Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion, 51671-51678 [2010-20847]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
c. SCF/FSS, optional, permitted for
FSS and non-FSS bundles processed
within the service area of the SCF. Pallet
may contain bundles of barcoded 5-digit
(scheme) and barcoded carrier route
pieces in FSS and non-FSS bundles
prepared under 8.0. Labeling:
1. Line 1: ‘‘MXD’’ followed by city,
state, and ZIP Code information for SCF
serving the FSS 5-digit scheme ZIP Code
as shown in L005, column B.
2. Line 2: ‘‘STD’’ followed by ‘‘FLTS;’’
followed by ‘‘SCF’’; followed by
‘‘BARCODED’’ (or ‘‘BC’’); followed by
‘‘FSS/NONFSS.’’
14.4
14.4.1
Bound Printed Matter
Basic Standards
Presorted and carrier route Bound
Printed Matter flats bearing an accurate
barcode meeting the eligibility
standards in 363.6.0 may be combined
in bundles and placed on pallets for
delivery to ZIP Codes having Flat
Sequencing System (FSS) processing
capability, as shown in L006. Bound
Printed Matter flats are subject to the
following:
a. Price eligibility for pricing purposes
is based on standards in 363.0.
b. Mailers must provide standardized
presort documentation under 708.1.0
that demonstrates eligibility for 5-digit
(scheme) or carrier route prices in
accordance with 363.0.
c. Mailers may combine all 5-digit,
carrier route and 5-digit scheme eligible
flat-size mailpieces into a combined
mailpiece pool for each FSS 5-digit
scheme combination according to L006.
d. Each bundle must be identified
with a ‘‘SCH 5-DIGIT FSS’’ optional
endorsement line in accordance with
Exhibit 708.7.1.1, OEL Formats.
e. All pooled mailpieces prepared to
a single palletized presort destination
must be prepared in uniform size
bundles, between 3 inches and 6.5
inches in height and secured in
accordance with 365.2.5, except that
one overflow bundle per mailpiece pool
may be under the minimum size.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
14.4.2
Pallet Preparation and Labeling
Preparation sequence and labeling:
a. FSS sort plan, required, permitted
only for FSS bundles prepared for a
single FSS sort plan as shown in L006.
Pallet must contain only bundles of
barcoded 5-digit (scheme) and barcoded
carrier route pieces for a single FSS sort
plan. Labeling:
1. Line 1: L006, (sort plan name)
column B.
2. Line 2: ‘‘PSVC FLTS;’’ followed by
‘‘5D’’; followed by ‘‘BARCODED’’ (or
‘‘BC’’); followed by ‘‘FSS SCHEME’’ (or
‘‘FSS SCH’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
b. FSS facility sort, required,
permitted only for FSS bundles
prepared for the FSS sort plans
processed within the same SCF as
shown in L006. Pallet must contain only
bundles of barcoded 5-digit (scheme)
and barcoded carrier route pieces for a
facility’s FSS sort plans. Labeling:
1. Line 1: ‘‘MXD’’ followed by
information in L006, column C.
2. Line 2: ‘‘PSVC FLTS;’’ followed by
‘‘5D’’; followed by ‘‘BARCODED’’ (or
‘‘BC’’); followed by ‘‘FSS SCHEME’’ (or
‘‘FSS SCH’’)
c. SCF/FSS, optional, permitted for
FSS and non-FSS bundles processed
within the service area of the SCF. Pallet
may contain bundles of barcoded 5-digit
(scheme) and barcoded carrier route
pieces in FSS and non-FSS bundles
prepared under 8.0. Labeling:
1. Line 1: ‘‘MXD’’ followed by city,
state, and ZIP Code information for SCF
serving the FSS 5-digit scheme ZIP Code
as shown in L005, column B.
2. Line 2: ‘‘PSVC FLTS;’’ followed by
‘‘FLTS;’’ followed by ‘‘SCF’’; followed by
‘‘BARCODED’’ (or ‘‘BC’’); followed by
‘‘FSS/NONFSS.’’
*
*
*
*
*
707
Periodicals
*
*
13.0
*
*
*
*
Carrier Route Eligibility
*
13.2
13.2.1
*
*
*
Sorting
Basic Standards
Preparation to qualify eligible pieces
for carrier route prices is optional and
need not be performed for all carrier
routes in a 5-digit area. Carrier route
prices apply to copies that are prepared
in carrier route bundles of six or more
addressed pieces each, subject to these
standards:
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise item b of 13.2.1 to add reference
to optional bundling standards by
adding a new item b4 as follows:]
4. Bundles prepared on pallets under
705.14.0, Combining Bundles of Flats on
Pallets Within FSS Zones.
*
*
*
*
*
51671
d. Be marked, sorted, and
documented as specified in 705.8.0 (if
palletized); or 24.0 (for letters) or 25.0
(for flats) or; for nonletter-size mail,
705.9.0, 705.10.0, 705.12.0, or 705.13.0;
or for nonletter-size mail, bundles
prepared on pallets under 705.14.0,
Combining Bundles of Flats on Pallets
Within FSS Zones.
*
*
*
*
*
708
Technical Specifications
*
*
*
*
*
7.0 Optional Endorsement Lines
(OELs)
7.1
OEL Use
7.1.1
*
Basic Standards
*
*
Exhibit 7.1.1
*
*
OEL Formats
Sortation Level
OEL Example
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise Exhibit 7.1.1 to add a new item
13 (after item 12, ‘‘5-Digit Scheme
(automation compatible flats’’)) to
describe additional OEL humanreadable text for use with FSS
preparation mailpieces as follows:]
5-Digit Scheme * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * SCH 5-DIGIT 12345 FSS
(Optional FSS-compatible flats
preparation)
*
*
*
*
*
We will publish an amendment to 39
CFR 111 to reflect these changes.
Stanley F. Mires,
Chief Counsel, Legislative.
[FR Doc. 2010–20055 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710–12–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0549; SW–FRL–
9191–8]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
14.0 Barcoded (Automation)
Eligibility
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
14.1
SUMMARY:
14.1.1
Basic Standards
General
All pieces in a Periodicals barcoded
(automation) mailing must:
*
*
*
*
*
[Revise item d of 14.1 to add reference
to optional bundling standards as
follows:]
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Tokusen USA, Inc. (called
Tokusen hereinafter) to exclude (or
delist) a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) sludge filter cake (called
sludge hereinafter) generated by
Tokusen in Conway, AR from the list of
hazardous wastes. The final rule
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
51672
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
responds to the petition submitted by
Tokusen, to delist the WWTP sludge.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded the petition
waste is not hazardous waste. This
exclusion applies to 2,000 cubic yards
per year of the WWTP sludge with
Hazardous Waste Number: F006.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act Review room on the 7th floor from
8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. Call (214)
665–6444 for appointments. The
reference number for this docket is
EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–0549. 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.
Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning
Permitting Division (6PD–C),
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact
Youngmoo Kim, Environmental
Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, (6PD–C), Dallas, Texas 75202,
at (214) 665–6788, or
kim.youngmoo@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
B. Why is EPA approving action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Tokusen manage the waste, if
it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How would this action affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
C. What does it require of a petitioner?
D. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
A. What waste did Tokusen petition EPA
to delist?
B. Who is Tokusen and what process does
it use to generate the petitioned waste?
C. How did Tokusen sample and analyze
the data in this petition?
D. What were the results of Tokusen’s
analyses?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Tokusen’s
analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in
its evaluation?
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
proposed exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on proposed
rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, on
March 31, 2010, EPA proposed to
exclude the WWTP sludge from the list
of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32 (see 70 FR 41358).
EPA is finalizing the decision to grant
Tokusen’s delisting petition to have its
WWTP sludge managed and disposed as
non-hazardous waste provided certain
verification and monitoring conditions
are met.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
Tokusen’s petition requests an
exclusion from the F006 hazardous
waste listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20
and 260.22. Tokusen does not believe
that the petitioned waste meets the
criteria for which EPA listed it. Tokusen
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 initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the
petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in
§§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
acutely toxic, the concentration of the
constituents in the waste, their tendency
to migrate and to bioaccumulate, their
persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and
specific types of management of the
petitioned waste, the quantities of waste
generated, and waste variability. EPA
believes that the petitioned waste does
not meet the listing criteria and thus
should not be a listed waste. EPA’s
proposed decision to delist the waste
from Tokusen is based on the
information submitted in support of this
rule, including descriptions of the
wastes and analytical data from the
facility in Conway, Arkansas.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste
described in the 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 Tokusen manage the waste,
if it is delisted?
If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP
sludge from Tokusen will be disposed at
a RCRA Subtitle D landfill: The Waste
Management Industrial Landfill, North
Little Rock, Arkansas.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
This rule is effective August 23, 2010.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1985 amended Section
3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6930(b)(1),
allows rules to become effective less
than a 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 would this action 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.
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
These more stringent requirements may
include a provision that prohibits a
Federally issued exclusion from taking
effect in the state. Because a dual system
(that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state
(non-RCRA programs)) may regulate a
petitioner’s waste, EPA urges petitioners
to contact the state regulatory authority
to establish the status of their wastes
under the state law.
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
Tokusen transports the petitioned waste
to or manages the waste in any state
with delisting authorization, Tokusen
must obtain delisting authorization from
that state before it can manage the waste
as non-hazardous 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,
certain wastes the generator believes
should not be considered hazardous
under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to
delist a waste?
Under §§ 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,
§ 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.
information for EPA to decide whether
factors other than those for which the
waste was listed warrant retaining it as
a hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under
RCRA to confirm whether their waste
remains non-hazardous based on the
hazardous waste characteristics even if
EPA has ‘‘delisted’’ the waste.
D. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a) and § 3001(f) of RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous
waste mixtures containing listed
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See
§§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i),
called the ‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’
rules, respectively. These wastes are
also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66
FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Tokusen petition
EPA to delist?
On March 25, 2009, Tokusen
petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in
§ 261.31, WWTP sludge (F006)
generated from its facility located in
Conway, Arkansas. The waste falls
under the classification of listed waste
pursuant to § 261.31. Specifically, in its
petition, Tokusen requested that EPA
grant a standard exclusion for 2,000
cubic yards per year of the WWTP
sludge.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
C. What does it require of a petitioner?
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that wastes generated at a
particular facility do not meet any of the
criteria for which the waste was listed.
The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in
the background documents for the listed
waste.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a
petitioner must prove that the waste
does not exhibit any of the hazardous
waste characteristics (that is,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and
toxicity) and present sufficient
B. Who is Tokusen and what process
does it use to generate the petitioned
waste?
The Tokusen USA, Inc. facility
produces high-carbon steel tire cord for
use in radial tire manufacturing. The
steel cord is produced from steel rod
which has been reduced in size and
electroplated with copper and zinc to
produce a brass coating. The facility
generates F006 filter cake by the
dewatering of wastewater sludge
generated at the on-site wastewater
treatment plants. This waste is stored
on-site less than 90 days and is then
transported from the site to the RCRA
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
51673
Subtitle C facility, Chemical Waste
Management in Sulphur, LA 70556.
C. How did Tokusen sample and
analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, Tokusen
submitted:
(1) Historical information on waste
generation and management practices;
(2) Analytical results from four
samples for total concentrations of
compounds of concern (COCs);
(3) Analytical results from four
samples for Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract
values of COCs; and
(4) Multiple pH testing for the
petitioned waste.
D. What were the results of Tokusen’s
analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of
the Tokusen analytical characterization
provide a reasonable basis to grant
Tokusen’s petition for an exclusion of
the WWTP sludge. EPA believes the
data submitted in support of the petition
show the WWTP sludge is nonhazardous. Analytical data for the
WWTP sludge samples included in the
March 2009 petition were used in the
DRAS to develop delisting levels.
EPA has reviewed the sampling
procedures used by Tokusen and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria
for collecting representative samples of
the variations in constituent
concentrations in the WWTP sludge. In
addition, the data submitted in support
of the petition show that constituents in
Tokusen’s waste are presently below
health-based levels used in the delisting
decision-making. EPA believes that
Tokusen has successfully demonstrated
that the WWTP sludge is nonhazardous.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA
used such information gathered to
identify plausible exposure routes (i.e.,
groundwater, surface water, air) for
hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA determined that
disposal in a landfill is the most
reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario
for Tokusen’s petitioned waste. EPA
applied the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) described in 65 FR
58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR
75637 (December 4, 2000), and 73 FR
28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the
maximum allowable concentrations of
hazardous constituents that may be
released from the petitioned waste after
disposal and determined the potential
impact of the disposal of Tokusen’s
petitioned waste on human health and
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
51674
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
the environment. A copy of this
software can be found on the World
Wide Web at https://www.epa.gov/
reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/
dras-software.html. In assessing
potential risks to groundwater, EPA
used the maximum waste volumes and
the maximum reported extract
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS
program to estimate the constituent
concentrations in the groundwater at a
hypothetical receptor well down
gradient from the disposal site. Using
the risk level (carcinogenic risk of 10¥5
and non-cancer hazard index of 1.0).
The DRAS program can back-calculate
the acceptable receptor well
concentrations (referred to as
compliance-point concentrations) using
standard risk assessment algorithms and
EPA health-based numbers. Using the
maximum compliance-point
concentrations and EPA’s Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with
Transformation Products (EPACMTP)
fate and transport modeling factors, the
DRAS further back-calculates the
maximum permissible waste constituent
concentrations not expected to exceed
the compliance-point concentrations in
groundwater.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate
and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for
possible groundwater contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned
waste in a landfill, and that a reasonable
worst-case scenario is appropriate when
evaluating whether a waste should be
relieved of the protective management
constraints of RCRA Subtitle C. The use
of some reasonable worst-case scenarios
resulted in conservative values for the
compliance-point concentrations and
ensures that the waste, once removed
from hazardous waste regulation, will
not pose a significant threat to human
health or the environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum
estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported total concentrations
to predict possible risks associated with
releases of waste constituents through
surface pathways (e.g., volatilization
from the landfill). As in the above
groundwater analyses, the DRAS uses
the risk level, the health-based data and
standard risk assessment and exposure
algorithms to predict maximum
compliance-point concentrations of
waste constituents at a hypothetical
point of exposure. Using fate and
transport equations, the DRAS uses the
maximum compliance-point
concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent
concentrations (or ‘‘delisting levels’’).
In most cases, because a delisted
waste is no longer subject to hazardous
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
waste control, EPA is generally unable
to predict, and does not presently
control, how a petitioner will manage a
waste after delisting. Therefore, EPA
currently believes that it is
inappropriate to consider extensive sitespecific factors when applying the fate
and transport model. EPA does control
the type of unit where the waste is
disposed. The waste must be disposed
in the type of unit on which the fate and
transport model evaluates.
The DRAS results which calculate the
maximum allowable concentration of
chemical constituents in the waste are
presented in Table I. Based on the
comparison of the DRAS and TCLP
Analyses results found in Table I, the
petitioned waste should be delisted
because no constituents of concern
tested are likely to be present or formed
as reaction products or by-products in
Tokusen waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about
Tokusen’s analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing
Tokusen’s processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other
than those for which tested, are likely to
be present or formed as reaction
products or by-products in the waste. In
addition, on the basis of explanations
and analytical data provided by
Tokusen, pursuant to § 260.22, EPA
concludes that the petitioned waste do
not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or
toxicity. See §§ 261.21, 261.22 and
261.23, respectively.
G. What other factors did EPA consider
in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of Tokusen’s
petition, EPA also considered the
potential impact of the petitioned waste
via non-groundwater routes (i.e., air
emission and surface runoff). With
regard to airborne dispersion in
particular, EPA believes that exposure
to airborne contaminants from
Tokusen’s petitioned waste is unlikely.
Therefore, no appreciable air releases
are likely from Tokusen’s waste under
any likely disposal conditions. EPA
evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of
airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Tokusen’s
waste in an open landfill. The results of
this worst-case analysis indicated that
there is no substantial present or
potential hazard to human health and
the environment from airborne exposure
to constituents from Tokusen’s WWTP
waste.
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
H. What is EPA’s evaluation of this
delisting petition?
The descriptions of Tokusen’s
hazardous waste process and analytical
characterization provide a reasonable
basis for EPA to grant the exclusion. The
data submitted in support of the petition
show that constituents in the waste are
below the leachable concentrations.
EPA believes that Tokusen’s waste,
F006 from copper and zinc
electroplating process to produce a brass
coating will not impose any threat to
human health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes Tokusen should
be granted an exclusion for the WWTP
sludge. EPA believes the data submitted
in support of the petition show
Tokusen’s WWTP sludge is nonhazardous. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that
constituents in Tokusen’s waste are
presently below the compliance-point
concentrations used in the delisting
decision and would not pose a
substantial hazard to human health and
the environment. EPA believes that
Tokusen has successfully demonstrated
that the WWTP sludge is nonhazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an
exclusion to Tokusen in Conway,
Arkansas, for the WWTP sludge
described in its petition. EPA’s decision
to exclude this waste is based on
descriptions of the treatment activities
associated with the petitioned waste
and characterization of the WWTP
sludge.
EPA will no longer regulate the
petitioned waste under parts 262
through 268 and the permitting
standards of part 270.
The appropriate waste code for this
waste is F006. The LDR treatment
standard for F006 is found in 40 CFR
268.40.
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
No comments were received on the
Proposed Rule during the comment
period.
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
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this
rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule. Similarly, because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this rule. This rule
also is not subject to Executive Order
13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),
because it is not economically
significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the Agency
does not have a 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
children, to calculate the maximum
allowable concentrations for this rule.
This rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66
FR 28355 May 22, 2001), because it is
not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866. This rule does
not involve technical standards; thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct. The Congressional
Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as
added by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule
may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report which includes a copy of the
rule to each House of the Congress and
to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from
section 801 the following types of rules
(1) Rules of particular applicability; (2)
rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice that
do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5
U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required to
submit a rule report regarding this
action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629
(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
51675
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or
low-income populations because it does
not affect the level of protection
provided to human health or the
environment. The Agency’s risk
assessment did not identify risks from
management of this material in a
Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA does
not believe that any populations in
proximity of the landfills used by this
facility should not be adversely affected
by common waste management
practices for this delisted waste.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous
waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f).
Dated: August 11, 2010.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, Region 6.
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:
■
Appendix IX to Part 261—Waste
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
Address
Waste description
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
Tokusen, USA Inc ................ Conway, AR .......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
*
*
*
*
Wastewater Treatment Sludge (EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a
maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per calendar year after August 23,
2010 will be disposed in Subtitle D landfill.
For the exclusion to be valid, Tokusen must implement a verification testing program that meets the following paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable concentrations for those constituents must not
exceed the following levels (mg/l for TCLP).
(A) Inorganic Constituents; Antimony-0.4; Arsenic-1.59; Barium-100; Chromium-5.0;
Cobalt-0.8; Copper-91.3; Lead-2.32; Nickel-50.5; Selenium-1.0; Zinc-748.
(B) Organic Constituents: Acetone-1950.
(2) Waste Management:
Frm 00057
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
51676
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Facility
Address
Waste description
(A) Tokusen must manage as hazardous all WWTP sludge generated, until it has
completed initial verification testing described in paragraph (3)(A) and (B), as appropriate, and valid analyses show that paragraph (1) is satisfied and approval is
received by EPA.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTP sludge that do
not exceed the levels set forth in paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. Tokusen can
manage and dispose of the non-hazardous WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample exceed any of the Delisting Levels set in paragraph (1), Tokusen can collect one additional sample and perform expedited
analyses to verify if the constituent exceeds the delisting level.
If this sample confirms the exceedance, Tokusen must, from that point forward,
treat all the waste covered by this exclusion as hazardous until it is demonstrated that the waste again meets the levels in paragraph (1). Tokusen must
manage and dispose of the waste generated under Subtitle C of RCRA when it
becomes aware of any exceedance.
(D) Upon completion of the verification testing described in paragraph 3(A) and (B)
as appropriate and the transmittal of the results to EPA, and if the testing results
meet the requirements of paragraph (1), Tokusen may proceed to manage its
WWTP sludge as non-hazardous waste. If subsequent verification testing indicates an exceedance of the Delisting Levels in paragraph (1), Tokusen must
manage the WWTP sludge as a hazardous waste after it has received approval
from EPA as described in paragraph (2)(C).
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Tokusen must perform sample collection and analyses, including quality control
procedures, using appropriate methods. As applicable to the method-defined parameters of concern, analyses requiring the use of SW–846 methods incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11 must be used without substitution. As
applicable, the SW–846 methods might include Methods 8260B, 1311/8260B,
8270C, 6010B, 7470, 9034A, ASTMD–4982B, ASTMD–5049, E413.2. Methods
must meet Performance Based Measurement System Criteria in which The Data
Quality Objectives are to demonstrate that representative samples of sludge
meet the delisting levels in paragraph (1). If EPA judges the process to be effective under the operating conditions used during the initial verification testing,
Tokusen may replace the testing required in paragraph (3)(A) with the testing required in paragraph (3)(B). Tokusen must continue to test as specified in paragraph (3)(A) until and unless notified by EPA in writing that testing in paragraph
(3)(A) may be replaced by paragraph (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing: After EPA grants the final exclusion, Tokusen must
do the following:
(i) The first sampling event for eight (8) samples will be performed within thirty (30)
days of operation after this exclusion becomes final.
(ii) The samples are to be analyzed and compared against the Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this exclusion becomes final, Tokusen will report initial verification analytical test data for the WWTP sludge, including analytical
quality control information.
Tokusen must request in writing that EPA allows Tokusen to substitute the Testing
conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A).
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following written notification by EPA, Tokusen may substitute the testing conditions
in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Tokusen must continue to monitor operating conditions, and
analyze two representative samples of the wastewater treatment sludge for each
quarter of operation during the first year of waste generation. If levels of constituents measured in the samples of the WWTP sludge do not exceed the levels set
forth in paragraph (1) in two consecutive quarters, Tokusen can manage and dispose of the WWTP sludge according to all applicable solid waste regulations.
After the first year of sampling events, one (1) verification sampling test can be
performed on two (2) annual samples of the waste treatment sludge.
The results are to be compared to the Delisting Levels in paragraph (1).
(C) Termination of Testing:
(i) After the first year of quarterly testings, if the Delisting Levels in paragraph (1)
are met, Tokusen may then request that EPA does not require a quarterly testing.
(ii) Following termination of the quarterly testing, Tokusen must conduct one (1)
sampling event on two (2) representative samples for all constituents listed in
paragraph (1) annually.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
51677
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Facility
Address
Waste description
If Tokusen significantly changes the process described in its petition or starts any
processes that generate(s) the waste that may or could significantly affect the
composition or type of waste generated as established under paragraph (1) (by
illustration, but not limitation, changes in equipment or operating conditions of the
treatment process), it must notify EPA in writing; it may no longer handle the
wastes generated from the new process as non-hazardous until the wastes meet
the delisting levels set in paragraph (1) and it has received written approval to do
so from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
Tokusen must submit the information described below. If Tokusen fails to submit
the required data within the specified time or maintain the required records onsite for the specified time, EPA, at its discretion, will consider this sufficient basis
to re-open the exclusion as described in paragraph (6). Tokusen must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through paragraph (3) to the Section Chief, Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, Mail Code, (6PD–C) within the time specified.
(B) Compile records of operating conditions and analytical data from paragraph (3),
summarized, and maintained on-site for a minimum of five years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when EPA or the state of Arkansas requests
them for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed copy of the following certification statement,
to attest to the truth and accuracy of the data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations (pursuant to the applicable provisions of
the Federal Code, which include, but may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 001 and
42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the information contained in or accompanying this
document is true, accurate and complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s) of this document for which I can not personally verify its (their) truth and accuracy I certify as the company official having supervisory responsibility for the persons who, acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this information is true, accurate and complete.
If any of this information is determined by EPA in its sole discretion to be false, inaccurate or incomplete, and upon conveyance of this fact to the company, I recognize and agree that this exclusion of waste will be void as if it never had effect
or to the extent directed by EPA and that the company will be liable for any actions taken in contravention of the company’s RCRA and CERCLA obligations
premised upon the company’s reliance on the void exclusion.
(6) Re-Opener:
(A) If, any time after disposal of the delisted waste, Tokusen possesses or is otherwise made aware of any environmental data (including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater 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 the annual testing of the waste does not meet the delisting requirements in
paragraph (1), Tokusen must report the data in writing to the Division Director
within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of that data.
(C) If Tokusen fails to submit the information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or
(6)(B) or if any other information is received from any source, the Division Director will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information
requires EPA action to protect human health and/or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines that the reported information does require
action, EPA’s 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 action by EPA is not necessary. The facility shall have 10
days from the date of the Division Director’s notice to present such information.
(E) Following the receipt of information from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if) no information is presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the initial receipt of information described in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the Division Director will issue a final written determination describing EPA’s actions that are
necessary to protect human health and/or the environment. Any required action
described in the Division Director’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Division Director provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
51678
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 162 / Monday, August 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—WASTE EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
Tokusen must do the following before transporting the delisted waste. Failure to
provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting petition and a possible revocation of the decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written notification to any state Regulatory Agency to which
or through which it will transport the delisted waste described above for disposal,
60 days before beginning such activities.
(B) Update one-time written notification, if it ships the delisted waste into a different
disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification will result in a violation of the delisting variance and a possible revocation of the decision.
*
*
*
*
floor from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. Call (214) 665–6444 for
appointments. The reference number for
this docket is EPA–R06–RCRA–2009–
0108. 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.
*
[FR Doc. 2010–20847 Filed 8–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R06–RCRA–2008–0456; SW–FRL–
9191–7]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Occidental Chemical
Corporation (OxyChem) to exclude (or
delist) its wastewater treatment
biosludge generated by its Ingleside,
Texas facility from the lists of hazardous
wastes. This final rule responds to the
petition submitted by OxyChem to
delist K019, K020, F025, F001, F003,
and F005 waste resulting from the
treatment of wastewaters from the
manufacturing processes at its facility.
After careful analysis and use of the
Delisting Risk Assessment Software
(DRAS), EPA has concluded that the
petitioned waste is not hazardous waste.
This exclusion applies to 7,500 cubic
yards per year of the K019, K020, F025,
F001, F003, and F005 waste.
Accordingly, this final rule excludes the
petitioned waste from the requirements
of hazardous waste regulations under
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) when it is
disposed in a Subtitle D Landfill.
DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for
viewing in the EPA Freedom of
Information Act review room on the 7th
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:54 Aug 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
Ben
Banipal, Section Chief of the Corrective
Action and Waste Minimization
Section, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division (6PD–C),
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Wendy
Jacques, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
(6PD–F), Dallas, Texas 75202, at (214)
665–7395, or jacques.wendy@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 OxyChem manage the waste
if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion
effective?
F. How does this final rule affect States?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
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 OxyChem petition EPA
to delist?
B. How much waste did OxyChem propose
to delist?
C. How did OxyChem sample and analyze
the waste data in this petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the
Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the
proposed rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, EPA
proposed, on July 9, 2009, to exclude
the wastewater treatment biosludge
from the lists of hazardous waste under
40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32 (see 73 FR
54760). EPA is finalizing the decision to
grant OxyChem’s delisting petition to
have its wastewater treatment biosludge
managed and disposed as nonhazardous waste provided certain
verification and monitoring conditions
are met.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
OxyChem’s petition requests a
delisting from K019, K020, F025, F001,
F003, and F005 wastes listed under 40
CFR 260.20 and 260.22. OxyChem does
not believe that the petitioned wastes
meet the criteria for which EPA listed it.
OxyChem also believes no additional
constituents or factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous. EPA’s review of
this petition included consideration of
the original listing criteria and the
additional factors required by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984. 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
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based on this
review, EPA agrees with the petitioner
that the waste is non-hazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria. If
EPA had found, based on this review,
that the waste remained hazardous
based on the factors for which the waste
as originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA
evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess
whether there is a reasonable basis to
believe that such additional factors
could cause the waste to be hazardous.
EPA considered whether the waste is
E:\FR\FM\23AUR1.SGM
23AUR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 162 (Monday, August 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51671-51678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20847]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R06-RCRA-2009-0549; SW-FRL-9191-8]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Final Exclusion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting a petition
submitted by Tokusen USA, Inc. (called Tokusen hereinafter) to exclude
(or delist) a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) sludge filter cake
(called sludge hereinafter) generated by Tokusen in Conway, AR from the
list of hazardous wastes. The final rule
[[Page 51672]]
responds to the petition submitted by Tokusen, to delist the WWTP
sludge.
After careful analysis and use of the Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS), EPA has concluded the petition waste is not hazardous
waste. This exclusion applies to 2,000 cubic yards per year of the WWTP
sludge with Hazardous Waste Number: F006. Accordingly, this final rule
excludes the petitioned waste from the requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
when it is disposed in a Subtitle D landfill.
DATES: Effective Date: August 23, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule is located at the
Environmental Protection Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas,
Texas 75202, and is available for viewing in EPA Freedom of Information
Act Review room on the 7th floor from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. Call (214) 665-6444 for
appointments. The reference number for this docket is EPA-R06-RCRA-
2009-0549. 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ben Banipal, Section Chief of the
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization Section, Multimedia Planning
Permitting Division (6PD-C), Environmental Protection Agency Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202. For technical information
concerning this notice, contact Youngmoo Kim, Environmental Protection
Agency Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, (6PD-C), Dallas, Texas 75202, at
(214) 665-6788, or kim.youngmoo@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 action?
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
D. How will Tokusen manage the waste, if it is delisted?
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
F. How would this action affect states?
II. Background
A. What is a delisting petition?
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
C. What does it require of a petitioner?
D. 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 Tokusen petition EPA to delist?
B. Who is Tokusen and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
C. How did Tokusen sample and analyze the data in this petition?
D. What were the results of Tokusen's analyses?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Tokusen's analysis?
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
IV. Public Comments Received on the proposed exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on proposed rule?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
A. What action is EPA finalizing?
After evaluating the petition, on March 31, 2010, EPA proposed to
exclude the WWTP sludge from the list of hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.31 and 261.32 (see 70 FR 41358). EPA is finalizing the decision to
grant Tokusen's delisting petition to have its WWTP sludge managed and
disposed as non-hazardous waste provided certain verification and
monitoring conditions are met.
B. Why is EPA approving this action?
Tokusen's petition requests an exclusion from the F006 hazardous
waste listing pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22. Tokusen does not
believe that the petitioned waste meets the criteria for which EPA
listed it. Tokusen 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 initial delisting
determination, EPA evaluated the petitioned waste against the listing
criteria and factors cited in Sec. Sec. 261.11(a)(2) and (a)(3). Based
on this review, EPA agrees with the petitioner that the waste is non-
hazardous with respect to the original listing criteria. If EPA had
found, based on this review, that the waste remained hazardous based on
the factors for which the waste was originally listed, EPA would have
proposed to deny the petition. EPA evaluated the waste with respect to
other factors or criteria to assess whether there is a reasonable basis
to believe that such additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous. EPA considered whether the waste is acutely toxic, the
concentration of the constituents in the waste, their tendency to
migrate and to bioaccumulate, their persistence in the environment once
released from the waste, plausible and specific types of management of
the petitioned waste, the quantities of waste generated, and waste
variability. EPA believes that the petitioned waste does not meet the
listing criteria and thus should not be a listed waste. EPA's proposed
decision to delist the waste from Tokusen is based on the information
submitted in support of this rule, including descriptions of the wastes
and analytical data from the facility in Conway, Arkansas.
C. What are the limits of this exclusion?
This exclusion applies to the waste described in the 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 Tokusen manage the waste, if it is delisted?
If the sludge is delisted, the WWTP sludge from Tokusen will be
disposed at a RCRA Subtitle D landfill: The Waste Management Industrial
Landfill, North Little Rock, Arkansas.
E. When is the final delisting exclusion effective?
This rule is effective August 23, 2010. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1985 amended Section 3010 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.
6930(b)(1), allows rules to become effective less than a 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 would this action 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.
[[Page 51673]]
These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a Federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
Because a dual system (that is, both Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA
programs)) may regulate a petitioner's waste, EPA urges petitioners to
contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of their
wastes under the state law.
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 Tokusen transports the petitioned waste to or manages the waste in
any state with delisting authorization, Tokusen must obtain delisting
authorization from that state before it can manage the waste as non-
hazardous 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, certain wastes the generator believes should
not be considered hazardous under RCRA.
B. What regulations allow facilities to delist a waste?
Under Sec. Sec. 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, 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 does it require of a petitioner?
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes
generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for
which the waste was listed. The criteria for which EPA lists a waste
are in part 261 and further explained in the background documents for
the listed waste.
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the
waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that
is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and present
sufficient information for EPA to decide whether factors other than
those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their
waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste
characteristics even if EPA has ``delisted'' the waste.
D. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and Sec.
3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for
the listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which EPA listed the waste, if a
reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the
waste to be hazardous.
EPA must also consider as hazardous waste mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See Sec. Sec. 261.3(a)(2)(iii and
iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain
hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Tokusen petition EPA to delist?
On March 25, 2009, Tokusen petitioned EPA to exclude from the lists
of hazardous wastes contained in Sec. 261.31, WWTP sludge (F006)
generated from its facility located in Conway, Arkansas. The waste
falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to Sec.
261.31. Specifically, in its petition, Tokusen requested that EPA grant
a standard exclusion for 2,000 cubic yards per year of the WWTP sludge.
B. Who is Tokusen and what process does it use to generate the
petitioned waste?
The Tokusen USA, Inc. facility produces high-carbon steel tire cord
for use in radial tire manufacturing. The steel cord is produced from
steel rod which has been reduced in size and electroplated with copper
and zinc to produce a brass coating. The facility generates F006 filter
cake by the dewatering of wastewater sludge generated at the on-site
wastewater treatment plants. This waste is stored on-site less than 90
days and is then transported from the site to the RCRA Subtitle C
facility, Chemical Waste Management in Sulphur, LA 70556.
C. How did Tokusen sample and analyze the data in this petition?
To support its petition, Tokusen submitted:
(1) Historical information on waste generation and management
practices;
(2) Analytical results from four samples for total concentrations
of compounds of concern (COCs);
(3) Analytical results from four samples for Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) extract values of COCs; and
(4) Multiple pH testing for the petitioned waste.
D. What were the results of Tokusen's analyses?
EPA believes that the descriptions of the Tokusen analytical
characterization provide a reasonable basis to grant Tokusen's petition
for an exclusion of the WWTP sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in
support of the petition show the WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
Analytical data for the WWTP sludge samples included in the March 2009
petition were used in the DRAS to develop delisting levels.
EPA has reviewed the sampling procedures used by Tokusen and has
determined that it satisfies EPA criteria for collecting representative
samples of the variations in constituent concentrations in the WWTP
sludge. In addition, the data submitted in support of the petition show
that constituents in Tokusen's waste are presently below health-based
levels used in the delisting decision-making. EPA believes that Tokusen
has successfully demonstrated that the WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, EPA used such information
gathered to identify plausible exposure routes (i.e., groundwater,
surface water, air) for hazardous constituents present in the
petitioned waste. EPA determined that disposal in a landfill is the
most reasonable, worst-case disposal scenario for Tokusen's petitioned
waste. EPA applied the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS)
described in 65 FR 58015 (September 27, 2000), 65 FR 75637 (December 4,
2000), and 73 FR 28768 (May 19, 2008) to predict the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents that may be released from the
petitioned waste after disposal and determined the potential impact of
the disposal of Tokusen's petitioned waste on human health and
[[Page 51674]]
the environment. A copy of this software can be found on the World Wide
Web at https://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/wptdiv/hazardous/delisting/dras-software.html. In assessing potential risks to groundwater, EPA used
the maximum waste volumes and the maximum reported extract
concentrations as inputs to the DRAS program to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the groundwater at a hypothetical
receptor well down gradient from the disposal site. Using the risk
level (carcinogenic risk of 10-5 and non-cancer hazard index
of 1.0). The DRAS program can back-calculate the acceptable receptor
well concentrations (referred to as compliance-point concentrations)
using standard risk assessment algorithms and EPA health-based numbers.
Using the maximum compliance-point concentrations and EPA's Composite
Model for Leachate Migration with Transformation Products (EPACMTP)
fate and transport modeling factors, the DRAS further back-calculates
the maximum permissible waste constituent concentrations not expected
to exceed the compliance-point concentrations in groundwater.
EPA believes that the EPACMTP fate and transport model represents a
reasonable worst-case scenario for possible groundwater contamination
resulting from disposal of the petitioned waste in a landfill, and that
a reasonable worst-case scenario is appropriate when evaluating whether
a waste should be relieved of the protective management constraints of
RCRA Subtitle C. The use of some reasonable worst-case scenarios
resulted in conservative values for the compliance-point concentrations
and ensures that the waste, once removed from hazardous waste
regulation, will not pose a significant threat to human health or the
environment.
The DRAS also uses the maximum estimated waste volumes and the
maximum reported total concentrations to predict possible risks
associated with releases of waste constituents through surface pathways
(e.g., volatilization from the landfill). As in the above groundwater
analyses, the DRAS uses the risk level, the health-based data and
standard risk assessment and exposure algorithms to predict maximum
compliance-point concentrations of waste constituents at a hypothetical
point of exposure. Using fate and transport equations, the DRAS uses
the maximum compliance-point concentrations and back-calculates the
maximum allowable waste constituent concentrations (or ``delisting
levels'').
In most cases, because a delisted waste is no longer subject to
hazardous waste control, EPA is generally unable to predict, and does
not presently control, how a petitioner will manage a waste after
delisting. Therefore, EPA currently believes that it is inappropriate
to consider extensive site-specific factors when applying the fate and
transport model. EPA does control the type of unit where the waste is
disposed. The waste must be disposed in the type of unit on which the
fate and transport model evaluates.
The DRAS results which calculate the maximum allowable
concentration of chemical constituents in the waste are presented in
Table I. Based on the comparison of the DRAS and TCLP Analyses results
found in Table I, the petitioned waste should be delisted because no
constituents of concern tested are likely to be present or formed as
reaction products or by-products in Tokusen waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about Tokusen's analysis?
EPA concluded, after reviewing Tokusen's processes that no other
hazardous constituents of concern, other than those for which tested,
are likely to be present or formed as reaction products or by-products
in the waste. In addition, on the basis of explanations and analytical
data provided by Tokusen, pursuant to Sec. 260.22, EPA concludes that
the petitioned waste do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity or toxicity. See Sec. Sec.
261.21, 261.22 and 261.23, respectively.
G. What other factors did EPA consider in its evaluation?
During the evaluation of Tokusen's petition, EPA also considered
the potential impact of the petitioned waste via non-groundwater routes
(i.e., air emission and surface runoff). With regard to airborne
dispersion in particular, EPA believes that exposure to airborne
contaminants from Tokusen's petitioned waste is unlikely. Therefore, no
appreciable air releases are likely from Tokusen's waste under any
likely disposal conditions. EPA evaluated the potential hazards
resulting from the unlikely scenario of airborne exposure to hazardous
constituents released from Tokusen's waste in an open landfill. The
results of this worst-case analysis indicated that there is no
substantial present or potential hazard to human health and the
environment from airborne exposure to constituents from Tokusen's WWTP
waste.
H. What is EPA's evaluation of this delisting petition?
The descriptions of Tokusen's hazardous waste process and
analytical characterization provide a reasonable basis for EPA to grant
the exclusion. The data submitted in support of the petition show that
constituents in the waste are below the leachable concentrations. EPA
believes that Tokusen's waste, F006 from copper and zinc electroplating
process to produce a brass coating will not impose any threat to human
health and the environment.
Thus, EPA believes Tokusen should be granted an exclusion for the
WWTP sludge. EPA believes the data submitted in support of the petition
show Tokusen's WWTP sludge is non-hazardous. The data submitted in
support of the petition show that constituents in Tokusen's waste are
presently below the compliance-point concentrations used in the
delisting decision and would not pose a substantial hazard to human
health and the environment. EPA believes that Tokusen has successfully
demonstrated that the WWTP sludge is non-hazardous.
EPA therefore, proposes to grant an exclusion to Tokusen in Conway,
Arkansas, for the WWTP sludge described in its petition. EPA's decision
to exclude this waste is based on descriptions of the treatment
activities associated with the petitioned waste and characterization of
the WWTP sludge.
EPA will no longer regulate the petitioned waste under parts 262
through 268 and the permitting standards of part 270.
The appropriate waste code for this waste is F006. The LDR
treatment standard for F006 is found in 40 CFR 268.40.
IV. Public Comments Received on the Proposed Exclusion
A. Who submitted comments on the proposed rule?
No comments were received on the Proposed Rule during the comment
period.
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
[[Page 51675]]
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it applies to a particular facility
only. Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a
particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this rule will affect only a
particular facility, it will not significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, as specified in section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this proposed rule does not
have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular facility,
this proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866,
and because the Agency does not have a 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 children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 May 22, 2001), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential
litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report which includes a copy of the rule to
each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United
States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types of
rules (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties, 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of particular applicability. Executive Order (EO) 12898
(59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to
the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. The Agency's risk assessment did not identify risks from
management of this material in a Subtitle D landfill. Therefore, EPA
does not believe that any populations in proximity of the landfills
used by this facility should not be adversely affected by common waste
management practices for this delisted waste.
Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: Sec. 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: August 11, 2010.
Bill Luthans,
Acting Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6.
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:
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Tokusen, USA Inc........................ Conway, AR................. Wastewater Treatment Sludge (EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F006) generated at a
maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards
per calendar year after August 23, 2010
will be disposed in Subtitle D landfill.
For the exclusion to be valid, Tokusen
must implement a verification testing
program that meets the following
paragraphs:
(1) Delisting Levels: All leachable
concentrations for those constituents
must not exceed the following levels (mg/
l for TCLP).
(A) Inorganic Constituents; Antimony-0.4;
Arsenic-1.59; Barium-100; Chromium-5.0;
Cobalt-0.8; Copper-91.3; Lead-2.32;
Nickel-50.5; Selenium-1.0; Zinc-748.
(B) Organic Constituents: Acetone-1950.
(2) Waste Management:
[[Page 51676]]
(A) Tokusen must manage as hazardous all
WWTP sludge generated, until it has
completed initial verification testing
described in paragraph (3)(A) and (B),
as appropriate, and valid analyses show
that paragraph (1) is satisfied and
approval is received by EPA.
(B) Levels of constituents measured in
the samples of the WWTP sludge that do
not exceed the levels set forth in
paragraph (1) are non-hazardous. Tokusen
can manage and dispose of the non-
hazardous WWTP sludge according to all
applicable solid waste regulations.
(C) If constituent levels in a sample
exceed any of the Delisting Levels set
in paragraph (1), Tokusen can collect
one additional sample and perform
expedited analyses to verify if the
constituent exceeds the delisting level.
If this sample confirms the exceedance,
Tokusen must, from that point forward,
treat all the waste covered by this
exclusion as hazardous until it is
demonstrated that the waste again meets
the levels in paragraph (1). Tokusen
must manage and dispose of the waste
generated under Subtitle C of RCRA when
it becomes aware of any exceedance.
(D) Upon completion of the verification
testing described in paragraph 3(A) and
(B) as appropriate and the transmittal
of the results to EPA, and if the
testing results meet the requirements of
paragraph (1), Tokusen may proceed to
manage its WWTP sludge as non-hazardous
waste. If subsequent verification
testing indicates an exceedance of the
Delisting Levels in paragraph (1),
Tokusen must manage the WWTP sludge as a
hazardous waste after it has received
approval from EPA as described in
paragraph (2)(C).
(3) Verification Testing Requirements:
Tokusen must perform sample collection
and analyses, including quality control
procedures, using appropriate methods.
As applicable to the method-defined
parameters of concern, analyses
requiring the use of SW-846 methods
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11 must be used without
substitution. As applicable, the SW-846
methods might include Methods 8260B,
1311/8260B, 8270C, 6010B, 7470, 9034A,
ASTMD-4982B, ASTMD-5049, E413.2. Methods
must meet Performance Based Measurement
System Criteria in which The Data
Quality Objectives are to demonstrate
that representative samples of sludge
meet the delisting levels in paragraph
(1). If EPA judges the process to be
effective under the operating conditions
used during the initial verification
testing, Tokusen may replace the testing
required in paragraph (3)(A) with the
testing required in paragraph (3)(B).
Tokusen must continue to test as
specified in paragraph (3)(A) until and
unless notified by EPA in writing that
testing in paragraph (3)(A) may be
replaced by paragraph (3)(B).
(A) Initial Verification Testing: After
EPA grants the final exclusion, Tokusen
must do the following:
(i) The first sampling event for eight
(8) samples will be performed within
thirty (30) days of operation after this
exclusion becomes final.
(ii) The samples are to be analyzed and
compared against the Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1).
(iii) Within sixty (60) days after this
exclusion becomes final, Tokusen will
report initial verification analytical
test data for the WWTP sludge, including
analytical quality control information.
Tokusen must request in writing that EPA
allows Tokusen to substitute the Testing
conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A).
(B) Subsequent Verification Testing:
Following written notification by EPA,
Tokusen may substitute the testing
conditions in (3)(B) for (3)(A). Tokusen
must continue to monitor operating
conditions, and analyze two
representative samples of the wastewater
treatment sludge for each quarter of
operation during the first year of waste
generation. If levels of constituents
measured in the samples of the WWTP
sludge do not exceed the levels set
forth in paragraph (1) in two
consecutive quarters, Tokusen can manage
and dispose of the WWTP sludge according
to all applicable solid waste
regulations.
After the first year of sampling events,
one (1) verification sampling test can
be performed on two (2) annual samples
of the waste treatment sludge.
The results are to be compared to the
Delisting Levels in paragraph (1).
(C) Termination of Testing:
(i) After the first year of quarterly
testings, if the Delisting Levels in
paragraph (1) are met, Tokusen may then
request that EPA does not require a
quarterly testing.
(ii) Following termination of the
quarterly testing, Tokusen must conduct
one (1) sampling event on two (2)
representative samples for all
constituents listed in paragraph (1)
annually.
(4) Changes in Operating Conditions:
[[Page 51677]]
If Tokusen significantly changes the
process described in its petition or
starts any processes that generate(s)
the waste that may or could
significantly affect the composition or
type of waste generated as established
under paragraph (1) (by illustration,
but not limitation, changes in equipment
or operating conditions of the treatment
process), it must notify EPA in writing;
it may no longer handle the wastes
generated from the new process as non-
hazardous until the wastes meet the
delisting levels set in paragraph (1)
and it has received written approval to
do so from EPA.
(5) Data Submittals:
Tokusen must submit the information
described below. If Tokusen fails to
submit the required data within the
specified time or maintain the required
records on-site for the specified time,
EPA, at its discretion, will consider
this sufficient basis to re-open the
exclusion as described in paragraph (6).
Tokusen must:
(A) Submit the data obtained through
paragraph (3) to the Section Chief,
Corrective Action and Waste Minimization
Section, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, Mail Code,
(6PD-C) within the time specified.
(B) Compile records of operating
conditions and analytical data from
paragraph (3), summarized, and
maintained on-site for a minimum of five
years.
(C) Furnish these records and data when
EPA or the state of Arkansas requests
them for inspection.
(D) Send along with all data a signed
copy of the following certification
statement, to attest to the truth and
accuracy of the data submitted:
Under civil and criminal penalty of law
for the making or submission of false or
fraudulent statements or representations
(pursuant to the applicable provisions
of the Federal Code, which include, but
may not be limited to, 18 U.S.C. 001 and
42 U.S.C. 6928), I certify that the
information contained in or accompanying
this document is true, accurate and
complete.
As to the (those) identified section(s)
of this document for which I can not
personally verify its (their) truth and
accuracy I certify as the company
official having supervisory
responsibility for the persons who,
acting under my direct instructions,
made the verification that this
information is true, accurate and
complete.
If any of this information is determined
by EPA in its sole discretion to be
false, inaccurate or incomplete, and
upon conveyance of this fact to the
company, I recognize and agree that this
exclusion of waste will be void as if it
never had effect or to the extent
directed by EPA and that the company
will be liable for any actions taken in
contravention of the company's RCRA and
CERCLA obligations premised upon the
company's reliance on the void
exclusion.
(6) Re-Opener:
(A) If, any time after disposal of the
delisted waste, Tokusen possesses or is
otherwise made aware of any
environmental data (including but not
limited to leachate data or groundwater
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 the annual testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting requirements
in paragraph (1), Tokusen must report
the data in writing to the Division
Director within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of that
data.
(C) If Tokusen fails to submit the
information described in paragraphs (5),
(6)(A) or (6)(B) or if any other
information is received from any source,
the Division Director will make a
preliminary determination as to whether
the reported information requires EPA
action to protect human health and/or
the environment. Further action may
include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
(D) If the Division Director determines
that the reported information does
require action, EPA's 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 action by EPA is not
necessary. The facility shall have 10
days from the date of the Division
Director's notice to present such
information.
(E) Following the receipt of information
from the facility described in paragraph
(6)(D) or (if) no information is
presented under paragraph (6)(D)) the
initial receipt of information described
in paragraphs (5), (6)(A) or (6)(B), the
Division Director will issue a final
written determination describing EPA's
actions that are necessary to protect
human health and/or the environment. Any
required action described in the
Division Director's determination shall
become effective immediately, unless the
Division Director provides otherwise.
(7) Notification Requirements:
[[Page 51678]]
Tokusen must do the following before
transporting the delisted waste. Failure
to provide this notification will result
in a violation of the delisting petition
and a possible revocation of the
decision.
(A) Provide a one-time written
notification to any state Regulatory
Agency to which or through which it will
transport the delisted waste described
above for disposal, 60 days before
beginning such activities.
(B) Update one-time written notification,
if it ships the delisted waste into a
different disposal facility.
(C) Failure to provide this notification
will result in a violation of the
delisting variance and a possible
revocation of the decision.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-20847 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
