Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste, 67919-67925 [2010-27886]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
67919
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 75, No. 213
Thursday, November 4, 2010
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–0843; SW–FRL–
9221–2]
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous
Waste
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for
comment.
AGENCY:
The EPA (also, ‘‘the Agency’’
or ‘‘we’’ in this preamble) is proposing
to grant a petition submitted by Owosso
Graphic Arts Inc. (Owosso), in Owosso
Michigan to exclude (or ‘‘delist’’) up to
244 cubic yards of wastewater treatment
sludge per year from the list of
hazardous wastes.
The Agency has tentatively decided to
grant the petition based on an
evaluation of waste-specific information
provided by Owosso. This proposed
decision, if finalized, conditionally
excludes the petitioned waste from the
requirements of hazardous waste
regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
We conclude that Owosso’s petitioned
waste is nonhazardous with respect to
the original listing criteria and that there
are no other factors which would cause
the waste to be hazardous when
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill
which is permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State to manage
industrial solid waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 6, 2010. Requests for
an informal hearing must reach EPA by
November 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. [EPA–R05–
RCRA–2010–0843] by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
• Mail: to Christopher Lambesis,
Environmental Protection Agency, Land
and Chemicals Division, (Mail Code:
LR–8J), EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
• Hand Delivery: to Christopher
Lambesis, Land and Chemicals Division,
EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
Such deliveries are only accepted
during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information.
Please contact Christopher Lambesis at
(312) 886–3583.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. [EPA–R05–RCRA–2010–
0843]. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Any person may request an informal
hearing on this proposed decision by
filing a request with Bruce Sypniewski,
Acting Director, Land and Chemicals
Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Chicago, Illinois 60604. The request
must contain the information prescribed
in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically through https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Records Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. We recommend you telephone
Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886–3583
before visiting the Region 5 office. The
public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christopher Lambesis, Land and
Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR–8J),
EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number:
(312) 886–3583; fax number (312) 692–
2195; e-mail address:
lambesis.christopher@epa.gov.
The
information in this section is organized
as follows:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA to
delist?
B. How does Owosso generate the waste?
C. How did Owosso sample and analyze
the waste?
D. What were the results of Owosso’s
analysis of the waste?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Owosso’s
waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the proposed
delisting exclusion?
B. How will Owosso manage the waste if
it is delisted?
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
67920
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous constituents
in the waste?
D. How frequently must Owosso test the
waste?
E. What data must Owosso submit?
F. What happens if Owosso’s waste fails to
meet the conditions of the exclusion?
G. What must Owosso do if the process
changes?
V. How would this action affect states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant a
petition submitted by Owosso Graphic
Arts Incorporated (Owosso) located in
Owosso, Michigan to exclude or delist
an annual volume of 244 cubic yards of
F006 wastewater treatment sludge from
the lists of hazardous waste set forth in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (40 CFR) 261.31. Owosso
claims that the petitioned waste does
not meet the criteria for which EPA
listed it, and that there are no additional
constituents or factors which could
cause the waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in
section III, we agree with the petitioner
that the waste is nonhazardous. We
reviewed the description of the process
which generates the waste and the
analytical data submitted by Owosso.
We believe that the petitioned waste
does not meet the criteria for which the
waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the
waste to be hazardous.
II. Background
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. What is a listed waste?
The EPA published an amended list
of hazardous wastes from nonspecific
and specific sources on January 16,
1981, as part of its final and interim
final regulations implementing section
3001 of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has
amended this list several times and
published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and
261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous
because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous wastes
identified in subpart C of part 261 (that
is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity,
and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in § 261.11(a)(2) or
(3).
B. What is a delisting petition?
Individual waste streams may vary
depending on raw materials, industrial
processes, and other factors. Thus,
while a waste described in the
regulations generally is hazardous, a
specific waste from an individual
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
facility meeting the listing description
may not be.
A procedure to exclude or delist a
waste is provided in 40 CFR 260.20 and
260.22 which allows a person, or a
facility, to submit a petition to the EPA
or to an authorized state demonstrating
that a specific waste from a particular
generating facility is not hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner
must show that a waste does not meet
any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40
CFR 261.11 and that the waste does not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity,
corrosivity, or toxicity. The petitioner
must present sufficient information for
us to decide whether any factors in
addition to those for which the waste
was listed warrant retaining it as a
hazardous waste. (See § 260.22, 42
United States Code—U.S.C.—6921(f)
and the background documents for the
listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the
generator remains obligated under
RCRA to confirm that the waste remains
nonhazardous.
C. What factors must EPA consider in
deciding whether to grant a delisting
petition?
In reviewing this petition, we
considered the original listing criteria
and the additional factors required by
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See
section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f),
and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)–(4). We
evaluated the petitioned waste against
the listing criteria and factors cited in
§ 261.11(a)(2) and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40
CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42
U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background
documents for the listed wastes, EPA
must consider any factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which we listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste
to be hazardous.
Our tentative decision to delist waste
from Owosso’s facility is based on our
evaluation of the waste for factors or
criteria which could cause the waste to
be hazardous. These factors included:
(1) Whether the waste is considered
acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the
constituents; (3) the concentration of the
constituents in the waste; (4) the
tendency of the constituents to migrate
and to bioaccumulate; (5) the
persistence in the environment of any
constituents once released from the
waste; (6) plausible and specific types of
management of the petitioned waste; (7)
the quantity of waste produced; and (8)
waste variability.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA must also consider as hazardous
wastes mixtures containing listed
hazardous wastes and wastes derived
from treating, storing, or disposing of
listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the
‘‘mixture’’ and ‘‘derived-from’’ rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from
wastes are also eligible for exclusion but
remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA’s Evaluation of the Waste
Information and Data
A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA
to delist?
In May 2005, Owosso petitioned EPA
to exclude an annual volume of 244
cubic yards of F006 wastewater
treatment sludges generated at its
facility located in Owosso, Michigan
from the list of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is
defined in § 261.31 as ‘‘Wastewater
treatment sludges from electroplating
operations * * *’’ Owosso claims that
the petitioned waste does not meet the
criteria for which F006 was listed (i.e.,
cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel
and complexed cyanide) and that there
are no other factors which would cause
the waste to be hazardous.
B. How does Owosso generate the waste?
Owosso Graphic Arts conducts
chemical etching of magnesium plates
to produce photoengraved dies for the
printing and foil stamping industries.
Owosso Graphic Arts also etches other
metals using ferric chloride to produce
similar products. The magnesium
etching process is physically separated
from that of the other metals and share
no common equipment, piping or waste
handling procedures.
A desired pattern is applied to a
magnesium plate in the form of a
printed laminate sensitive to ultra-violet
(UV) light. After UV exposure, the
magnesium plate is exposed to a spray
of developing agent in a self-contained
unit that washes away areas of laminate
where etching is to occur. The solvent
trichloroethylene (TCE) was used as the
developing agent until December 2007
when an aqueous solution (Hydro-Coat)
containing inorganic sodium salt and a
surfactant replaced TCE.
The aqueous developer was used until
September 2008 when Owosso began
using the solvent n-methyl 2pyrrolidone (NMP) as the developing
agent.
Nitric acid is used to etch the surface
of magnesium plates to create the
contoured die surface. The developed
plate is cleaned with a mild (1–2
percent) nitric acid solution to remove
the remaining protective coating from
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the plate. The cleaning solution is
discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) subject to the
Clean Water Act.
The plate is placed in one of several
self-contained etching units varying in
size and equipped with reservoirs of
nitric acid-based etching solution (nitric
acid, water, Mag-O 20 detergent). The
reservoir may contain between 200–400
liters of etching solution depending on
the size of the etching unit. Each
magnesium plate is weighed prior to
entering the etching process and again
once etching is completed. The
difference between the initial weight
and the post-etching weight is used to
calculate the amount of magnesium
residual remaining in the etching
solution reservoir. The amount of metal
residue introduced into the etching
solution varies based on the size of the
plate being etched and depth of the
etching required by individual projects.
Operators of the system may adjust
the strength of the acid between etching
events to balance the acid content of the
solution for optimal etching
performance. Once the metal
concentration becomes too great to
provide optimal etching, the nitric acid
solution is considered spent and is
transferred to a wastewater treatment
process for neutralization.
Wastewater treatment sludge is
produced in a batch process in which
spent etchant (nitric acid based etching
solution described above) is pumped to
a holding tank to await treatment.
Transfer of approximately 500 gallons of
spent etchant into the holding tank
occurs on a daily basis.
The used etchant is combined with
sodium hydroxide and water to
neutralize the spent etchant prior to
discharge to the City of Owosso’s
POTW. The neutralization process
requires a residence time of
approximately 30 minutes for complete
neutralization of the spent acid solution.
The treated solution is allowed to settle
for 12 hours to allow solids to
precipitate and settle to the bottom of
the tank. The supernatant liquid is
decanted for discharge to the POTW.
Dewatering of precipitate formed
during wastewater treatment occurs in a
filter press adjacent to the tank
containment area. The filter press is
emptied into three steel gondolas prior
to being placed in a lined roll-off
container.
C. How did Owosso sample and analyze
the petitioned waste?
Owosso collected a sample of the
waste in July 2004 for total oil and
grease (SW–846 Method 9071B),
volatiles (SW–846 Method 8260B), semi
volatiles and pesticides (SW–846
Method 8270C), polychlorinated
biphenyls—PCBs—(SW–846 Method
8082), and metals (SW–846 Method
6010B except for mercury—SW–846
Method 7471). Owosso sampled the
sludge again in August 2004 for oil and
grease (SW–846 Method 9071B).
Owosso continued to characterize the
waste based on a November 2004
Sampling and Analysis Plan. Due to the
small waste stream size, EPA and
Owosso agreed to conservatively
estimate constituent leaching by
dividing the total result by 20. This
simulates the TCLP test with the
assumption that all of the constituent in
the total would leach. Owosso collected
five composite samples of the waste
between December 2004 and March
2005 and analyzed them for
bromomethane and chloromethane
(SW–846 Method 8260B), cyanide (SW–
846 Method 9012A), sulfide (SW–846
Method 9034), antimony and arsenic
(SW–846 Method 6020B), cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc (SW–846 Method 6010B). This
subset of constituents was comprised of
waste constituents detected in prior
sampling events and the constituents for
which the waste was listed.
Maximum observed
concentration
Constituent detected
Total 1 (mg/kg)
EPA later asked for additional
analysis for trichloroethylene (TCE)
since Owosso’s process includes TCE as
a graphic image developer and may be
expected in the waste. Accordingly,
Owosso collected additional grab
samples of the waste in November 2007
for full-scan total volatile analysis (SW–
846 Methods 5035 & 8260B). TCE was
detected, however, Owosso had
replaced the TCE developer with the
aqueous developing agent by this time.
To confirm that concentrations of TCE
in the waste were decreasing since TCE
was no longer used and only residual
TCE remained in the process, Owosso
collected three additional grab samples
for volatile analysis in April and May of
2008 (SW–846 Method 5035 & 8260B).
Owosso collected four composite
samples of the sludge and one sample
of the raw product NMP in March 2010.
The samples were analyzed by a
modified SW–846 8270 method for
tentatively identifies compounds (TICs).
The raw product NMP sample was used
to determine the NMP retention time in
order to aid in the analysis of the
composite samples. The concentration
of TICs with similar mass spectra and
retention time to NMP were added to
the overall concentration because they
may be derivatives of NMP.
D. What were the results of Owosso’s
analysis of its waste?
The table below presents the
maximum observed total concentrations
for all detected constituents for which
maximum allowable total and leachate
concentrations were available. Leachate
concentrations were estimated by
dividing the total concentration by 20
(the dilution factor from the TCLP test).
Total concentrations are expressed in
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg).
Leachate concentrations are expressed
in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Owosso
submitted a signed statement certifying
accuracy and responsibility of the
results. See 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
Maximum allowable
concentration
TCLP 2 (mg/L)
67921
Total (mg/kg)
GW (mg/L)
TCLP (mg/L)
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Volatile Organic Compounds
bromomethane .....................................................................
chloromethane .....................................................................
n-methyl,2-pyrrolidone .........................................................
trichloroethylene ...................................................................
3.8
1.9
15.79 E
1.1
0.19
0.095
0.79
0.055
172,000
none
none
975,000
2.4
0.10
0.19
1.8
none
4,580
121,000
5 2,590
none
178
734
4 0.5
0.026
0.39
1.65
0.005
Metals
antimony ...............................................................................
arsenic ..................................................................................
cadmium ...............................................................................
chromium .............................................................................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
47
2.0
3.8
35
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
3.15
0.006
3 0.25
3 0.0005
4 1.0
0.005
0.1
4 5.0
67922
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Maximum observed
concentration
Constituent detected
Maximum allowable
concentration
Total 1 (mg/kg)
TCLP 2 (mg/L)
1,020
20
24
35
14,000
51
1.0
1.2
1.8
700
copper ..................................................................................
cyanide .................................................................................
lead ......................................................................................
nickel ....................................................................................
zinc .......................................................................................
Total (mg/kg)
none
none
none
905,000
none
GW (mg/L)
TCLP (mg/L)
700
91
4 5.0
400
6,000
1.3
0.2
0.015
0.750
11.3
1 Converted
to dry weight basis.
from the total concentration (Total/20).
at groundwater concentration corresponding to 1 × 10 ¥5 excess cancer risk.
4 Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C.
5 Based on assuming 100% hexavalent chromium.
E—Estimated (Constituent not present in calibration standard. Calculated using total peak area from reconstructed ion chromatogram w/response factor of 1. Concentration converted to dry weight and represents the sum of NMP and NMP-like TICs).
2 Estimated
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
3 Set
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of
delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we
assumed that the waste would be
disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we
considered transport of waste
constituents through ground water,
surface water and air. We evaluated
Owosso’s petitioned waste using the
Agency’s Delisting Risk Assessment
Software (DRAS) to predict the
concentration of hazardous constituents
that might be released from the
petitioned waste and to determine if the
waste would pose a threat. To predict
the potential for release to groundwater
from landfilled wastes and subsequent
routes of exposure to a receptor, the
DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors
derived from EPA’s Composite Model
for leachate migration with
Transformation Products. From a release
to ground water, the DRAS considers
routes of exposure to a human receptor
of ingestion of contaminated ground
water, inhalation from groundwater
while showering and dermal contact
from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by
erosion of waste from an open landfill
into storm water run-off, DRAS
evaluates the exposure to a human
receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion
of drinking water. From a release of
waste particles and volatile emissions to
air from the surface of an open landfill,
DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents,
inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential
soil and subsequent ingestion of the
contaminated soil by a child. The
technical support document and the
user’s guide to DRAS are included in
the docket.
At a target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥6 and
a target hazard quotient of 1.0, the
DRAS program determined maximum
allowable concentrations for each
constituent in both the waste and the
leachate at an annual waste volume of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
244 cubic yards. However, since
naturally occurring concentrations of
arsenic are often higher than allowable
concentrations set by the DRAS at a risk
of 1 × 10¥6, EPA set the allowable
concentration of leachable arsenic at a
target cancer risk of 1 × 10¥5, which
corresponds to a concentration at the
point of exposure of approximately one
twentieth of the existing Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL). Arsenic is
not expected to be a major constituent
of concern in this waste.
We used the maximum estimated
annual waste volume and the maximum
reported total and estimated leachate
concentrations as inputs to estimate the
constituent concentrations in the
ground water, soil, surface water or air.
If, using an appropriate analytical
method, a constituent was not detected
in any sample, it was considered not to
be present in the waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about
Owosso’s waste?
The maximum reported
concentrations of the hazardous
constituents found in this waste are
presented in the table above. The table
also presents the maximum allowable
concentrations. The concentrations of
all constituents in both the waste and
the leachate are below the allowable
concentrations. We, therefore, conclude
that Owosso’s wastewater treatment
sludge is not a substantial or potential
hazard to human health and the
environment when disposed of in a
Subtitle D landfill.
We, therefore, propose to grant an
exclusion for this waste. If this
exclusion is finalized, Owosso must
dispose of this waste in a Subtitle D
landfill permitted or licensed by a state,
and will remain obligated to verify that
the waste meets the allowable
concentrations set forth here. Owosso
must also continue to determine
whether the waste is identified in
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
subpart C of 40 CFR pursuant to
§ 261.11(c).
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the
proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA
to provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before granting or denying a
final exclusion. Thus, EPA will not
make a final decision or grant an
exclusion until it has addressed all
timely public comments on today’s
proposal, including any at public
hearings.
Since this rule would reduce the
existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes, the
regulated community does not need a
six-month period to come into
compliance in accordance with section
3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
B. How will Owosso manage the waste
if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted,
Owosso must dispose of it in a Subtitle
D landfill which is permitted, licensed,
or registered by a state to manage
industrial waste.
C. What are the maximum allowable
concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
Concentrations measured in the TCLP
(or Oily Waste Extraction Procedure,
where appropriate) extract of the waste
of the following constituents must not
exceed the following (mg/l):
Antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25;
cadmium—1; chromium—5; lead—5;
and zinc—6,000.
D. How frequently must Owosso test the
waste?
Owosso must analyze a representative
sample of the wastewater treatment
sludges on an annual basis to
demonstrate that the constituents of
concern in the petitioned waste do not
exceed the concentrations of concern in
section IV.C above. Owosso must use
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
methods with sufficient analytical
sensitivity and appropriate quality
control procedures. SW–846 Method
1311 must be used for generation of the
leachate extract used in the testing of
the delisting levels if oil and grease
comprise less than one percent of the
waste. SW–846 Method 1330A must be
used for generation of the leaching
extract if oil and grease comprise 1
percent or more of the waste. SW–846
Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW–846
Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
260.11. A total analysis of the waste
(accounting for any filterable liquids
and the dilution factor inherent in the
TCLP method) may be used to estimate
the TCLP concentration as provided for
in section 1.2 of Method 1311.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. What data must Owosso submit?
Owosso must submit the data
obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604,
upon the anniversary of the effective
date of this exclusion. Owosso must
compile, summarize, and maintain on
site records of operating conditions and
analytical data. Owosso must make
these records available for inspection.
All data must be accompanied by a
signed copy of the certification
statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
F. What happens if Owosso fails to meet
the conditions of the exclusion?
If Owosso violates the terms and
conditions established in the exclusion,
the Agency may start procedures to
withdraw the exclusion.
If the verification testing of the waste
does not meet the delisting
concentrations described in section IV.C
above or other data (including but not
limited to leachate data or groundwater
monitoring data) relevant to the delisted
waste indicates that any constituent is at
a concentration in the leachate higher
than the specified delisting
concentration, or is in the groundwater
at a concentration higher than the
maximum allowable groundwater
concentration (in the table in Section
III.D.), Owosso must notify the Agency
within 10 days of first possessing or
being made aware of the data. The
exclusion will be suspended and the
waste managed as hazardous until
Owosso has received written approval
from the Agency to continue the
exclusion. Owosso may provide
sampling results which support the
continuation of the delisting exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under
RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
seq. to reopen a delisting decision if we
receive new information indicating that
the conditions of this exclusion have
been violated, or are otherwise not being
met.
G. What must Owosso do if the process
changes?
If Owosso significantly changes the
manufacturing or treatment process or
the chemicals used in the
manufacturing or treatment process,
Owosso may not handle the wastewater
treatment sludge generated from the
new process under this exclusion until
it has demonstrated to the EPA that the
waste meets the concentrations set in
section IV.C and that no new hazardous
constituents listed in Appendix VIII of
40 CFR part 261 have been introduced.
Owosso must manage wastes generated
after the process change as hazardous
waste until Owosso has received written
notice from EPA that the delisting is
reinstated.
V. How would this action affect the
states?
Because EPA is issuing today’s
exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to
federal RCRA delisting provisions
would be affected. This exclusion may
not be effective in states which have
received our authorization to make their
own delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own
non-RCRA regulatory requirements that
are more stringent than EPA’s, under
section 3009 of RCRA. These more
stringent requirements may include a
provision that prohibits a federally
issued exclusion from taking effect in
the state. We urge petitioners to contact
the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under
the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states
to administer a delisting program in
place of the federal program, that is, to
make state delisting decisions.
Therefore, this exclusion does not apply
in those authorized states. If Owosso
manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, Owosso must
obtain delisting authorization from that
state before it can manage the waste as
nonhazardous in that state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866,
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review ’’ (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is
not of general applicability and
therefore, is not a regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). This
rule does not impose an information
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
67923
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only.
Because this rule is of particular
applicability relating to a particular
facility, it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or
to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104–4). Because this
rule will affect only a particular facility,
it will not significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule
will affect only a particular facility, this
final rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’,
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect
only a particular facility, this final rule
does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175,
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this rule. This rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045, ‘‘Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it is not
economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the
Agency does not have reason to believe
the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. The
basis for this belief is that the Agency
used DRAS, which considers health and
safety risks to children, to calculate the
maximum allowable concentrations for
this rule. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. This rule does not involve
technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988,
‘‘Civil Justice Reform’’, (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
67924
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,
minimize potential litigation, and
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct.
Dated: October 26, 2010.
Bruce F. Sypniewski,
Acting Director, Land and Chemicals
Division.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,
6922, and 6938.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 261 as follows:
Hazardous waste, Recycling, and
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42
U.S.C. 6921(f).
2. In Table 1 of Appendix IX to part
261 add the following waste stream in
alphabetical order by facility to read as
follows:
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261—Wastes
Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES
Facility
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
Owosso Graphic Arts ..
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Address
Waste description
*
*
*
*
*
*
Owosso, Michigan ....... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at Owosso Graphic Arts (Owosso) facility in
Owosso, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of 244 cubic yards per year. The sludge
must be disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by a state to accept the delisted wastewater treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes effective as of [insert final publication date].
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent concentrations measured in a leachate extract may
not exceed the following concentrations (mg/L): antimony—3.15; arsenic—0.25; cadmium—
1; chromium—5; lead—5; and zinc—6,000. (B) Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations (mg/L) are as follows: antimony—0.006; arsenic—0.0005; cadmium—0.005;
chromium—0.1; lead—0.015; and zinc—11.3.
2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting concentrations, Owosso must collect and analyze one waste sample on an annual
basis using methods with appropriate detection concentrations and elements of quality control. SW–846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of the leachate extract used in the
testing of the delisting levels if oil and grease comprise less than 1 percent of the waste.
SW–846 Method 1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and
grease comprise 1 percent or more of the waste. SW–846 Method 9071B must be used for
determination of oil and grease. SW–846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. A total analysis of the waste (accounting for any
filterable liquids and the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be used to estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of Method 1311.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Owosso must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or
the chemicals used in the treatment process significantly change. Owosso must handle
wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has: Demonstrated that
the wastes continue to meet the delisting concentrations in section 1.; demonstrated that
no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part 261 have been introduced;
and it has received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: Owosso must submit the data obtained through verification testing or as
required by other conditions of this rule to U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA Delisting Program
(LR–8J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604. The annual verification data and
certification of proper disposal must be submitted upon the anniversary of the effective
date of this exclusion. Owosso must compile, summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum of five years records of operating conditions and analytical data. Owosso must make
these records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of
the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
16:51 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
67925
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES—Continued
Facility
Address
Waste description
5. Reopener Language—(A) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted waste, Owosso possesses or is otherwise made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data
or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that any constituent is at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable
groundwater concentration in paragraph (1), then Owosso must report such data, in writing,
to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of first possessing or being made aware of
that data. (B) Based on the information described in paragraph (A) and any other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human
health or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to protect human health and the environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Owosso in writing of the actions
the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of the proposed action and a statement providing Owosso with an opportunity to present information as to why the proposed Agency
action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Owosso shall have 30 days
from the date of the Regional Administrator’s notice to present the information. (D) If after
30 days Owosso presents no further information or after a review of any submitted information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the
Agency actions that are necessary to protect human health or the environment. Any required action described in the Regional Administrator’s determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060; MO
92210–0–0008]
The finding announced in this
document was made on November 4,
2010.
DATES:
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a
Petition to List Cirsium wrightii
(Wright’s Marsh Thistle) as
Endangered or Threatened
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition
finding.
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 12-month
finding on a petition to list Cirsium
wrightii (Wright’s marsh thistle) as
endangered or threatened and to
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. After review of all available
scientific and commercial information,
we find that listing C. wrightii as
endangered or threatened throughout its
range is warranted. Currently, however,
listing of C. wrightii is precluded by
higher priority actions to amend the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS
14:44 Nov 03, 2010
Jkt 223001
This finding is available on
the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov at Docket Number
FWS–R2–ES–2009–0060. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing
this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours by contacting the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New
Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105
Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113.
Please submit any new information,
materials, comments, or questions
concerning this finding to the above
address.
ADDRESSES:
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
*
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication
of this 12-month petition finding, we
will add C. wrightii to our candidate
species list. We will develop a proposed
rule to list C. wrightii as our priorities
allow. We will make any determination
on critical habitat during development
of the proposed rule. In the interim
period, we will address the status of the
candidate taxon through our annual
Candidate Notice of Review.
*
[FR Doc. 2010–27886 Filed 11–3–10; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505–
346–4781; or by facsimile at 505–346–
2542. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) requires that, for any petition to
revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife that contains
substantial scientific and commercial
information that listing may be
warranted, we make a finding within
12 months of the date of receipt of the
petition on whether the petitioned
action is: (a) Not warranted, (b)
warranted, or (c) warranted, but the
immediate proposal of a regulation
implementing the petitioned action is
precluded by other pending proposals to
determine whether species are
threatened or endangered, and
expeditious progress is being made to
add or remove qualified species from
the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section
4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested
action is found to be warranted but
precluded as though resubmitted on the
date of such finding, that is, requiring a
subsequent finding to be made within
12 months. We must publish these
findings in the Federal Register.
Previous Federal Actions
On October 15, 2008, we received a
petition from the WildEarth Guardians,
dated October 9, 2008, requesting that
E:\FR\FM\04NOP1.SGM
04NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 213 (Thursday, November 4, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67919-67925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27886]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 213 / Thursday, November 4, 2010 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 67919]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
[EPA-R05-RCRA-2010-0843; SW-FRL-9221-2]
Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed Exclusion for
Identifying and Listing Hazardous Waste
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA (also, ``the Agency'' or ``we'' in this preamble) is
proposing to grant a petition submitted by Owosso Graphic Arts Inc.
(Owosso), in Owosso Michigan to exclude (or ``delist'') up to 244 cubic
yards of wastewater treatment sludge per year from the list of
hazardous wastes.
The Agency has tentatively decided to grant the petition based on
an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by Owosso. This
proposed decision, if finalized, conditionally excludes the petitioned
waste from the requirements of hazardous waste regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
We conclude that Owosso's petitioned waste is nonhazardous with
respect to the original listing criteria and that there are no other
factors which would cause the waste to be hazardous when disposed of in
a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
State to manage industrial solid waste.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 6, 2010.
Requests for an informal hearing must reach EPA by November 19, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. [EPA-R05-
RCRA-2010-0843] by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: to Christopher Lambesis, Environmental Protection
Agency, Land and Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604.
Hand Delivery: to Christopher Lambesis, Land and Chemicals
Division, EPA Region 5, 8th Floor, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
IL 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. Please contact Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886-
3583.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. [EPA-R05-RCRA-
2010-0843]. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Any person may request an informal hearing on this proposed
decision by filing a request with Bruce Sypniewski, Acting Director,
Land and Chemicals Division, Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. The request must contain
the information prescribed in 40 CFR 260.20(d).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Records Center, 7th floor, U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend you telephone Christopher Lambesis at (312) 886-3583 before
visiting the Region 5 office. The public may copy material from the
regulatory docket at 15 cents per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Lambesis, Land and
Chemicals Division, (Mail Code: LR-8J), EPA Region 5, 77 W. Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604; telephone number: (312) 886-3583; fax
number (312) 692-2195; e-mail address: lambesis.christopher@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information in this section is organized
as follows:
I. Overview Information
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
B. What is a delisting petition?
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA to delist?
B. How does Owosso generate the waste?
C. How did Owosso sample and analyze the waste?
D. What were the results of Owosso's analysis of the waste?
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
F. What did EPA conclude about Owosso's waste?
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
B. How will Owosso manage the waste if it is delisted?
[[Page 67920]]
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
D. How frequently must Owosso test the waste?
E. What data must Owosso submit?
F. What happens if Owosso's waste fails to meet the conditions
of the exclusion?
G. What must Owosso do if the process changes?
V. How would this action affect states?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview Information
The EPA is proposing to grant a petition submitted by Owosso
Graphic Arts Incorporated (Owosso) located in Owosso, Michigan to
exclude or delist an annual volume of 244 cubic yards of F006
wastewater treatment sludge from the lists of hazardous waste set forth
in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) 261.31. Owosso
claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for which
EPA listed it, and that there are no additional constituents or factors
which could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Based on our review described in section III, we agree with the
petitioner that the waste is nonhazardous. We reviewed the description
of the process which generates the waste and the analytical data
submitted by Owosso. We believe that the petitioned waste does not meet
the criteria for which the waste was listed, and that there are no
other factors which might cause the waste to be hazardous.
II. Background
A. What is a listed waste?
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from
nonspecific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its
final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has amended this
list several times and published it in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.
We list these wastes as hazardous because: (1) They typically and
frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous
wastes identified in subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity) or (2) they meet the criteria
for listing contained in Sec. 261.11(a)(2) or (3).
B. What is a delisting petition?
Individual waste streams may vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described
in the regulations generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an
individual facility meeting the listing description may not be.
A procedure to exclude or delist a waste is provided in 40 CFR
260.20 and 260.22 which allows a person, or a facility, to submit a
petition to the EPA or to an authorized state demonstrating that a
specific waste from a particular generating facility is not hazardous.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that a waste does
not meet any of the criteria for listed wastes in 40 CFR 261.11 and
that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity.
The petitioner must present sufficient information for us to decide
whether any factors in addition to those for which the waste was listed
warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste. (See Sec. 260.22, 42 United
States Code--U.S.C.--6921(f) and the background documents for the
listed wastes.)
If a delisting petition is granted, the generator remains obligated
under RCRA to confirm that the waste remains nonhazardous.
C. What factors must EPA consider in deciding whether to grant a
delisting petition?
In reviewing this petition, we considered the original listing
criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). See section 222 of HSWA, 42 U.S.C.
6921(f), and 40 CFR 260.22(d)(2)-(4). We evaluated the petitioned waste
against the listing criteria and factors cited in Sec. 261.11(a)(2)
and (3).
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2)
and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the
listed wastes, EPA must consider any factors (including additional
constituents) other than those for which we listed the waste if these
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
Our tentative decision to delist waste from Owosso's facility is
based on our evaluation of the waste for factors or criteria which
could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1)
Whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the
constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste;
(4) the tendency of the constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate;
(5) the persistence in the environment of any constituents once
released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management
of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8)
waste variability.
EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing
listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or
disposing of listed hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) and
(c)(2)(i), called the ``mixture'' and ``derived-from'' rules,
respectively. Mixture and derived-from wastes are also eligible for
exclusion but remain hazardous until excluded.
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Waste Information and Data
A. What waste did Owosso petition EPA to delist?
In May 2005, Owosso petitioned EPA to exclude an annual volume of
244 cubic yards of F006 wastewater treatment sludges generated at its
facility located in Owosso, Michigan from the list of hazardous wastes
contained in 40 CFR 261.31. F006 is defined in Sec. 261.31 as
``Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations * * *''
Owosso claims that the petitioned waste does not meet the criteria for
which F006 was listed (i.e., cadmium, hexavalent chromium, nickel and
complexed cyanide) and that there are no other factors which would
cause the waste to be hazardous.
B. How does Owosso generate the waste?
Owosso Graphic Arts conducts chemical etching of magnesium plates
to produce photoengraved dies for the printing and foil stamping
industries. Owosso Graphic Arts also etches other metals using ferric
chloride to produce similar products. The magnesium etching process is
physically separated from that of the other metals and share no common
equipment, piping or waste handling procedures.
A desired pattern is applied to a magnesium plate in the form of a
printed laminate sensitive to ultra-violet (UV) light. After UV
exposure, the magnesium plate is exposed to a spray of developing agent
in a self-contained unit that washes away areas of laminate where
etching is to occur. The solvent trichloroethylene (TCE) was used as
the developing agent until December 2007 when an aqueous solution
(Hydro-Coat) containing inorganic sodium salt and a surfactant replaced
TCE.
The aqueous developer was used until September 2008 when Owosso
began using the solvent n-methyl 2-pyrrolidone (NMP) as the developing
agent.
Nitric acid is used to etch the surface of magnesium plates to
create the contoured die surface. The developed plate is cleaned with a
mild (1-2 percent) nitric acid solution to remove the remaining
protective coating from
[[Page 67921]]
the plate. The cleaning solution is discharged to a publicly owned
treatment works (POTW) subject to the Clean Water Act.
The plate is placed in one of several self-contained etching units
varying in size and equipped with reservoirs of nitric acid-based
etching solution (nitric acid, water, Mag-O 20 detergent). The
reservoir may contain between 200-400 liters of etching solution
depending on the size of the etching unit. Each magnesium plate is
weighed prior to entering the etching process and again once etching is
completed. The difference between the initial weight and the post-
etching weight is used to calculate the amount of magnesium residual
remaining in the etching solution reservoir. The amount of metal
residue introduced into the etching solution varies based on the size
of the plate being etched and depth of the etching required by
individual projects.
Operators of the system may adjust the strength of the acid between
etching events to balance the acid content of the solution for optimal
etching performance. Once the metal concentration becomes too great to
provide optimal etching, the nitric acid solution is considered spent
and is transferred to a wastewater treatment process for
neutralization.
Wastewater treatment sludge is produced in a batch process in which
spent etchant (nitric acid based etching solution described above) is
pumped to a holding tank to await treatment. Transfer of approximately
500 gallons of spent etchant into the holding tank occurs on a daily
basis.
The used etchant is combined with sodium hydroxide and water to
neutralize the spent etchant prior to discharge to the City of Owosso's
POTW. The neutralization process requires a residence time of
approximately 30 minutes for complete neutralization of the spent acid
solution. The treated solution is allowed to settle for 12 hours to
allow solids to precipitate and settle to the bottom of the tank. The
supernatant liquid is decanted for discharge to the POTW.
Dewatering of precipitate formed during wastewater treatment occurs
in a filter press adjacent to the tank containment area. The filter
press is emptied into three steel gondolas prior to being placed in a
lined roll-off container.
C. How did Owosso sample and analyze the petitioned waste?
Owosso collected a sample of the waste in July 2004 for total oil
and grease (SW-846 Method 9071B), volatiles (SW-846 Method 8260B), semi
volatiles and pesticides (SW-846 Method 8270C), polychlorinated
biphenyls--PCBs--(SW-846 Method 8082), and metals (SW-846 Method 6010B
except for mercury--SW-846 Method 7471). Owosso sampled the sludge
again in August 2004 for oil and grease (SW-846 Method 9071B). Owosso
continued to characterize the waste based on a November 2004 Sampling
and Analysis Plan. Due to the small waste stream size, EPA and Owosso
agreed to conservatively estimate constituent leaching by dividing the
total result by 20. This simulates the TCLP test with the assumption
that all of the constituent in the total would leach. Owosso collected
five composite samples of the waste between December 2004 and March
2005 and analyzed them for bromomethane and chloromethane (SW-846
Method 8260B), cyanide (SW-846 Method 9012A), sulfide (SW-846 Method
9034), antimony and arsenic (SW-846 Method 6020B), cadmium, chromium,
copper, lead, nickel, and zinc (SW-846 Method 6010B). This subset of
constituents was comprised of waste constituents detected in prior
sampling events and the constituents for which the waste was listed.
EPA later asked for additional analysis for trichloroethylene (TCE)
since Owosso's process includes TCE as a graphic image developer and
may be expected in the waste. Accordingly, Owosso collected additional
grab samples of the waste in November 2007 for full-scan total volatile
analysis (SW-846 Methods 5035 & 8260B). TCE was detected, however,
Owosso had replaced the TCE developer with the aqueous developing agent
by this time. To confirm that concentrations of TCE in the waste were
decreasing since TCE was no longer used and only residual TCE remained
in the process, Owosso collected three additional grab samples for
volatile analysis in April and May of 2008 (SW-846 Method 5035 &
8260B).
Owosso collected four composite samples of the sludge and one
sample of the raw product NMP in March 2010. The samples were analyzed
by a modified SW-846 8270 method for tentatively identifies compounds
(TICs). The raw product NMP sample was used to determine the NMP
retention time in order to aid in the analysis of the composite
samples. The concentration of TICs with similar mass spectra and
retention time to NMP were added to the overall concentration because
they may be derivatives of NMP.
D. What were the results of Owosso's analysis of its waste?
The table below presents the maximum observed total concentrations
for all detected constituents for which maximum allowable total and
leachate concentrations were available. Leachate concentrations were
estimated by dividing the total concentration by 20 (the dilution
factor from the TCLP test). Total concentrations are expressed in
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg). Leachate concentrations are expressed
in milligrams per liter (mg/L). Owosso submitted a signed statement
certifying accuracy and responsibility of the results. See 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable
-------------------------------- concentration
Constituent detected Total \1\ (mg/ TCLP \2\ (mg/ -------------------------------- GW (mg/L)
kg) L) Total (mg/kg) TCLP (mg/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Volatile Organic Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bromomethane.................... 3.8 0.19 172,000 none 0.026
chloromethane................... 1.9 0.095 none 178 0.39
n-methyl,2-pyrrolidone.......... 15.79 E 0.79 none 734 1.65
trichloroethylene............... 1.1 0.055 975,000 \4\ 0.5 0.005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
antimony........................ 47 2.4 none 3.15 0.006
arsenic......................... 2.0 0.10 4,580 \3\ 0.25 \3\ 0.0005
cadmium......................... 3.8 0.19 121,000 \4\ 1.0 0.005
chromium........................ 35 1.8 \5\ 2,590 \4\ 5.0 0.1
[[Page 67922]]
copper.......................... 1,020 51 none 700 1.3
cyanide......................... 20 1.0 none 91 0.2
lead............................ 24 1.2 none \4\ 5.0 0.015
nickel.......................... 35 1.8 905,000 400 0.750
zinc............................ 14,000 700 none 6,000 11.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Converted to dry weight basis.
\2\ Estimated from the total concentration (Total/20).
\3\ Set at groundwater concentration corresponding to 1 x 10 -\5\ excess cancer risk.
\4\ Based on the toxicity characteristic in 40 CFR 261 subpart C.
\5\ Based on assuming 100% hexavalent chromium.
E--Estimated (Constituent not present in calibration standard. Calculated using total peak area from
reconstructed ion chromatogram w/response factor of 1. Concentration converted to dry weight and represents
the sum of NMP and NMP-like TICs).
E. How did EPA evaluate the risk of delisting this waste?
For this delisting determination, we assumed that the waste would
be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill and we considered transport of
waste constituents through ground water, surface water and air. We
evaluated Owosso's petitioned waste using the Agency's Delisting Risk
Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous
constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to
determine if the waste would pose a threat. To predict the potential
for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes
of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors
derived from EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with
Transformation Products. From a release to ground water, the DRAS
considers routes of exposure to a human receptor of ingestion of
contaminated ground water, inhalation from groundwater while showering
and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open
landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a
human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From
a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the
surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of
inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air
deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of
the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and
the user's guide to DRAS are included in the docket.
At a target cancer risk of 1 x 10-\6\ and a target
hazard quotient of 1.0, the DRAS program determined maximum allowable
concentrations for each constituent in both the waste and the leachate
at an annual waste volume of 244 cubic yards. However, since naturally
occurring concentrations of arsenic are often higher than allowable
concentrations set by the DRAS at a risk of 1 x 10-\6\, EPA
set the allowable concentration of leachable arsenic at a target cancer
risk of 1 x 10-\5\, which corresponds to a concentration at
the point of exposure of approximately one twentieth of the existing
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). Arsenic
is not expected to be a major constituent of concern in this waste.
We used the maximum estimated annual waste volume and the maximum
reported total and estimated leachate concentrations as inputs to
estimate the constituent concentrations in the ground water, soil,
surface water or air. If, using an appropriate analytical method, a
constituent was not detected in any sample, it was considered not to be
present in the waste.
F. What did EPA conclude about Owosso's waste?
The maximum reported concentrations of the hazardous constituents
found in this waste are presented in the table above. The table also
presents the maximum allowable concentrations. The concentrations of
all constituents in both the waste and the leachate are below the
allowable concentrations. We, therefore, conclude that Owosso's
wastewater treatment sludge is not a substantial or potential hazard to
human health and the environment when disposed of in a Subtitle D
landfill.
We, therefore, propose to grant an exclusion for this waste. If
this exclusion is finalized, Owosso must dispose of this waste in a
Subtitle D landfill permitted or licensed by a state, and will remain
obligated to verify that the waste meets the allowable concentrations
set forth here. Owosso must also continue to determine whether the
waste is identified in subpart C of 40 CFR pursuant to Sec. 261.11(c).
IV. Conditions for Exclusion
A. When would EPA finalize the proposed delisting exclusion?
HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an
opportunity for comment before granting or denying a final exclusion.
Thus, EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it
has addressed all timely public comments on today's proposal, including
any at public hearings.
Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons
generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a
six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with section
3010 of RCRA as amended by HSWA.
B. How will Owosso manage the waste if it is delisted?
If the petitioned waste is delisted, Owosso must dispose of it in a
Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a
state to manage industrial waste.
C. What are the maximum allowable concentrations of hazardous
constituents in the waste?
Concentrations measured in the TCLP (or Oily Waste Extraction
Procedure, where appropriate) extract of the waste of the following
constituents must not exceed the following (mg/l): Antimony--3.15;
arsenic--0.25; cadmium--1; chromium--5; lead--5; and zinc--6,000.
D. How frequently must Owosso test the waste?
Owosso must analyze a representative sample of the wastewater
treatment sludges on an annual basis to demonstrate that the
constituents of concern in the petitioned waste do not exceed the
concentrations of concern in section IV.C above. Owosso must use
[[Page 67923]]
methods with sufficient analytical sensitivity and appropriate quality
control procedures. SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation of
the leachate extract used in the testing of the delisting levels if oil
and grease comprise less than one percent of the waste. SW-846 Method
1330A must be used for generation of the leaching extract if oil and
grease comprise 1 percent or more of the waste. SW-846 Method 9071B
must be used for determination of oil and grease. SW-846 Methods 1311,
1330A, and 9071B are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11. A
total analysis of the waste (accounting for any filterable liquids and
the dilution factor inherent in the TCLP method) may be used to
estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for in section 1.2 of
Method 1311.
E. What data must Owosso submit?
Owosso must submit the data obtained through annual verification
testing to U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604, upon the anniversary of the effective date of this exclusion.
Owosso must compile, summarize, and maintain on site records of
operating conditions and analytical data. Owosso must make these
records available for inspection. All data must be accompanied by a
signed copy of the certification statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).
F. What happens if Owosso fails to meet the conditions of the
exclusion?
If Owosso violates the terms and conditions established in the
exclusion, the Agency may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion.
If the verification testing of the waste does not meet the
delisting concentrations described in section IV.C above or other data
(including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring
data) relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is
at a concentration in the leachate higher than the specified delisting
concentration, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than
the maximum allowable groundwater concentration (in the table in
Section III.D.), Owosso must notify the Agency within 10 days of first
possessing or being made aware of the data. The exclusion will be
suspended and the waste managed as hazardous until Owosso has received
written approval from the Agency to continue the exclusion. Owosso may
provide sampling results which support the continuation of the
delisting exclusion.
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative
Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978) et seq. to reopen a delisting
decision if we receive new information indicating that the conditions
of this exclusion have been violated, or are otherwise not being met.
G. What must Owosso do if the process changes?
If Owosso significantly changes the manufacturing or treatment
process or the chemicals used in the manufacturing or treatment
process, Owosso may not handle the wastewater treatment sludge
generated from the new process under this exclusion until it has
demonstrated to the EPA that the waste meets the concentrations set in
section IV.C and that no new hazardous constituents listed in Appendix
VIII of 40 CFR part 261 have been introduced. Owosso must manage wastes
generated after the process change as hazardous waste until Owosso has
received written notice from EPA that the delisting is reinstated.
V. How would this action affect the states?
Because EPA is issuing today's exclusion under the federal RCRA
delisting program, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting
provisions would be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in
states which have received our authorization to make their own
delisting decisions.
EPA allows states to impose their own non-RCRA regulatory
requirements that are more stringent than EPA's, under section 3009 of
RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that
prohibits a federally issued exclusion from taking effect in the state.
We urge petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to
establish the status of their wastes under the state law.
EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting
program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state
delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those
authorized states. If Owosso manages the waste in any state with
delisting authorization, Owosso must obtain delisting authorization
from that state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that
state.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review ''
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is not of general
applicability and therefore, is not a regulatory action subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) because it
applies to a particular facility only. Because this rule is of
particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not
subject to the regulatory flexibility provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to sections 202, 204, and
205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
Because this rule will affect only a particular facility, it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as specified in
section 203 of UMRA. Because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have federalism implications. It
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism'', (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this rule.
Similarly, because this rule will affect only a particular
facility, this final rule does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. This rule also is
not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it is not economically significant as defined in
Executive Order 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to
believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children. The basis for this
belief is that the Agency used DRAS, which considers health and safety
risks to children, to calculate the maximum allowable concentrations
for this rule. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3
of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice Reform'', (61 FR 4729,
February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule,
[[Page 67924]]
EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and
ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: Section 3001(f) RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f).
Dated: October 26, 2010.
Bruce F. Sypniewski,
Acting Director, Land and Chemicals Division.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 40
CFR part 261 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 to part 261 add the following waste
stream in alphabetical order by facility to read as follows:
Appendix IX to Part 261--Wastes Excluded Under Sec. Sec. 260.20 and
260.22
Table 1--Wastes Excluded From Non-Specific Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Address Waste description
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Owosso Graphic Arts.................. Owosso, Michigan....... Wastewater treatment sludges, F006, generated at
Owosso Graphic Arts (Owosso) facility in
Owosso, Michigan at a maximum annual rate of
244 cubic yards per year. The sludge must be
disposed of in a Subtitle D landfill which is
licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized by
a state to accept the delisted wastewater
treatment sludge. The exclusion becomes
effective as of [insert final publication
date].
1. Delisting Levels: (A) The constituent
concentrations measured in a leachate extract
may not exceed the following concentrations (mg/
L): antimony--3.15; arsenic--0.25; cadmium--1;
chromium--5; lead--5; and zinc--6,000. (B)
Maximum allowable groundwater concentrations
(mg/L) are as follows: antimony--0.006;
arsenic--0.0005; cadmium--0.005; chromium--0.1;
lead--0.015; and zinc--11.3.
2. Annual Verification Testing: To verify that
the waste does not exceed the specified
delisting concentrations, Owosso must collect
and analyze one waste sample on an annual basis
using methods with appropriate detection
concentrations and elements of quality control.
SW-846 Method 1311 must be used for generation
of the leachate extract used in the testing of
the delisting levels if oil and grease comprise
less than 1 percent of the waste. SW-846 Method
1330A must be used for generation of the
leaching extract if oil and grease comprise 1
percent or more of the waste. SW-846 Method
9071B must be used for determination of oil and
grease. SW-846 Methods 1311, 1330A, and 9071B
are incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 260.11.
A total analysis of the waste (accounting for
any filterable liquids and the dilution factor
inherent in the TCLP method) may be used to
estimate the TCLP concentration as provided for
in section 1.2 of Method 1311.
3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Owosso must
notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing
process, the chemicals used in the
manufacturing process, the treatment process,
or the chemicals used in the treatment process
significantly change. Owosso must handle wastes
generated after the process change as hazardous
until it has: Demonstrated that the wastes
continue to meet the delisting concentrations
in section 1.; demonstrated that no new
hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII
of part 261 have been introduced; and it has
received written approval from EPA.
4. Data Submittals: Owosso must submit the data
obtained through verification testing or as
required by other conditions of this rule to
U.S. EPA Region 5, RCRA Delisting Program (LR-
8J), 77 W. Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL
60604. The annual verification data and
certification of proper disposal must be
submitted upon the anniversary of the effective
date of this exclusion. Owosso must compile,
summarize, and maintain on site for a minimum
of five years records of operating conditions
and analytical data. Owosso must make these
records available for inspection. All data must
be accompanied by a signed copy of the
certification statement in 40 CFR
260.22(i)(12).
[[Page 67925]]
5. Reopener Language--(A) If, anytime after
disposal of the delisted waste, Owosso
possesses or is otherwise made aware of any
data (including but not limited to leachate
data or groundwater monitoring data) relevant
to the delisted waste indicating that any
constituent is at a concentration in the
leachate higher than the specified delisting
concentration, or is in the groundwater at a
concentration higher than the maximum allowable
groundwater concentration in paragraph (1),
then Owosso must report such data, in writing,
to the Regional Administrator within 10 days of
first possessing or being made aware of that
data. (B) Based on the information described in
paragraph (A) and any other information
received from any source, the Regional
Administrator will make a preliminary
determination as to whether the reported
information requires Agency action to protect
human health or the environment. Further action
may include suspending, or revoking the
exclusion, or other appropriate response
necessary to protect human health and the
environment. (C) If the Regional Administrator
determines that the reported information does
require Agency action, the Regional
Administrator will notify Owosso in writing of
the actions the Regional Administrator believes
are necessary to protect human health and the
environment. The notice shall include a
statement of the proposed action and a
statement providing Owosso with an opportunity
to present information as to why the proposed
Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an
alternative action. Owosso shall have 30 days
from the date of the Regional Administrator's
notice to present the information. (D) If after
30 days Owosso presents no further information
or after a review of any submitted information,
the Regional Administrator will issue a final
written determination describing the Agency
actions that are necessary to protect human
health or the environment. Any required action
described in the Regional Administrator's
determination shall become effective
immediately, unless the Regional Administrator
provides otherwise.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-27886 Filed 11-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
