous waste, waste the generator believes should not be
considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What Regulations Allow Facilities To Delist a Waste?
Under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22, facilities may petition EPA to
remove their wastes from hazardous waste regulation by excluding them
from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. Sec. 261.31 and
261.32. Specifically,
[[Page 11004]]
Sec. 260.20 allows any person to petition the Administrator to modify
or revoke any provision of 40 CFR parts 260 through 265 and 268.
Section 260.22 provides generators the opportunity to petition the
Administrator to exclude a waste from a particular generating facility
from the hazardous waste lists.
C. What Information Must the Generator Supply?
Petitioners must provide sufficient information to EPA to allow EPA
to determine that the waste to be excluded does not meet any of the
criteria under which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste. In
addition, the Administrator must determine, where he/she has a
reasonable basis to believe that factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which the waste was listed could
cause the waste to be a hazardous waste and that such factors do not
warrant retaining the waste as a hazardous waste.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What Waste Did Valero Petition EPA To Delist?
On July 25, 2008, Valero petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous waste contained in Sec. 261.31 and 261.32, F037 Storm
Water Basin Sediment.
B. How Much Waste Did Valero Propose To Delist?
Valero requested that EPA grant a one-time exclusion for 2,700
cubic yards of the F037 Storm Water Basin Sediment.
C. How did Valero Sample and Analyze the Waste Data in This Petition?
To support its petition, Valero submitted: (1) Facility information
on production processes and waste generation processes including
analytical data from twelve (12) samples collected on August 7, 2007,
in the Storm Water Basin; (2) Results of the total constituent list for
40 CFR Part 264 Appendix IX volatiles, semivolatiles, metals,
pesticides, herbicides, dioxins and PCB for the sampling on August 7,
2007; (3) Results of the constituent list for Appendix IX on Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract for volatiles,
semivolatiles, and metals for the sampling on August 7, 2007; (4)
Analytical constituents of concern for F037 for the sampling on August
7, 2007; (5) Results from total oil and grease analyses for the
sampling on August 7, 2007; and (6) Summary of the July 2006 Sediment
Data (Highest Results from Detections).
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusions
A. Who Submitted Comments on the Proposed Rules?
No comments were received on the proposed rule for the F037 waste.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general applicability
and therefore is not a regulatory action subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a
particular facility only. Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to
the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA). Because this rule will
affect only a particular facility, it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA.
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, this final
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule. Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used the DRAS program, which considers health
and safety risks to infants and children, to calculate the maximum
allowable concentrations for this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866. This rule does not involve technical
standards; thus, the requirements of Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. As required by Section 3 of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take
effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report
which includes a copy of the rule to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules (1) Rules of particular
applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or personnel;
and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to submit a rule report
regarding today's action under Section 801 because this is a rule of
particular applicability.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: March 1, 2010.
G. Alan Farmer,
Director, RCRA Division, Region 4.
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. In Table 1 of Appendix IX of part 261 add the following waste stream
in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
[[Page 11005]]
Appendix IX to Part 261--Waste Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Waste Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
The Valero Refining Company-- Memphis, TN................... Storm Water Basin sediment (EPA
Tennessee, LLC. Hazardous Waste No. F037) generated one-
time at a volume of 2,700 cubic yards
March 10, 2010 and disposed in 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 one-time written
notification, if they ship the delisted
waste to a different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting variance and a possible
revocation of the decision.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2010-5097 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P